Gwynne E. Birzer
How Judge Birzer rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Birzer
Gwynne E. Birzer has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas in Wichita since July 2015. She earned a criminal justice degree and a law degree from Washburn University before practicing as a public defender, prosecutor, and private attorney.
Judge Birzer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Birzer, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Put the full case number and caption in the subject line of an email to chambers about a case.
“If emailing Chambers in reference to a court case, the subject line of said email should reflect the full case number, as well as the case caption.”
Filing
Use the full case caption and all judge initials after the case number on pleadings.
“All pleadings should reflect the full caption, including all judge initials following the case number.”
Discovery
Before a disputed discovery motion, confer verbally with opposing counsel and request a discovery conference with the judge.
“they must first actually talk with each other about their discovery disputes, and then contact the Court for a discovery conference, before filing a motion to compel or similarly related discovery motion.”
Conferences
Send the proposed pretrial order as a Word attachment to Birzer’s chambers email; do not file it with the clerk.
“pretrial order in Word format as an attachment to an e-mail sent to [email protected]. The proposed pretrial order must not be filed with the clerk’s office.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Birzer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In AGI Suretrack v. OPISystems, Birzer denied a stay pending a proposed MDL transfer because the requested source-code discovery would be needed in either forum, a stay would prejudice the plaintiff, and the defendants showed no offsetting hardship.
“Where conducting the relevant discovery, which would be beneficial in either forum, enhances judicial economy, and for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 133).”
In AGI Suretrack v. OPISystems, Birzer denied a discovery motion for failure to confer under the local rule and set a $1,000 daily sanction per defendant for production after the December 17 deadline.
“Since parties failed to confer, the Motion remains denied for failure to properly confer under D. Kan. R. 37.1. ... For each day Defendants fail to produce discovery past the December 17th deadline, each Defendant will be subject to a sanction of $1,000 per day until such discovery is produced.”
In Womack v. Rodriguez, Birzer kept the plaintiff’s chosen place of trial after the defendant failed to identify where he lived or explain the materiality of proposed witnesses’ testimony. She also noted that video or deposition testimony could address some witness concerns.
“Defendant has conveyed neither the location of Defendant himself, nor the quality, materiality or the importance of the non-party witnesses' testimony, and that which can be presented via video or deposition transcript. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds ... the balance ... weighs in favor of Plaintiff.”
On requests for appointed counsel in civil forfeiture, Birzer reads 18 U.S.C. 983(b)(1) as making standing the threshold question: a claimant who has not responded to the Forfeiture Notice or stated a claim cannot get counsel appointed yet. The denial is without prejudice and premature, signaling the proper sequence (establish standing first) rather than refusing counsel on the merits.
“The first requirement for the Court to consider under 18 U.S.C. 983(b)(1) for appointment of counsel in civil forfeiture proceedings is 'the person's standing to contest the forfeiture.' Here, the Movant has yet to establish standing to contest the forfeiture by responding to the Forfeiture Notice and stating a claim.”
In Spiehs v. Allen, Birzer stayed pretrial, dispositive-motion, and trial deadlines while a related municipal criminal-trespass case remained pending, citing the risk of inconsistent merits rulings under Younger and Heck. She allowed the parties to finish discovery before the stay took effect to preserve evidence.
“The Court stays the pretrial, dispositive motion, and trial deadlines in this matter, until resolution of the criminal trespass proceedings in Merriam Municipal Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Designate Wichita as the Place of Trial (ECF No. 60) is hereby DENIED. The trial in this matter shall occur in Kansas City as initially designated by Plaintiff.”
“Thus, Movant's Motion (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.”
“Where conducting the relevant discovery, which would be beneficial in either forum, enhances judicial economy, and for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 133).”
“As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 135) IN PART AND DENIES IN PART. Since parties failed to confer, the Motion remains denied for failure to properly confer under D. Kan. R. 37.1. However, because ongoing discovery is warranted, the Court extends deadlines for Defendants' production ... but declines to grant a full 30-day extension of the production deadline.”
Title VII and ADEA employment-discrimination case brought by a pro se retired federal employee. After two pretrial conferences on March 11 and 22, 2022 over a sprawling proposed pretrial order, Birzer issued mixed magistrate orders and Rule 72(b) recommendations resolving the parties' disputes paragraph by paragraph, including sustaining the defendant's objection to the plaintiff reserving a right to modify his damages claim and recommending removal of that paragraph. This case-management ruling resolved no discrete party motion and shows her insistence that an overlong pretrial order be 'carefully and succinctly' revised across multiple drafts.
“Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“Thus, both discovery related Motions (ECF Nos. 10 & 12) are denied without prejudice as premature.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. For purposes of judicial economy, all deadlines are stayed until resolution of the Motion for Remand (ECF No. 20) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18).”
“IT IS SO ORDERED. Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 193) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint no later than August 26, 2025.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 200) is DENIED.”
“The Court, in its' discretion, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 22). The Court stays the pretrial, dispositive motion, and trial deadlines in this matter, until resolution of the criminal trespass proceedings in Merriam Municipal Court.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. Plaintiff should review Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and D. Kan. R. 15.1 and file any amendment, with Defendants’ express agreement, no later than March 6, 2026.”
“The Court finds the Kansas Human Rights Commission (‘KHRC’) documents to be relevant and discoverable. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order And Notice And Report Of Recommendation (Doc. #32) filed April 27, 2026 is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026 is OVERRULED in its entirety.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDRED where Plaintiff filed his Second Motion, the Court DENIES AS MOOT his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (‘First Motion’) (ECF No. 17).”
“As further set forth below, Defendants’ Oral Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 343 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 4 days (N = 20).
- As a Wichita magistrate judge, Birzer's directly-assigned docket has two parts: many magistrate warrant/seizure proceedings ('United States v. <device/property>' matters, search warrants for Google, Snap, Facebook accounts, phones, vehicles/property, that terminate within days), and a consent (636(c)) civil docket where she is the final judge of record (employment, premises liability, insurance, contract, FLSA).
- The durations below are from 8 of those consent civil cases.
- Most settle; she also sits as the referred discovery magistrate on district judges' civil dockets.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Birzer: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Birzer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Birzer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Birzer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace