Southern District of Florida Document Filing Requirements

Motion for Default Final Judgment with multiple defendants must state no joint and several liability and basis for no inconsistent liability.

Source text: If there are multiple Defendants, Plaintiff must state in the Motion for Default Final Judgment that there is no joint and several liability and set forth the basis why there is no possibility of inconsistent liability.

Motion to Determine Joint and Several Liability on Default must describe allegations and advise court of other defendants' liability status.

Source text: The Motion to Determine Joint and Several Liability on Default must briefly describe the allegations and advise the Court of the status of the other Defendants’ liability.

Motion for Default Final Judgment must be accompanied by SCRA affidavit (if applicable), proposed order, and proposed final judgment.

Source text: The Motion shall also be accompanied by (1) the necessary affidavit under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3931(b), if applicable; (2) a proposed order which details both the factual and legal basis for default; and (3) a proposed final judgment.

File Notice of Hearing and serve opposing counsel via ECF on same day Chambers confirms discovery calendar placement.

Source text: On the same day that Chambers confirms that the matter is being placed on the discovery calendar, the party seeking the discovery hearing shall provide notice to all relevant parties by filing a Notice of Hearing and serving a copy on opposing counsel through the Court’s electronic docketing system.

Hearing notice must include certificate of good faith per Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Source text: The party scheduling the hearing shall include in this Notice of Hearing a certificate of good faith that complies with Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). The Court will strike hearing notices which do not include a sufficient local rule certificate.

Notices and source materials cannot be used to submit memoranda or arguments.

Source text: Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the source materials should be used as a de facto strategy to submit a memorandum. For example, sending multi-page, rhetoric-filled letters to the Court or filing argument-riddled notices are specifically prohibited. The Court will strike letters, notices, and exhibits which are designed to circumvent the no motion/no memoranda policy.

Notice of authorities may list authorities with one-sentence summaries, no arguments.

Source text: In addition, the parties may submit a 'notice of authorities,' which will list only the authorities, but which will not contain argument or be a disguised memorandum. At most, the list of authorities may contain a one-sentence, objective summary of the relevant holding of each case or authority. The Court will strike any non-compliant notice of authorities.

Local Rule 7.1 requires certificate of conferral for motions, with sanctions for non-compliance.

Source text: Local Rule 7.1 requires the movant to confer with opposing counsel and to include a certificate of conferral, indicating that the conferral has occurred (or that it has not happened, and to explain why). Any request for relief that does not meet this criteria will be stricken. And any continued failure to adhere to this rule may result in sanctions.

All other relief requests must follow stated procedures and Local Rules.

Source text: Any other requests for relief must abide by the mentioned procedures and Local Rules.

Boilerplate objections to discovery requests are prohibited; objections must state specific grounds.

Source text: The parties shall not make conclusory boilerplate objections. Such objections do not comply with Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(A), which provides that, “[w]here an objection is made to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.” Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and the Court will disregard such objections. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

Formulaic objections followed by answers are prohibited and waste resources.

Source text: The parties should avoid reciting a formulaic objection followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for a party to object on the basis of any of the above reasons, and then state that “notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without waiving such objection. Such a boilerplate objection and answer preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of effort and the resources of both the parties and the Court.

Objections to document requests must state whether responsive materials are withheld and specify which parts are objected to.

Source text: Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(C) now provides that an objection to a request for documents “must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” In addition, it also says that “an objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Therefore, counsel should specifically state whether the responding party is fully answering or responding to a request and, if not, specifically identify the categories of information that have been withheld on an objection-by-objection basis.

Privilege objections must identify specific nature of privilege and details of communication.

Source text: Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine also do not comply with the Local Rules. S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as identify details such as the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other.

Privilege log required except for communications between party and its counsel.

Source text: The Local Rule also requires the preparation of a privilege log except for “communications between a party and its

Initial expert witness disclosures required two months before discovery deadline with detailed information per Rule 26(a)(2).

Source text: [counsel to input date that is two months prior to discovery deadline] containing the names, addresses and summaries/reports of any expert witnesses intended to be called at trial. Only those expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. The summaries/reports shall include the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): lists of the expert's qualifications to be offered at trial, publications and writings, style of the case and name of court and judge in cases in which the expert has previously testified and the subject of that expert testimony, the substance of the facts and all opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Rebuttal expert witness disclosures required one month before discovery deadline with detailed information per Rule 26(a)(2).

Source text: [counsel to input date that is one month prior to discovery deadline] Parties shall exchange a written list containing the names, addresses and summaries/reports of any rebuttal expert witnesses intended to be called at trial. Only those expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. The summaries/reports shall include the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): lists of the expert's qualifications to be offered at trial, publications and writings, style of case and name of court and judge in cases in which the expert has previously testified and the subject of that expert testimony, the substance of the facts and all opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Motions not compliant with Local Rules may be stricken or denied.

Source text: The filing of any motion, including motions for summary judgement, that are not in compliance with the Local Rules are subject to being stricken or denied.

Mediation is required per Local Rules and court deadlines.

Source text: Mediation is required in accordance with the Local Rules and the deadline set forth above.

Notice of Mediation must be filed at least 30 days before mediation.

Source text: The parties are required to file a Notice of Mediation with the name of the mediator and the date of the mediation at least thirty days before the mediation.

Parties must notify court of mediation results within 2 days of conclusion.

Source text: The parties shall notify the Court of the results of the mediation (e.g., settled, impasse, or adjourned to continue discussions) within two days of the conclusion of the mediation.

Proposed orders are required for all motions.

Source text: Proposed Orders........................................................................................................ 3

Discovery begins immediately; Initial Disclosures due February 18, 2020

Source text: Discovery shall begin immediately, and the parties shall adhere to the following schedule, which shall not be modified absent compelling circumstances: February 18, 2020: Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures (if not provided earlier).

Primary expert witness disclosure and deposition deadline.

Source text: October 2, 2020: The parties shall provide opposing counsel with a written list with the names and addresses of all primary/initial expert witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those primary/initial expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. The parties shall also furnish opposing counsel with expert reports or summaries of its expert witnesses' anticipated testimony in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). Within the 30 day period following this disclosure, the parties shall make their experts available for deposition. The experts' deposition may be conducted without further Court order.

Rebuttal expert witness disclosure and deposition deadline.

Source text: October 16, 2020: The parties shall provide opposing counsel with a written list with the names and addresses of all rebuttal/responsive expert witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those rebuttal/responsive expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. The parties shall also furnish opposing counsel with expert reports or summaries of its expert witnesses' anticipated testimony in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). Within the 30 day period following this disclosure, the parties shall make their experts available for deposition. The experts' deposition may be conducted without further Court order.

Expert discovery must be completed by November 16, 2020.

Source text: November 16, 2020: All expert discovery shall be completed.

All pretrial motions (summary judgment, Daubert, motions in limine) must be filed by December 1, 2020.

Source text: December 1, 2020: All Pretrial Motions, including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, and motions in limine shall be filed. See sections 10-11.

Mediation must be completed by January 1, 2021.

Source text: January 1, 2021: Mediation must be completed.

Pretrial stipulation, deposition designations, and Rule 26(a)(3) witness/exhibit lists due January 4, 2021.

Source text: January 4, 2021: The Pretrial Stipulation shall be filed. Designations of deposition testimony shall be made. Parties shall also exchange Rule 26(a)(3) witness and exhibit lists. See section 14.

Counter-designations and objections to deposition designations due January 8, 2021; late designations inadmissible without exigent circumstances.

Source text: January 8, 2021: Counter-designations of deposition testimony and objections to designations of deposition testimony shall be filed. Late designations shall not be admissible absent exigent circumstances.

Objections to counter-designations and responses to objections to designations due January 14, 2021.

Source text: January 14, 2021: Objections to counter-designations of deposition testimony and responses to objections to designations of deposition testimony shall be filed.

Responses to objections to counter-designations due January 17, 2021.

Source text: January 17, 2021: Responses to objections to counter-designations of deposition testimony shall be filed.

Jury instructions or proposed findings, joint statement, joint trial plan, exhibit/witness lists, and notice of intent to seek adjudication due January 25, 2021.

Source text: January 25, 2021: Jury Instructions or Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be filed. The parties’ joint statement of the case is due. The parties’ joint trial plan is due. The parties shall file their finalized exhibit list and witness list. The parties’ Notice of Intent to Seek Pretrial Adjudication of Deposition Designations, if applicable, is also due. See sections 5, 8, 13.

Notice of remaining issues and joint deposition designation notebook due January 27, 2021.

Source text: January 27, 2021: The parties’ Notice of Remaining Issues that Require Adjudication is due. The parties’ joint deposition designation notebook, if applicable, is due. See section 13.

Parties must submit joint jury instructions and verdict form in Word format to specified email.

Source text: In addition to filing their proposed jury instructions and verdict form with the Clerk, the parties shall also submit A SINGLE JOINT SET of proposed jury instructions and verdict form in Word format directly to Rosenberg@flsd.uscourts.gov.

Jury instructions must cite Eleventh Circuit pattern instructions or supporting case law.

Source text: To the extent these instructions are based upon the Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instructions, counsel shall indicate the appropriate Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instruction upon which their instruction is modeled. All other instructions shall include citations to relevant supporting case law.

Joint jury instructions must include preliminary and final instructions; voir dire and verdict forms also required.

Source text: The joint set of proposed jury instructions should include both preliminary jury instructions (from the appropriate Eleventh Circuit pattern instructions) as well as final jury instructions. Proposed voir dire questions and verdict forms should be e-mailed in Word format to this e-mail address as well.

Parties must use Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instructions as a guide.

Source text: In preparing the requested jury instructions, the parties shall use as a guide the pattern jury instructions for civil cases approved by the Eleventh Circuit, including the directions to counsel contained therein.

Joint statement of case required with jury instructions, brief and no argument.

Source text: When the parties file proposed jury instructions, the parties shall also file a joint statement of the case. The statement of the case should be brief and should contain no argument. The purpose of the joint statement of the case is merely to convey enough information to a prospective juror for that juror to ascertain whether he or she has previous knowledge of the case.

Exhibit lists must use AO Form 187, numerical labels only, and USB flash drive at trial.

Source text: In any proceeding where evidence will be introduced, counsel shall submit to the Court a typed list of proposed witnesses and/or exhibits. All exhibits shall be pre-labeled in accordance with the proposed exhibit list, and only numerical sequences are permitted—alphabetical designations shall not be used. Exhibit labels must include the case number, the exhibit number, and the party offering the exhibit. A typewritten exhibit list setting forth the number, or letter, and description of each exhibit must be submitted prior to trial. Any composite exhibits should be listed separately, i.e. 1A, 1B, 1C, etc. The parties shall submit said exhibit list on AO Form 187, which is available from the Clerk’s office and at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. At trial, the parties shall deliver to the Court a USB flash drive that contains digital copies of the exhibits. The parties must also comply with Local Rule 5.3.

USB flash drive with digital exhibits required at trial.

Source text: At trial, the parties shall deliver to the Court a USB flash drive that contains digital copies of the exhibits.

Joint trial plan required at Calendar Call with detailed witness and time information.

Source text: As Calendar Call draws near, the Court will require a more detailed estimate of the time needed for trial in the form of a joint trial plan. The joint trial plan shall set forth the following information: (1) the anticipated length of time required for each party’s opening statement; (2) the witnesses each party intends to call at trial, listed in the order in which these witnesses will be called; (3) a brief description of each witness (e.g., the identity of the witness and the relationship of the witness to any parties in the case); (4) whether the witness is an expert and, if so, the area of expertise of the witness; (5) whether each witness will testify live, by video deposition, or by reading of deposition testimony; (6) the anticipated length of time required for direct examination, cross examination, and redirect examination of each witness; (7) the anticipated length of time required for each party’s closing argument; (8) any additional matters that may affect the course of trial; and (9) an accurate summation of the total time allocated in the trial plan.

Parties must file Notice of Remaining Issues within 2 business days of joint trial plan.

Source text: Two business days after the parties file their joint trial plan, the parties shall also file a Notice of Remaining Issues that Require Adjudication.

Notice must identify areas requiring rulings: jury instructions, verdict forms, exhibits, deposition designations, and evidentiary objections.

Source text: This Notice shall inform the Court of areas in which a ruling is required including: (1) jury instructions, (2) verdict forms, (3) exhibits, (4) deposition designations, and (5) other evidentiary objections.

Notice must include general category/nature of disputes and brief summary of factual/legal support.

Source text: The parties shall inform the Court of the general category or nature of the disputes and provide a brief summary of the factual and/or legal support for the parties' respective positions.

Notice of telephonic appearance must be filed at least 1 day before hearing.

Source text: In order to appear via telephone, counsel must file a notice of telephonic appearance, as set forth in the instructions in this Order, at least one (1) day prior to the hearing.

LR 56.1 requires statement of material facts with summary judgment motions.

Source text: Local Rule 56.1 requires a motion for summary judgment (and opposition thereto) to be accompanied by a statement of material facts. The Rule also imposes very specific and very

Motion to strike affirmative defenses must include certification in opening paragraph.

Source text: In the event a party elects to file a motion to strike affirmative defenses, however, the party must certify in the opening paragraph of the motion that the party has read and considered this section in the Court’s Order and has considered the case law cited herein.

Notice of Intent to Seek Pretrial Adjudication of Deposition Designations required with proposed jury instructions.

Source text: contemporaneously with the parties’ filing of proposed jury instructions, the parties must file a Notice of Intent to Seek Pretrial Adjudication of Deposition Designations. The notice must be accompanied with the joint creation of a physical, non-electronic deposition designation notebook, subject to the follow requirements.

Deposition designation notebook must be delivered to Chambers by deadline for joint Notice of Remaining Issues.

Source text: First, the notebook must be delivered to Chambers by the deadline for the parties’ joint Notice of Remaining Issues that Require Adjudication.

Deposition designation notebook must contain full transcript for each designated witness.

Source text: Second, the notebook (or notebooks) must contain the full deposition transcript for each designated witness.

Objections must include appendix with detailed legal argument and opposing party's response.

Source text: Fourth, objections to the designated testimony must be supplemented with an appendix that contains detailed legal argument explaining the objections, together with a response from the opposing party.

Objecting party must certify conferral, good faith, inability to resolve, and necessity of judicial intervention.

Source text: The deposition designation notebook must be accompanied by a certification, by the party objecting, that: (i) the parties have conferred on the objection, (ii) the objection is raised in good faith, (iii) the objection raises an issue that the parties, working together as professionals, cannot resolve without court intervention, and (iv) the expenditure of judicial labor is the only avenue by which the dispute may be resolved.

Pretrial stipulation must conform to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(e); unilateral stipulations will be struck.

Source text: The Pretrial Stipulation shall conform to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(e). The Court will not accept unilateral pretrial stipulations and will strike sua sponte any such submissions.

Pretrial stipulation must include exhibit list and witness list.

Source text: The Pretrial Stipulation must contain a list of the exhibits each side intends to offer at trial and a list of each witness who will testify at trial.

Exhibits not on list may not be offered at trial without good cause and no prejudice.

Source text: If an exhibit does not appear on the exhibit list, that exhibit may not be offered at trial absent good cause and no prejudice to the other side.

Witnesses not on list may not testify at trial without good cause and no prejudice.

Source text: If a witness does not appear on the witness list, that witness may not testify at trial absent good cause and no prejudice to the other side.

Settlement must be reported to court within two court-days.

Source text: If the case is settled, counsel shall so inform the Court within two court-days of settlement by submitting an appropriate notice of settlement, stipulation for dismissal, or motion for dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). See Local Rule 16.4. The parties shall attend all hearings and abide by all time requirements unless and until an order of dismissal is filed.

Mediator must file Mediation Report within 1 day of conference.

Source text: Within one (1) day of the mediation conference, the mediator shall file a Mediation Report indicating who attended the mediation and the result thereof;

Motions in limine limited to one per party; require Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

Source text: XXXX. The parties shall submit a joint pre-trial stipulation, proposed jury instructions and verdict form, or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as applicable, and shall file any motions in limine (other than Daubert motions). Each party is limited to filing one motion in limine, which may not, without leave of Court, exceed the page limits allowed by the Rules. The parties are reminded that motions in limine must contain the Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

Proposed jury instructions and verdict form must be submitted in Word format via email before Calendar Call with specific subject line format.

Source text: parties shall use as a guide the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Cases, including the directions to counsel contained therein. The parties shall submit, in Word format via e-mail to ruiz@flsd.uscourts.gov, proposed jury instructions and verdict form, including substantive charges and defenses, prior to the Calendar Call. The email subject line must include the case number as follows: XX-CV-XXXX-RAR. For instructions on filing proposed documents, please see http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Counsel must prepare and file a concise, non-argumentative case statement for jury voir dire by calendar call.

Source text: Counsel shall meet and prepare a concise, non-argumentative statement of the case to be read to the jury in connection with voir dire. The statement shall be filed with the Court also at or before calendar call.

Sanctions motions must be separate, state justifying rule/statute, and specify remedy.

Source text: Any request for sanctions (including fees or costs associated with discovery) must be by separate motion. Leave of court is not required prior to filing a sanctions motion. Any such motion must state the rule or statute that justifies sanctions and the specific remedy being requested.

Discovery objections must state if responsive materials are being withheld.

Source text: Objections to Requests for Production must “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). When a party asserts a discovery objection, the Court assumes that a Rule 26(g) compliant search has been conducted and that responsive materials exist.

Sanctions imposed if party objects then claims no responsive documents exist.

Source text: If a party interposes an objection and later asserts that no responsive documents exist, the Court will impose sanctions.

Burden objections must state no search was conducted and explain why search would be unduly burdensome.

Source text: If a party asserts that it would be too burdensome to search for responsive materials, the objection should make clear that no search has been conducted and explain why a search would be unduly burdensome.

Boilerplate and general objections are prohibited and will be struck.

Source text: The parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. See, e.g., S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (“Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.”). The parties also shall not make general objections that are not tied to a particular discovery request. The Court will strike these general objections.

Boilerplate objections of 'vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome' will be stricken.

Source text: Objections that state that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless, and will be stricken by the Court.

Must seek clarification from opposing counsel before objecting on vagueness grounds.

Source text: If a party believes that a request or a term is vague, that party must first ask for clarification from opposing counsel prior to objecting on vagueness grounds.

If no clarification received, unilaterally define vague terms and respond accordingly.

Source text: If the requesting party does not clarify the request, the responding party should unilaterally define the allegedly-vague term and respond accordingly. For example, 'Defendant construes the term ‘___’ to mean ‘______.’ Consistent with that definition, Defendant is producing _____.'

Objections must specify whether overbroad means irrelevant or disproportionate.

Source text: An objection that a discovery request is 'overbroad' is ambiguous. If the objecting party asserts that the request seeks materials that are not relevant, the objection should say so. Alternatively, if the objector asserts that the request seeks materials that are relevant but excessive or cumulative, the objection should state that the request is disproportionate.

Must confer in good faith to narrow scope before asserting objections for irrelevant, disproportionate, or burdensome requests.

Source text: If a party believes a discovery request seeks irrelevant information, is disproportionate, or is unduly burdensome, that party shall confer in good faith with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of the request before asserting these objections.

Must respond to undisputed portions of discovery requests despite objections.

Source text: The objecting party nevertheless shall respond as to those matters for which the scope or burden is not contested.

Generalized privilege objections must specify privilege type, communication details, and include privilege log or be deemed waived.

Source text: Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine do not comply with the Local Rules. Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as, inter alia, the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the identities of the parties to the communication. S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(B). Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(C) requires a privilege log. S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(C). If a general objection of privilege is made without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived.

Non-privileged materials must be produced promptly even while preparing privilege log.

Source text: The production of non-privileged materials should not be delayed while a party is preparing a privilege log.

Motion must include certificate of good faith conference per Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Source text: The movant shall include in the motion a certificate of good faith that complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3).

Boilerplate or general objections are prohibited.

Source text: The parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. See, e.g., S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (“Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Boilerplate objections to discovery requests are prohibited; objections must state specific grounds.

Source text: Parties shall not make conclusory boilerplate objections. Such objections do not comply with Local Rule 26.1(G)(3)(a) which provides “Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any document request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.” Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

Objections to discovery must include specific explanations for relevance challenges.

Source text: As with the previous objection, an objection that a discovery request is irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence must include a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance, and why the information sought will not reasonably lead to admissible evidence. Parties are reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery, which does not need to be admissible at trial.

Formulaic objections followed by answers are prohibited and waste resources.

Source text: Parties should avoid reciting a formulaic objection (or worse “General objections”) followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for a party to object on the basis of any of the above reasons, and then state that “notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without waiving such objection. Such a boilerplate objection and answer preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of effort and the resources of both the parties and the court.

Objections must clearly indicate whether questions are fully answered.

Source text: Further, such practice leaves the requesting party uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered, or only a portion of it has been answered.

Discovery responses must include clear statement that all responsive documents have been produced.

Source text: Counsel shall include in the answer a clear statement that all responsive documents/information identified have in fact been produced/provided, or

Privilege objections must identify specific privilege type and communication details.

Source text: Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as identifying such things as the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other, among others.

Scope objections to 30(b)(6) notices must be served (not filed) before deposition.

Source text: Objections to the scope of a deposition notice shall be timely served (not filed) in advance of the deposition. See King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Fla. 1995); New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. 2007).

Depositions must begin before the end of the discovery period.

Source text: Relatedly, the parties shall not wait until the end of the discovery period to begin taking any depositions.

Rule 26(a)(1) required disclosures must be made at discovery inception.

Source text: To that end, the Court will strictly enforce Rule 26(a)(1) that sets forth the “Required Disclosures” that shall be made at the inception of the discovery period.

Inadequate disclosures must be raised with Court after conferral.

Source text: If a party receives inadequate or untimely disclosures that matter shall be promptly raised with the Court, after conferral and if agreement is not timely reached on resolution.

Objecting party bears burden to show specificity why request is unreasonable.

Source text: In the event of an unresolved discovery dispute, to show that the requested discovery is objectionable the burden is on the objecting party to demonstrate with specificity how the objected-to request is unreasonable.

Requesting party must show relevance, necessity, and proportionality.

Source text: If the burden to sustain an objection is satisfied, the requesting party will have to show with specificity how the information is relevant and necessary, and proportional to the particular needs of the case.

File Motion for Hearing on same day as calendar confirmation, including category and pre-filing status.

Source text: On the same day that the Court confirms an available time on the discovery calendar, the movant will file a Motion for Hearing reflecting the confirmed date and time. This motion shall also set forth the category of the discovery matters to be heard and the status of the parties' pre-filing efforts as to that issue/request.

Discovery motions must include certificate of good faith efforts to resolve dispute.

Source text: The motion shall not exceed five (5) pages in length and must include a certificate of good faith that complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) and specifically indicates the efforts that were made to resolve the dispute prior to filing the motion.

Non-compliant discovery motions will be stricken from the docket.

Source text: Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the motion being stricken from the docket.

Parties must confer in good faith and certify efforts before discovery hearing.

Source text: Before requesting a discovery hearing, the parties must first confer in a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Under this Local Rule, counsel must certify that they made good-faith efforts to confer. An adequate certificate of conferral requires at least one personal communication (in

Parties must discuss each discovery request/objection during conferral.

Source text: As part of their conferral, the parties should specifically discuss each discovery request and objection at issue before seeking Court intervention. If counsel refuses to confer, then the party seeking the hearing shall state so and outline the efforts made to confer with opposing counsel in the Motion for Discovery Hearing, which is explained in paragraph three below.

All discovery must be completed before discovery cutoff.

Source text: The parties should take note that the Court strictly enforces Local Rule 26.1(d), which requires that all discovery, including resolution of discovery disputes, be fully completed prior to the expiration of the discovery cutoff.

File joint motion with proposed order and email Word version to chambers.

Source text: When the parties have stipulated to the entry of an agreed-upon discovery order, such as a standard confidentiality-type of protective order, the parties shall file a joint motion for entry of the stipulated order and attach a copy of the proposed stipulated order as Exhibit A. Immediately after the parties file the motion, the parties shall email a Word version of the proposed stipulated order to Lett@flsd.uscourts.gov.

Relevance/proportionality objections must include specific explanations.

Source text: An objection based on relevance or proportionality must include a specific explanation describing why the requested discovery is not relevant and/or why the requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors listed in Rule 26(b)(1).

Conclusory and boilerplate objections are prohibited.

Source text: Parties shall not make conclusory, boilerplate objections. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery

Objections based on 'reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence' are meritless; must include specific explanation for relevance/proportionality objections.

Source text: Therefore, an objection that a discovery request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is based upon an outdated discovery standard. This Court will find such an objection, standing alone, to be meritless. An objection based on relevance or proportionality must include a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance and/or why the requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors listed in Rule 26(b)(1).

All discovery objections must be specific; generalized, vague, or boilerplate objections are not permitted and will not be sustained.

Source text: All objections to discovery requests must be specific. The parties shall not make generalized, vague, or boilerplate objections. Nonspecific objections do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules and will not be sustained by this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) ('The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.'); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) ('For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request.').

Objections stating 'vague, overbroad, or unduly burdensome' without explanation are meaningless and will be stricken.

Source text: Objections that state that a discovery request is 'vague, overbroad, or unduly burdensome' are, standing alone, meaningless, and will be stricken by this Court. If a party believes that a request or a term is vague, that party shall attempt to obtain clarification from opposing counsel prior to objecting on vagueness grounds.

Objections must specify whether request is irrelevant or disproportionate and provide explanation.

Source text: If the objecting party asserts that the request seeks materials that are not relevant, the objection should say so and should explain why. Alternatively, if the objector asserts that the request seeks materials that are relevant but excessive or cumulative, the objection should state that the request is disproportionate and explain why.

Parties must confer in good faith to narrow scope before asserting objections for irrelevant, disproportionate, or unduly burdensome requests.

Source text: If a party believes a discovery request seeks irrelevant information, is disproportionate, or is unduly burdensome, that party shall confer in good faith with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of the request before asserting these objections.

Parties must respond to undisputed portions of discovery requests even when objecting to other parts.

Source text: The objecting party nevertheless shall respond as to those matters for which the scope or burden is not contested. For example, if there is an objection based upon the scope of the request, such as time frame or geographic location, discovery should be provided as to the time period or locations that are not disputed.

Discovery disputes must be filed as "Notice of Discovery Dispute" after good faith conferral, not as motions.

Source text: The moving party may request a discovery hearing – only after adequate good faith conferral regarding each and every issue – by filing a "Notice of Discovery Dispute" (not a motion). The notice shall briefly describe (in one or two sentences) the nature of the discovery dispute (e.g., the type of discovery at issue and the number of requests at issue), shall state the

Stipulated orders require joint motion and Word version emailed to judge.

