Kansas Senate Bill SB54

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 1/22/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

Substitute for SB 54 by Committee on Judiciary - Limiting discovery and disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements and requiring reporting of such agreements to courts.

Summary

SB 54 amends Kansas civil procedure discovery rules to address third-party litigation funding agreements. The bill requires a party who has entered into such an agreement to submit it to the court for in camera review within 30 days of the lawsuit beginning or the agreement being executed, whichever is later. It also requires a sworn disclosure to the other parties identifying the funders, the nature of the funding arrangement, whether the funder has any control or approval rights over litigation or settlement decisions, whether confidential materials may be shared, whether there are known relationships with adverse parties or counsel, and whether any foreign person from a foreign country of concern is involved in providing funding.

Impact

The bill narrows and clarifies discovery obligations under K.S.A. 60-226 by adding a new disclosure regime for third-party litigation funding while preserving existing discovery, privilege, and trial-preparation protections. It makes funding agreements themselves non-admissible at trial and states that the new disclosure requirements do not alter other discovery provisions except as specifically provided. The measure also defines key terms such as third-party litigation funding agreement, foreign person, foreign country of concern, and reasonable interest, and it expressly exempts nonprofit corporations or associations from having to disclose members or donors under this section.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally strong support, passing the Senate 39-1, the House 87-31, and then the Senate again 40-0 on concurrence. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement that litigation funding should be more transparent and subject to court oversight, while still protecting core litigation materials from automatic disclosure. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the final votes indicate the measure was not especially controversial at the chamber level.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on privacy, litigation strategy, and the scope of disclosure required from funded parties. Potential critics may have objected to mandatory reporting of funder identities, control rights, confidential-material access, and foreign funding involvement, arguing that these requirements could burden plaintiffs or reveal sensitive financial arrangements. Supporters likely emphasized transparency, conflict-of-interest screening, and concerns about outside influence in civil litigation, especially where foreign persons or foreign adversaries may be involved. The nonprofit donor/member carveout suggests lawmakers also sought to avoid sweeping too broadly into protected organizational relationships.