Gwynne E. Birzer
How Judge Birzer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On motions to stay pending an MDL transfer decision, Birzer follows the District of Kansas rule that the case is NOT automatically stayed (MDL Rule 1.5) and applies the three-factor test (prejudice to nonmovant / hardship to movant / judicial economy). Practical lesson: filing an MDL transfer motion will not buy a discovery pause in front of her -- especially where the disputed discovery must be produced regardless of forum, she will keep the case moving.
“The pendency of a motion ... before the Panel concerning transfer ... of an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and proceedings in the district court ... Where conducting the relevant discovery, which would be beneficial in either forum, enhances judicial economy ... the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay.”
Birzer enforces the District of Kansas meet-and-confer rule (D. Kan. R. 37.1/37.2) strictly: a discovery motion filed without a genuine conferral effort 'remains denied' on that ground alone even when she grants relief on the merits in part. She also backs discovery orders with concrete, escalating sanctions ($1,000 per defendant per day) when a party has repeatedly resisted court-ordered production. Practical lesson: confer before filing, and do not slow-roll production she (or another judge) has already ordered.
“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.”
On place-of-trial designation under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), Birzer gives real weight to the plaintiff's chosen forum and demands that the movant carry the burden with specifics. Generic witness-convenience arguments fail if the movant omits his own location and the materiality of the witnesses' testimony, particularly where depositions were videotaped and can substitute for live appearance.
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion for determination of place of trial N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to appoint counsel N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to stay N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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 / ADEA employment-discrimination case (pro se retired federal employee). After two pretrial conferences (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 (e.g. sustaining defendant's objection to plaintiff reserving the right to modify his damages claim and RECOMMENDING that paragraph's removal). This is a case-management/pretrial-order ruling on no discrete party motion, so it is recorded as an order read but EXCLUDED from motion stats. Kept for the window it gives into how she runs a contentious pretrial process -- insisting an over-long pretrial order be 'carefully and succinctly' revised across multiple drafts.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 40 days (N = 3).
Partial docket snapshot (search_dockets returned 20 matters), not a full enumeration. As a Wichita magistrate judge (suffix -GEB), Birzer's directly-assigned docket docket is dominated by magistrate warrant/seizure proceedings -- numerous 'United States v. <device/property>' mj matters (e.g. search warrants directed at Google, Snap, Facebook accounts, cellular telephones, and vehicles/real property), which terminate within days to weeks. She also sits as the referred magistrate on district judges' civil dockets (e.g. McDonald v. Wichita, 6:14-cv-01020, Civil Rights: Jobs, 2014-2017), where her discovery and pretrial rulings (the orders in the reasoning layer above) are issued.