“are so high as to make access to the forum impracticable.” Nesbitt, 811 F.3d at 377 (quoting Am. Express Co., 133 S.Ct. at 2310-11). The only information plaintiffs provide on this topic is a citation to the $3,250 filing fee that arbitration requires. Doc. 64 at 8. Plaintiffs also state that they will have to pay the arbitrator’s fees, but they provide no estimate about other costs that they may incur. And, importantly, plaintiffs provide no information about their inability to pay the fees associated with arbitration. Without sufficient evidence to support their assertion that the arbitration costs prevent them from vindicating their statu tory rights, plaintiffs fail their burden. See In re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 300 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1138 (D. Kan. 2003) (<HOLDING>). E.g., Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Sols.,
holding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof because he offered absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the costs of arbitration will deny him an effective forum to vindicate his statutory rights holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden recognizing that even where a party has the burden of proof at trial that party need not produce proof supporting his claim in response to a motion for summary judgment unless the movant has first presented evidence that would negate an element of the nonmovants claim or indicates that the nonmovant will be unable to meet his burden at trial it is never enough simply to state that the nonmoving party cannot meet its burden at trial holding that arbitration agreement requiring litigant to pay onehalf of arbitration costs failed to provide an accessible forum in which litigant could resolve his statutory rights holding that plaintiff failed to carry his burden to show that arbitration was cost prohibitive because he has provided no evidence of the specific costs or arbitration fees or his financial inability to afford  them