Source text: When the parties have stipulated to the entry of an order, such as a stipulated confidentiality order, the parties shall file a joint motion for entry of the stipulated order (attaching a copy of the proposed stipulated order). Immediately after the motion is filed, the parties shall email a Word version of the proposed stipulated order to strauss@flsd.uscourts.gov.

Parties are prohibited from making non-specific, boilerplate objections to discovery requests; grounds must be stated with specificity.

Source text: Parties shall not make non-specific, boilerplate objections. Such objections violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the

Objections to discovery requests for vagueness/overbreadth/burden must explain specific ways; irrelevance/disproportionality objections must explain why; vagueness objections require prior clarification attempt.

Source text: a party who objects to a discovery request on the ground that the request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome must explain—at the time the objection is first raised—the specific and particular ways in which the request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. If a party believes that a discovery request is vague, that party shall attempt to obtain clarification from opposing counsel before objecting on the ground of vagueness. An objection that a discovery request is irrelevant or disproportionate must include a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance or is disproportionate in consideration of the factors enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).

Non-specific, boilerplate objections to discovery requests are disregarded by the Court as meaningless.

Source text: An objection stating that a discovery request is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportionate without explaining which part of the request is objectionable and why is meaningless and disregarded by the Court. In other words, a non-specific, boilerplate objection is the equivalent of no objection at all.

Objections based on “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” are outdated and invalid; discovery scope is relevance and proportionality, not admissibility.

Source text: An objection that a discovery request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” is an outdated type of objection that relies on a prior version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This language no longer appears in the Federal Rules. The current version of Rule 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Information “need not be admissible in evidence” to be discoverable.

Discovery motions must include a certificate of conference attesting to good faith conferral with live conversation, dates of conferral, and means of communication.

Source text: Under this Local Rule, counsel must certify that the parties made good faith efforts to resolve or narrow the dispute and identify the date(s) on which conferral occurred and the means of communication used. An adequate certificate of conference almost always requires at least one, if not more, live conversations between counsel. Live conversations may occur in-person or via telephone or video conference; email correspondence alone does not constitute sufficient conferral.

Notice of Hearing must detail each discovery dispute with 2-3 sentences per dispute, no argument.

Source text: The Notice of Hearing shall set forth, with specificity, the substance of the discovery matter to be heard. While the Notice of Hearing should not advance any argument, the Notice must be sufficiently detailed to provide the Court with advance notice of each dispute to be heard. Two or three complete sentences describing each dispute to be heard usually will be ideal.

Proposed order required to be sent with pre-hearing email for Informal Discovery Hearing.

Source text: By no later than 12:00 P.M. two business days before the Informal Discovery Hearing, each party shall send an email to louis@flsd.uscourts.gov, attaching copies of all materials relevant to the discovery dispute(s) (“Source Materials”) and a proposed order setting forth the specific relief desired for each discovery request / category of discovery requests at issue.

Hearing request emails must copy opposing counsel, describe the dispute, confirm Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) conferral, and list three Wednesdays’ availability.

Source text: The requesting party must send an email to Reid@flsd.uscourts.gov in which they shall copy all opposing counsel, provide a brief description of the nature of the dispute, confirm that the parties have conferred or attempted to confer pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and provide all counsels’ availability for the following three Wednesdays.

Notice of Hearing must be filed after obtaining hearing date, include numerical list of discovery matters, certify Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) compliance, and contain no argument.

Source text: Once a hearing date is obtained from Judge Reid’s Chambers, the movant shall provide notice to all relevant parties by filing a Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing shall include a numerical list specifying the substance of each discovery matter to be heard and include a certification that the parties have complied with the pre-filing conference required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). No argument should be made in the Notice of Hearing.

Protective orders shall be filed only when requested by Judge Reid.

Source text: protective order, shall be filed unless requested by Judge Reid.

Conclusory objections to discovery requests are prohibited; must explain specific grounds.

Source text: Parties shall not make conclusory, boilerplate objections. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and the Court will disregard them. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular way in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

Must seek clarification before objecting to vague discovery requests.

Source text: If a party believes that a request is vague, the party shall attempt to obtain clarification prior to objecting on this ground.

Must produce discovery within undisputed scope when objecting to overly broad requests.

Source text: If there is an objection based on an overly broad scope, such as timeframe or geographic location, discovery should be provided as to those matters within the scope that are not disputed.

Objecting then answering "notwithstanding" is prohibited as it preserves nothing.

Source text: It has become common practice for a party to object and then state that “notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request subject to or without waiving such objection. Such an objection and answer preserves nothing and constitutes only a waste of effort and resources of both the parties and the Court.

Objections must state whether responsive materials are being withheld.

Source text: Rule 34(b)(2)(C) specifically requires an objection to state whether any responsive materials are being withheld. As a result, counsel shall include in the answer a clear statement that all responsive documents or information identified have, in fact, been produced or provided or otherwise describe the category of documents or information that has been withheld based on the objection.

Privilege objections must identify specific nature, subject matter, sender, receiver, and relationship.

Source text: Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine do not comply with Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B), which requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, the nature and general subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the communication, and their relationship to each other, among other requirements.

Privilege objections without proper privilege log may be deemed waived.

Source text: If a general objection of privilege is made without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived.

Nonprivileged materials must be produced without delay while preparing privilege log.

Source text: Further, the production of nonprivileged materials should not be delayed while a party is preparing a privilege log.

Party asserting privilege must present sworn evidence to support claim if necessary.

Source text: Note that the party with the burden of persuasion on a privilege claim has the obligation to present to the Court sworn evidence, if necessary, to satisfy that burden.

Arguments must be in briefing; cannot reference counsel communications.

Source text: The parties must make their arguments in the briefing itself and may not incorporate by reference or otherwise direct the Court to review communications between counsel (such as conferral letters or emails) to understand their arguments.

Boilerplate and general objections are prohibited; objections must state specific grounds.

Source text: The parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. See, e.g., S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (“Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B). The parties also shall not make general objections that are not tied to a particular discovery request. Such objections are meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court.

Vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome objections must include specific explanations and supporting evidence.

Source text: Objections stating that a discovery request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome are, standing alone, meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court. A party objecting on these grounds shall specifically explain the particular way in which the request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. In addition, claims of undue burden shall be supported by a statement (generally an affidavit) with specific information demonstrating how the request is unduly burdensome.

Parties must confer with opposing counsel before objecting to vague requests and must explain relevance/disproportionate objections.

Source text: If a party believes that a request or a term is vague, that party shall attempt to obtain clarification from opposing counsel prior to objecting on the ground of vagueness. If a party asserts that a request seeks irrelevant material, the objection shall say so and explain why. If a party asserts that a request seeks material that is relevant but excessive or cumulative, the objection shall state that the request is disproportionate and explain why.

Formulaic objections followed by answers are prohibited as they waste time and create uncertainty.

Source text: The parties shall not recite a formulaic objection followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for a party to object on the basis of any of the above reasons and then state that, notwithstanding the objection, the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without waiving the objection. This type of objection and answer preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time and resources of the parties and the Court. Furthermore, such practice leaves the requesting party uncertain as to whether the question has been fully answered.

Generalized privilege objections are prohibited; parties must follow Local Rule 26.1(e)(2) and prepare privilege logs.

Source text: Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine do not comply with the Local Rules. The parties are instructed to carefully review and comply with Local Rule 26.1(e)(2) when asserting a privilege. If a party fails to prepare a privilege log when required, the Court may deem an objection based on privilege waived.

Trial exhibits must be pre-marked with P or D prefixes and listed at trial start.

Source text: All trial exhibits must be pre-marked. Plaintiffs’ exhibits must be marked numerically with the letter “P” as a prefix. Defendants’ exhibits must be marked alphabetically with the letter “D” as a prefix. A list setting out all exhibits must be submitted at the beginning of trial. This list must indicate the pre-marked identification label (e.g., P-1 or D-1) and must also include a brief description of the exhibit.

All discovery objections must be specific and cannot be generalized, vague, or boilerplate.

Source text: All objections to discovery requests must be specific. The parties shall not make generalized, vague, or boilerplate objections. Nonspecific objections do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules and will not be sustained by this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” (emphasis added)); S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)

Objections based solely on vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome grounds are meritless.

Source text: Objections that state that a discovery request is Avague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome@ are, standing alone, meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court.

Objections based on vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome grounds must explain the specific reasons.

Source text: a party objecting on these grounds must explain the specific and particular way in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

For scope objections, provide discovery within undisputed scope parameters.

Source text: If there is an objection based upon an unduly broad scope, such as timeframe or geographic location, discovery should be provided as to those matters within the scope that is not disputed.

Relevance objections must include specific explanation of why request lacks relevance or is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Source text: an objection that a discovery request is irrelevant and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence must include a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance and/or why the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Discovery motions must include certificate of good faith per S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3).

Source text: The movant shall include in the motion a certificate of good faith that complies with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) and that specifically indicates the efforts that were made to resolve the dispute prior to filing the motion.

Court may decline to consider any filing that does not comply with this order.

Source text: THIS COURT MAY DECLINE TO CONSIDER ANY FILING THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER.

Deposition designations must be filed 14 days before joint pretrial deadline.

Source text: Any party intending to use deposition testimony as substantive evidence must designate by line and page reference those portions in writing. The designations must be served on opposing counsel and filed with the Court fourteen days before the deadline to file the joint pretrial stipulation. The adverse party must serve and file any days to serve and file objections to the cross-designations.

Jury instructions must be jointly submitted in Word format with specific formatting and citations.

Source text: If this case will proceed by jury trial, the parties shall submit their proposed jury instructions and verdict form jointly, although they need not agree on each proposed instruction. Where the parties do not agree on a proposed instruction, that instruction shall be set forth in bold type. Instructions proposed only by Plaintiff shall be underlined. Instructions proposed only by Defendant shall be italicized. Every instruction must be supported by citation to authority. The parties shall use as a guide the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction for Civil Cases, including the directions to counsel contained therein. Proposed jury instructions and verdict form, in typed form, including substantive charges and defenses, shall be submitted to this Court in Microsoft Word format via e-mail to: hunt@flsd.uscourts.gov. Instructions for filing proposed documents may be viewed at: http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Discovery motions must include a certificate of good faith complying with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Source text: The movant shall include in the motion a certificate of good faith that complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3).

Discovery motions must include as exhibits all relevant materials (e.g., discovery demands, responses) described per CM/ECF Rule 3L(2).

Source text: The moving party MUST attach as exhibits any materials relevant to the discovery dispute (e.g., discovery demands and discovery responses), and shall describe the attachment pursuant to the Court’s CM/ECF procedures, Rule 3L(2).

Discovery motions must cite the best supporting legal authority.

Source text: The motion must also cite to the best supporting legal authority.

Privilege objections must identify the specific privilege nature, communication details, and sender/receiver relationships per Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B).

Source text: Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as, inter alia, the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other.

General privilege objections lacking a proper privilege log may be deemed waived.

Source text: If a party raises a general objection of privilege without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived.

Parties must submit confidential settlement memoranda via email to chambers, not to be docketed.

Source text: To prepare for the Settlement Conference, the Plaintiff and the Defendant each shall submit to this Court a Memorandum setting forth its position. The parties shall send their respective Memoranda directly to the undersigned’s Chambers by emailing them to: maynard@flsd.uscourts.gov. Given their confidential content, the Memoranda shall indicate clearly that they are NOT to be docketed in the case docket.

Parties with settlement authority must personally attend; phone participation is not acceptable.

Source text: Parties with full and complete settlement authority are required to personally attend the conference. An insured party shall appear by a representative of the insurer who is authorized to negotiate and commit to a binding settlement agreement. An uninsured corporate party shall appear by a representative authorized to negotiate and commit to a binding settlement agreement. Having a client with authority available by telephone is NOT an acceptable alternative.

Pre-settlement conference memoranda must be emailed to chambers by March 28, 2018 at 10:00 AM.

Source text: Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties shall email their pre-Settlement Conference Memoranda to Chambers by Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:00 AM.

Moving party must attach relevant discovery materials as exhibits.

Source text: The moving party MUST attach as exhibits any materials relevant to the discovery dispute (e.g., discovery demands, discovery responses, and privilege logs).

Certificate of Conferral required at end of motion above signature block.

Source text: “[a]t the end of the motion, and above the signature block,” counsel must include a Certificate of Conferral or its functional equivalent, indicating compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) and paragraph 1, supra.

No additional materials after Notice of Hearing is filed; amendments require emailing Chambers for leave.

Source text: No additional materials may be submitted after the Notice of Hearing has been filed. If the parties need to amend the Notice of Hearing for any reason, they must email Chambers requesting leave of the Court to do so.

Counsel must include a certificate of good faith meet and confer efforts complying with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) when seeking court intervention for discovery disputes.

Source text: Counsel must certify that they engaged in such good faith efforts in attempting to resolve the dispute in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Notice of Hearing must not include any legal argument, only frame issues and explain dispute.

Source text: The Notice shall not include any argument; the purpose of the Notice is merely to frame the specific discovery issues to be heard by the Court during the hearing and succinctly explain the dispute.

Notice of Hearing must include Exhibits A (proposed order), B (source materials), C (citations list and copies of authorities).

Source text: The parties must attach the following exhibits to the Notice: (A) A short, proposed order setting forth the specific relief requested; (B) A copy of all source materials relevant to the discovery dispute (e.g., if the dispute concerns interrogatories, the interrogatories at issue and accompanying responses); (C) A list of citations for any legal authorities upon which the parties intend to rely at the hearing, as well as a copy of those authorities.

Exhibit C (citations list) must not contain legal argument; highlighting and parentheticals allowed.

Source text: Exhibit C shall not contain any legal argument, but the parties may highlight relevant passages of the relied-upon legal authorities and provide parentheticals in the list of citations.

Notice of Hearing must include a certificate of conferral complying with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Source text: The Notice of Hearing shall include a certificate of conferral that fully complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

Extension motions must include deadlines, dates, extension count, and magistrate referral status.

Source text: For all motions requesting extensions of time, the moving party should type on the middle right hand side of the pleading, the deadline for filing motions, the date of the pretrial conference, calendar call and trial period, if applicable. Also, advise the number of times requests for extensions of time have been filed and whether the motion has been referred to the Magistrate Judge.

Proposed order required with all motions, sent via email in WordPerfect or Word format.

Source text: Include a proposed order with all motions in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. The proposed document should be sent separately by e-mail in WordPerfect or Word format. The e-mail subject line and the name of the attachment should include the case number, docket entry number, followed by a short description of the attachment (e.g., xx-CV-xxxxx Order on DE xx) to graham@flsd.uscourts.gov.

Moving party must include opposing parties' positions and detail conference efforts for all motions.

Source text: In accordance with Local Rule 7.1.a.3, the moving party must include the position of opposing parties on all appropriate motions. Please indicate with specificity the manner in which reasonable efforts were initiated (via facsimile, e-mail or voice-mail), the dates of such efforts, and the number of times an inquiry and follow up on the response to the inquiry was sought. Failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1.a.3 will likely result in denial of the requested relief.

Joint discovery plan and conference report due within 14 days of meet and confer.

Source text: Within 14 days of the parties' discovery and scheduling conference, the parties must file a joint discovery plan and conference report, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3) and Local Rule 16.1(b)(2).

Joint proposed scheduling order not required; parties must indicate case track and discovery timeline in joint plan.

Source text: The parties do not need to submit a joint proposed scheduling order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(b)(3). Instead, the parties must inform the Court, in their discovery plan and conference report, which case track they believe this case should be assigned pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(a) and the proposed time limit to complete discovery.

Court may impose sanctions for improper discovery, bad faith withholding, or failure to confer in good faith.

Source text: The Court may impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, if it determines discovery is being improperly sought, is being withheld in bad faith, or if a party fails to confer in good faith.

Source materials must be actual discovery documents, not memoranda or letters.

Source text: Source material is the actual discovery at issue. Source material is not memoranda or letters to the Court which are, for all intents and purposes, a mini-brief.

Parties must engage in reasonable compromise; sanctions may be imposed for bad faith.

Source text: The Court expects all parties to engage in reasonable compromise to facilitate the resolution of their discovery disputes. The Court may impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, if the Court determines discovery is being improperly sought or is being withheld in bad faith.

Pro se litigants must file consent form to receive electronic notices; paper copies will then cease.

Source text: Pro se litigants interested in receiving notices must file the form 'Consent by Pro Se Litigants (Non-Prisoner) to Receive Notice of Electronic Filing' which can be found on the Court's website (http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-pro-se-litigant-non-prisoner-receive-nefs). After filing the consent, pro se litigants will receive case orders, notices and other documents filed via email. Paper copies of filings will then no longer be sent by the Court or opposing counsel in that particular case.

Court will award expenses and fees under FRCP 37(a)(5) unless exceptions apply.

Source text: The Court reminds the parties and counsel that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) requires the Court to award expenses, including fees, unless an exception (such

Objections based on irrelevance or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence are outdated.

Source text: An objection that a discovery request is irrelevant or “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” is an outdated type of objection, as that language no longer defines the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).

Witness order in joint trial plan is flexible with advance notice; other aspects must be followed.

Source text: If adjustments become necessary during trial, the Court will not require the parties to call their witnesses in the order in which they are listed in the joint trial plan, as long as sufficient advance notice of the adjustments is provided to the Court and opposing counsel. However, the Court expects very little deviation from the joint trial plan in all other respects.

Motions in limine requesting compliance with Federal Rules of Evidence are improper and may be denied.

Source text: Motions in limine that request for the Court to order the opposing party to comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence are improper and may be denied immediately.

Motions to strike affirmative defenses are disfavored; improper affirmative defenses will be construed as denials.

Source text: This Court disfavors motions to strike affirmative defenses. However, the Court will not permit a defendant to raise an affirmative defense that is not, in fact, an affirmative defense (such as the affirmative defense of 'failure to state a claim') at any stage of the litigation, including upon the filing of a motion for summary judgment and at trial.

Non-cooperating parties must file certification explaining circumstances by pretrial stipulation due date.

Source text: Should any of the parties fail to cooperate in preparing the Pretrial Stipulation, all parties shall file (by the date the pretrial stipulation was due) a certification with the Court stating the circumstances.

Court may issue show cause order for sanctions against non-cooperating parties or attorneys.

Source text: Upon receipt of such certifications, the Court may issue an order requiring the non-cooperating party or parties to show cause why such party or parties, or their respective attorneys, should not be sanctioned for the failure to comply with the Court’s order.

Non-compliance with order may result in sanctions.

Source text: Intentional or repeated non-compliance with any provision of this Order may subject the non-complying party or counsel to appropriate sanctions. It is the duty of all counsel to enforce the timetable set forth herein in order to ensure an expeditious resolution of this cause.

Supplemental depositions may be compelled for improper Rule 26(a)(1) compliance.

Source text: The Court will compel supplemental depositions in the event that Rule 26(a)(1) was not properly followed.

Failure to meet burden results in discovery compulsion under Rule 37.

Source text: Failure to satisfy this burden will result in entry of an order compelling discovery under Rule 37.

Lack of substantial justification may result in monetary sanctions.

Source text: Failure to show that the objecting party’s position was substantially justified may result in entry of monetary sanctions under that Rule.

Written judge authorization required for specific electronic device access.

Source text: A. A written request signed by a judge or other designated authority, forwarded to the United States Marshal for verification, allowing a specific person access to the courthouse with a specific electronic device for a specific purpose and period of time; or,

News reporters may bring devices with written agreement restricting use to text mode only.

Source text: G. Upon application and approval, news reporters may bring into courthouses cellular phones, mobile electronic devices and laptops, and may utilize the wireless capabilities of those devices, as long as the news reporters agree in writing to use their electronic device inside the District's courtrooms only in text function mode consistent with this Order. Reporters also must agree in writing to not record or transmit in any way audio, still photography, or video from anywhere inside courthouses nor from inside courtrooms, and agree to not transmit a live feed of any of the aforementioned at any time. Nor may they create a verbatim record of any proceeding. They must acknowledge in writing that a knowing or willful violation of the agreement will result in contempt of court. The Clerk of Court shall keep the list of reporters who have signed such agreement and make that list

Court will not enter agreed orders for discovery extensions or unargued agreements.

Source text: The Court does not enter agreed orders extending the due date for discovery responses, nor does the Court enter orders memorializing discovery agreements between the parties on issues that were not argued to the Court during a hearing.

Court may impose sanctions for improper discovery conduct under Rule 37.

Source text: The Court may impose sanctions, monetary or any other type, if it determines discovery is being improperly sought or is being withheld in bad faith or without substantial justification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Objections based on 'reasonably calculated' standard are outdated.

Source text: Any objection that a discovery request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is an objection that is based on an outdated discovery standard. Such an objection is

Parties must attempt to obtain clarification before objecting on vagueness grounds.

Source text: if a party believes that a request is vague, the party shall attempt to obtain clarification prior to objecting on this ground.

If motion is granted, court must award reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees under FRCP 37(a)(5).

Source text: This Court reminds the parties and counsel that if the motion is granted, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) requires this Court to award to the moving party all reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees, absent an exception.

Notification required for motions pending 90 days; contact chambers if pending 45+ days.

Source text: Local Rule 7.1.b.4 provides that a “Notification of Ninety Days Expiring” be filed for any motion that has been pending and fully briefed for ninety (90) days. In this Division, if a ripe motion or decision after oral argument or a bench trial is pending for more than forty-five (45) days, please contact Chambers and advise the Judicial Administrator of the pendency of the motion.

Non-routine disputes may include one-paragraph explanation in hearing notice.

Source text: If one or more of the parties believe in good faith that the discovery dispute is not a routine, garden-variety dispute and needs specialized attention, then the parties may include a to-the-point, no-more-than-one-paragraph explanation in the Notice of Hearing, to flag the specific issues.

No requirement to identify Rule 30(b)(6) designee before deposition begins.

Source text: Counsel for the corporation or entity is not required to identify the designee or designees before the deposition begins, but he or she is certainly free to volunteer the information as a courtesy.

Permissible to take both corporate designee and fact witness depositions of same person, with clear announcement when changing types.

Source text: It is permissible for a party to take the deposition of a person in his/her representative capacity as a corporate designee and also take a separate deposition of that person in his/her role as a fact witness. The attorney scheduling the depositions has the discretion to determine the order in which the two depositions occur. The attorney taking the depositions may take the fact witness deposition and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition at the same time but shall clearly announce on the record when the deposition is changing into a different type of deposition.

Trial set for February 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in West Palm Beach

Source text: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-captioned cause is hereby set for Trial before the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court at 701 Clematis Street, Fourth Floor, Courtroom 1, West Palm Beach, Florida, during the four-week trial period commencing February 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the case may be called.

Magistrate Judge has authority to permit amendments; pending motions become moot

Source text: The undersigned also refers to Judge Reinhart the authority to permit an amendment to a pleading. If any party accepts the opportunity to amend a pleading from Judge Reinhart, the undersigned will deem any pending motion to dismiss (or motion to strike) the pleading as moot.

Expert witness rules do not apply to treating physicians and health providers.

Source text: Note: The above provisions pertaining to expert witnesses do not apply to treating physicians, psychologists or other health providers.

Parties must estimate witnesses and trial time at Status Conference for scheduling purposes.

Source text: At the Status Conference, the Court will require all parties to estimate the total number of witnesses each party intends to call at trial and to estimate the total amount of time requested for trial. The Court will utilize this estimate in the event multiple cases proceed to trial during the relevant trial period. The parties’ estimate is not intended to be binding on the parties—it is merely a preliminary scheduling tool for the Court.

Jury selection time need not be estimated in the joint trial plan.

Source text: The parties need not include an estimation of time for jury selection.

Parties must begin preparing proposed jury instructions when preparing pretrial stipulation.

Source text: the parties must begin to confer and prepare the proposed jury instructions at the time they are preparing the pretrial stipulation.

Parties may submit up to 5 voir dire questions by calendar call via email with specific format.

Source text: Voir Dire Questions. The Court will require each prospective juror to complete a brief written questionnaire prior to the commencement of questioning in the courtroom. Any party may submit up to five proposed, case-specific questions to be included in the questionnaire. The proposed questions must be filed with the Court on or before Calendar Call and must also be submitted to the Court, in Word format, via e-mail to ruiz@flsd.uscourts.gov. The email subject line must include the case number as follows: XX-CV-XXXX-RAR.

Parties may sequence their own discovery without waiting for others.

Source text: The parties are reminded to comply with Rule 26(d)(3) that grants all parties the right to sequence their own discovery, which means that one party’s discovery does not require any other party to delay its discovery. The Court regularly enforces this Rule.

The Court will omit any provision in a protective order that allows bypassing Local Rule 5.4’s sealing requirements.

Source text: I will omit from a protective order any proposed provision that would allow a party to bypass Local Rule 5.4’s requirements for filing material under seal.

Parties should focus briefing on legal arguments, not case background.

Source text: The parties need not use a significant portion of their briefing allotment to apprise the Court of the claims and allegations being made in the case or the procedural background of the case. The Court will review the pleadings and docket to familiarize itself with the background of the case.

Example: For nationwide/10-year request, provide 5-year FL discovery if that's the disputed scope.

Source text: if discovery is sought nationwide for a ten-year period, and the responding party objects on the grounds that only a five-year period limited to activities in the State of Florida is appropriate, the responding party shall provide responsive discovery falling within the five-year period as to the State of Florida.

Federal Rules allow broad discovery that need not be admissible at trial.

Source text: The parties are reminded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for broad discovery that need not be necessarily admissible at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350–51 (1978).

Exhibits may be attached to discovery motions.

Source text: The moving party may attach as exhibits to the motion any materials relevant to the discovery dispute.

Exhibits may be attached to responses to discovery motions.

Source text: The responding party may also attach as exhibits any materials relevant to the discovery dispute.

Replies to discovery motions limited to rebuttal exhibits.

Source text: The moving party may only attach to the reply exhibits that are relevant to rebut the response.

Settlement conference will use mediation format with joint session and private caucusing.

Source text: The Court will generally use a mediation format: that is, a joint session with opening presentations by the Court and each side followed by private caucusing by the Court with each side. The Court expects both sides and their representatives to be fully prepared to participate.

Settlement conference statements are confidential and inadmissible at trial.

Source text: The Court expects the parties to address each other with courtesy and respect. Parties are encouraged to be frank and open in their discussions. As a result, statements made by any party during the Settlement Conference are not to be used in discovery and will not be admissible at trial.

Court will not enter stipulated orders extending discovery response deadlines or unlitigated discovery agreement orders.

Source text: The Court does not enter stipulated orders extending the due date for discovery responses, nor does the Court enter orders memorializing discovery agreements between the parties that were not otherwise litigated before the Court.