Florida Supreme Court revises civil case management reforms before January 1 implementation
The changes grew out of a sweeping Judicial Management Council workgroup proposal that called for amending the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and multiple other rule sets to “promote the timely resolution of civil cases through effective case management.”
The Florida Supreme Court December 5 put the final touches on a framework for the active case management of civil cases with a focus on adhering to deadlines established early based on the complexity of the case, while providing room for customization by judicial circuits through administrative orders that will go into effect January 1.
The court’s amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure also incorporated the proportionality language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) into the Florida rules and required initial discovery disclosures and discovery supplementation like the federal rules.
The court acted in In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Case No. SC2023-0962.
In a separate opinion, Case No. SC2024-0662, issued the same day, the court further refined Rule 1.510 (Summary Judgment) and adopted new Rule 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions)
The reforms grew out of a sweeping Judicial Management Council workgroup proposal that called for amending the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and multiple other rule sets to “promote the timely resolution of civil cases through effective case management.”
Earlier this year, the court adopted amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.200 (Case Management; Pretrial Procedure), 1.201 (Complex Litigation), 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery), 1.440 (Setting Action for Trial), and 1.460 (Motions to Continue Trial). In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2024).
Now, after reviewing 20 comments, a response from The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, and conducting oral arguments, the court made what could be its final adjustments to the rules before their implementation.
In its latest order, justices left in place almost all the case management, proportionality, and discovery amendments that were adopted in the May 23 opinion.
“We do, however, adopt additional amendments to make the May 2024 proportionality and discovery changes more effective as well as amendments to resolve potential inconsistencies,” the court said.
The court further amended Rules 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, and 1.460, as well as Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.090 (Time), 1.310 (Depositions on Oral Examination), 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties), 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry on Land for Inspection and Other Purposes), 1.370 (Requests for Admission), 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions), and 1.410 (Subpoena).
Significantly, the court, as recommended by multiple commenters, added a Court Commentary to Rule 1.280 to explain that it adopted almost all the text of federal Rule 26(b)(1) and that it is “to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard.” The court said the commentary should be sufficient to lead practitioners and judges to look to federal history and precedents when applying proportionality.
To avoid discovery objections that just generally cite proportionality without any further explanation, the court also amended Rules 1.340 and 1.350 to require providing the grounds for objecting “with specificity,” “including the reasons.”
“In rule 1.340, we also add a Court Commentary to explain that ‘[a]ny use of standard interrogatories must be adjusted for proportional discovery,’” the court said. “And we will be referring the possible revision of the standard interrogatories to the appropriate Florida Bar committee.”
In Rule 1.350, the justices added language to provide that “[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Adding this federal sentence to Florida’s rule “should eliminate resources being needlessly wasted on objections where no materials are being withheld,” the court said. The court then added the next sentence from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, namely that “[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest. The justices said that addition should help discovery progress when there is only an objection to part of a request.
The court also amended Rule 1.380 to provide an enforcement mechanism for the initial discovery disclosure and supplemental discovery obligations that it added in Rule 1.280.
“Today’s amendments to rule 1.380 also detail the sanctions available when a party fails to disclose or to supplement an earlier response,” the court said.
As recommended by multiple commenters, the court included a sanction for a violation of the discovery certification that was added to Rule 1.280.
“This change will make the certification requirement more meaningful and hopefully more effective in eliminating noncompliant discovery,” the court said.
To address what it called the lack of coordination between the timing of initial discovery disclosures and the timing of the first set of discovery requests, the court amended Rule 1.280 to state that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosure obligations are satisfied, except when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”
In addition to the changes relating to discovery and proportionality, the court adopted amendments to correct potential inconsistencies by adding “filing and service of motions for summary judgment” to the list of deadlines that Rule 1.200(d)(2) requires to be in case management orders.
The court also adjusted the conferral language in Rules 1.201 and 1.460 to account for new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions). Language was added to Rule 1.201 to clarify that, while the rule requires conferral before a motion is filed, Rule 1.201(c)(4) is intended to require a conferral closer to the hearing date to ensure that the reserved hearing time is still necessary.
The court also exempted trial continuances and extensions of deadlines in case management orders from the general extension of time rule, Rule 1.090.
The amendments are effective January 1, 2025, at 12:01 a.m., and apply to all cases pending at that time, except that the requirements of Rule 1.280(a) (Initial Discovery Disclosures) will not apply to any action commenced before the effective date. Case management orders already in effect on January 1, 2025, continue to govern pending actions; however, the court said any extensions of deadlines specified in those existing case management orders are governed by amended Rule 1.200 or amended Rule 1.201.
The justices said for actions commenced before January 1, 2025, and in which the court has not issued a case management order by that date, a case management order must be issued by April 4, 2025.
Justice Jorge Labarga said while he concurs with the framework proposed by the amendments and the goal of improving the resolution of civil cases in our state courts, he dissents with incorporating the federal proportionality language into Florida’s discovery rules.
“Unfortunately, despite the majority’s well-intentioned mandate, the inclusion of proportionality in our rules of discovery has the potential to produce the exact opposite of the results envisioned by the majority,” Labarga said. “The proportionality requirement will serve as an impediment to a justice that is timely, and it will prove to be far from cost-efficient.”
Labarga noted the case load of federal judges is smaller than that of state court judges, and federal trial judges have far more resources, including up to three law clerks to assist with discovery disputes and magistrate judges, who also have the assistance of law clerks.
“What is more, given the strict deadlines mandated by these amendments to our rules of civil procedure, it will be difficult for practitioners to get hearing time to consider proportionality objections without impairing case management order deadlines,” Labarga said.
Earlier this year in Case No. SC2024-0662, the court amended Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 (Summary Judgment) and adopted new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions).
Rule 1.510 was amended to tie the deadline to respond to a motion for summary judgment to the date of service of the motion rather than to the hearing date. New rule 1.202 requires parties to confer before filing non-dispositive motions and to include a certificate of conferral with the motion.
After considering the comments and holding oral argument, the court further amended Rule 1.510 to provide that a motion for summary judgment must be filed and served “consistent with any court-ordered deadlines.” And a response must be served “[n]o later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment.”
To “ensure that parties and courts have time to prepare for summary judgment hearings,” the court amended Rule 1.510 to specify that “[a]ny hearing on a motion for summary judgment must be set for a date at least 10 days after the deadline for serving a response, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.”
For Rule 1.202, the court expanded the motions that are exempt from the duty to confer, listing the exempt motions in a separate subdivision.
“We also add a sentence to provide that the rule’s requirements do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented,” the court said. “In the required certificate of conferral form, the Court adds an option for certifying that conferral is not required under the rule.”
Finally, the court amended Rule 1.202 to explain that the failure to comply with the rule’s conferral requirements “may result in an appropriate sanction, including denial of a motion without prejudice” and that the “purposeful evasion” of conferral communication “may result in an appropriate sanction.”
The amendments will also become effective January 1, 2025.
