Donald W. Bostwick
How Judge Bostwick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On discovery into a plaintiff's medical history, Bostwick applies a bright-line waiver rule: a plaintiff who sues for physical or mental injury places that condition in controversy, and under Kansas law there is NO physician-patient privilege at all (not merely a partial waiver) when the patient's condition is an element of the claim. Practical lesson: if your client puts their physical/mental condition at issue, expect their full medical, dental and mental-health records to be discoverable before Bostwick -- a privacy objection will not shield them.
“The Kansas Supreme Court has gone so far as to hold that 'there is no [physician-patient] privilege . . . in an action in which the condition of the patient is an element or factor of the claim or defense of the patient.' ... Therefore, Defendants have a legitimate and reasonable interest in discovering Plaintiff's medical, dental, and mental health care history which clearly outweighs any privacy interest that Plaintiff may be able to assert.”
On amendments, Bostwick follows the Rule 15(a) 'freely given' mandate and reads pleading-specificity objections narrowly: a request for punitive damages need not state an exact dollar amount under Rule 9(g) so long as the pleading gives fair notice; the amount can be developed in discovery. Practical lesson: a motion to add punitive damages with adequate notice of the basis will usually be granted -- don't over-plead the number, and don't expect a Rule 9(g) specificity attack to defeat it.
“Contrary to Defendant's reasoning, courts in this Circuit have held that 'the law does not require that the exact dollar amount of special damages be specifically pleaded.' ... The proposed Second Amended Complaint contains sufficient information to put Defendant on notice of the nature of, and basis for, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.”
Procedural preferences
Bostwick enforces the D. Kan. Rule 37.2 meet-and-confer requirement and prefers to resolve discovery disputes at status conferences rather than by motion -- he will note a movant's failure to confer, and he treats issues 'resolved' at a conference as closed even if a party later files a motion rehashing them. Practical lesson: confer first, and treat what was agreed at a status conference before Bostwick as binding; relitigating it by motion will be denied.
“It was the understanding of the Court that the discovery issues were resolved during the conference. Plaintiff, however, filed the present Motion to Compel... As such, the Court is satisfied that the issues raised by Plaintiff's Motion to Compel were appropriately and adequately resolved during the November 7, 2005, status conference.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Given the mandate to grant leave to amend when justice so requires, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's proposed amendment is adequate... As such, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Quash (Doc. 143.)”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 144) is DENIED.”
“Because the Court has now allowed Defendants to subpoena the requested medical, dental and mental health care records, the Court will also allow Defendants to conduct a single deposition of the relevant records custodian of these records. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is, therefore, DENIED.”
“this court has made a de novo determination of the report and recommendation of Judge Bostwick and accepts his report and recommendation. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed, with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Foulston's Motion to Compel (Doc. 253) is DENIED, as is the related request for attorneys fees and costs.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Defendant to Pay Costs Associated with Deposition of Plaintiff's Expert (Doc. 91) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 304) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as more thoroughly set forth above.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED without prejudice as discussed above.”
“Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and/or Motion for a Stay of Discovery (Doc. 25) is, therefore, GRANTED.”
“MPC's motion on Flexjet's claims (Doc. 135) is denied, MPC's motion on Learjet's interim lift damages (Doc. 137) is denied, MPC's motion on Learjet's fraud claims (Doc. 139) is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs' joint motion regarding breach of warranty (Doc. 141) is granted as to plaintiff Learjet and denied as to plaintiff Flexjet; and Learjet's motion on MPC's counterclaim (Doc. 141) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees, Costs, or Security (Doc. 2), be DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions for leave to file under seal (Doc.s 282, 292, 295, 355 and 368) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set out in this Memorandum and Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 64.5 days (N = 4).
Not exhaustively enumerated. Bostwick was a Wichita referral magistrate handling discovery and case management across the district judges' civil dockets, plus dispositive R&Rs on pro se / IFP matters.
Put Judge Bostwick's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bostwick actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bostwick's own signed orders and cites them.