. Id. 46 . Id. 47 . Marten, 1998 WL 13244, at * 10. 48 . Id. 49 . Id. 50 . Id. (citations omitted). 51 . Garnishee Def.’s Mem. In Opp'n to Mot. to Compel at 9, EOF No. 26 (citing Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 225 Kan. 615, 592 P.2d 915 (1979)). 52 . The Court notes that Geico’s Memorandum in Opposition relies on Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith as its sole legal authority throughout its entire argument section. 53 . S.E.C. v. McNaul, 271 F.R.D. 661, 665 (D.Kan.2010) (citing Frontier Refining, Inc., 136 F.3d at 702 n. 10). 54 . 592 P.2dat 921. 55 . See Burton v. R.J. R t failed to establish work-product protection because it relied on eonclusory allegations not supported by affidavits or other evidence); Disi-clore v. Mail Contractors of Am., Inc., 196 F.R.D. 410, 414 (D.Kan.2000) (<HOLDING>). 59 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). 60 . Sheldon v.
holding that defendants assertions of workproduct were not supported by competent evidence holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence holding that hearing is appropriate when application contains assertions of fact that a petitioner is in a position to establish by competent evidence