David Gregory Kays
How Judge Kays rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kays
David Gregory Kays is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Kays received a commission on June 19, 2008.
Judge Kays's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kays, 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
Filing
File a joint status report exactly 120 days after entry of the scheduling order.
“the parties shall file a joint status report exactly 120 days after the Court enters the scheduling order”
Discovery
File a discovery dispute position memorandum at least 72 hours before the telephone conference, limited to 500 words absent a longer limit.
“At least three days (72 hours) before the telephone conference, each party shall file a position memorandum. The body of this memo shall not exceed 500 words”
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).
How Judge Kays decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Curts v. Edgewell Personal Care, the court denied remand of a consumer class action after three subsidiaries were joined as necessary parties following an earlier remand. It found that the changed pleadings supplied new grounds for removal under CAFA and rejected the plaintiff's other objections to removal.
“A second removal, however, is not based on the same grounds where the post-remand pleadings or conduct of the parties subsequently make the case removable.”
In Kaffenberger v. Criswell, the court dismissed a challenge to a state unlawful detainer proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It denied the pending temporary restraining order motion as moot.
“The threshold question for the Court in this case and in every case is whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute; that is, whether the Court is authorized or possesses the power to adjudicate the lawsuit.”
Procedural preferences
In Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust v. Ironhead Marine, the court denied a motion to enforce settlement because the defendants did not show a timely, unqualified acceptance of the offer by clear and convincing evidence. The record showed continuing negotiations rather than a meeting of the minds.
“Specific performance of a settlement agreement is not appropriate ‘if it is doubtful whether there has ever been a meeting of minds or a full and complete understanding on all the essential terms of the contract sought to be enforced.’”
In Stock v. Gray, Kays granted a motion to limit a defense expert whose opinion addressed statutory interpretation and legal analysis, matters reserved for the court.
“expert testimony on legal matters is not admissible because matters of law are for the trial judge.”
In a disability appeal, Judge Kays limited a second agency remand to vocational evidence because the administrative law judge had changed the claimant’s physical limitations without explaining why the earlier remand permitted it.
“And because this error is potentially outcome determinative, this case must be remanded.”
In a removed insurance dispute, he denied amendment adding nondiverse defendants because plaintiffs did not show those parties were necessary to resolve the case. Address necessity and the effect on jurisdiction when seeking this kind of amendment.
“Plaintiffs have not attempted to argue, much less demonstrated, that Arch and Arch Specialty are ‘necessary and indispensable to a full resolution of the case’ as required by Bailey.”
Cautions
In Nyaundi’s case, Judge Kays summarily denied several postjudgment motions that repeated arguments he had already addressed and warned this plaintiff that further frivolous motions could bring sanctions or filing restrictions.
“Plaintiff is warned that continuing to file frivolous motions in this case—i.e., motions to vacate the Court’s judgment or to allow him to relitigate this case—may result in (1) the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the Court’s inherent authority; or (2) restrictions on Plaintiff’s filing privileges in this case.”
In a third-party discovery dispute, he struck a subpoena with 57 broad requests after criticizing boilerplate objections and inadequate efforts to narrow the dispute. Limit third-party requests by custodian, subject, and time before seeking court intervention.
“That is, the Court strikes the pending subpoena in its entirety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. Because removal was proper, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is also DENIED.”
“Because portions of Mr. McAllister’s expert opinion impermissibly engage in statutory interpretation and legal analysis, the motion is GRANTED.”
“This case is STAYED, and the parties shall issue a joint stipulation of dismissal or a status update on or before August 1, 2021. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Because Defendants have failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the parties reached an agreement, the motion is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hays’s Report and Recommendation be ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 32) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Accordingly, the Administrator’s motion (Doc. 269) is GRANTED IN PART. The Estate of John Timothy Donegan is substituted for Relator John Timothy Donegan on all claims except Count IV, which is dismissed.”
“This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are summarily DENIED. Defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur reply to Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, ECF No. 86, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Cox’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 133) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Kays: 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 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 520 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 876 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 49.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,461 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,502 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,738 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,341 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,312 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,485 | 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 Kays with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kays, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kays's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace