Sarah W. Hays
How Judge Hays rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hays
Sarah W. Hays has served as a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Missouri since 1992, according to the court’s biography. She studied at Louisiana State University and practiced law before joining the court.
Judge Hays's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hays, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Trial
The court urges attorneys to arrange a test of courtroom equipment before trial.
“Prior to trial, we urge all attorneys to schedule an appointment to test equipment.”
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 Hays decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a money-laundering count challenge, she concluded the alleged salary payments were expenses rather than profits under the cited statute and recommended dismissing the count.
“Therefore, Count Ninety-Eight must be dismissed.”
In a removed employment case, she found the state claims could be resolved without interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and remanded them.
“Neither of these causes of action require the Court to interpret the collective bargaining agreement.”
Procedural preferences
For a third-party subpoena, she required the objecting party to show why specific requests were burdensome or overly broad.
“Autoliv has not met its burden of demonstrating that document request numbers 2, 4, and 5 are burdensome or overly broad.”
Cautions
In one summary-judgment case, she emphasized that uncontroverted record evidence did not support the plaintiff’s property claim.
“Given these uncontroverted facts, plaintiff’s claims cannot survive defendants’ summary judgment motion and must be dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“enter an order denying Defendant Verna Cheryl Womack’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Venue (doc #74).”
“enter an order denying Defendant Verna Cheryl Womack’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Conduct in Violation of the Due Process Clause (docs #75 and #76).”
“enter an order granting Defendant Dougherty’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense as to Count Ninety-Eight (doc #263) and Abrorkhodja Askarkhodjaev’s Motion to Dismiss Count Ninety-Eight for Failure to State an Offense (doc #265).”
“enter an order denying defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of Indictment (doc #21).”
“enter an order denying defendant Hardin=s Motion to Suppress Evidence (doc #21).”
“enter an order denying defendant Robinson’s Motion to Suppress (doc #29).”
“ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc #3) is granted.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc #4) is denied.”
“ORDERED that Autoliv ASP, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena (doc. #1) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, consistent with the above analysis.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Entire Case or, Alternatively, to Sever and Remand Certain Claims (doc. #7) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #26) is granted, and this action is dismissed.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs Dan and Peggi Willis’ Motion for More Definite Statement of Affirmative Defenses Raised by Defendant Quad Lakes Enterprises, LLC in its Amended Answer (Doc. #27) is DENIED.”
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 | 0 | 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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Hays: 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 Hays with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hays, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hays's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace