Southern District of Florida Amends Local Rules
The Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida have been amended. The recent amendments take effect Dec. 1. Lawyers in the district should be aware of several small procedural tweaks included in this year's set of amendments.
November 30, 2017 at 10:10 AM
9 minute read
The Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida have been amended. The recent amendments take effect Dec. 1. Lawyers in the district should be aware of several small procedural tweaks included in this year's set of amendments.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.3—Procedure for Filing Trial and Hearing Exhibits
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.3 was amended to conform with recent amendments to the Eleventh Circuit Rules. As amended, the rule lays out the procedure for electronically filing trial and hearing exhibits. This should help streamline citation and the compilation of appellate records.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4—Treatment of Motions Seeking Sealing of Documents
Lawyers in the district cheered the amendments that took effect Dec. 1, 2014, which provided that motions to seal be electronically filed. Previously, motions to seal were among the few items that had to be filed in paper form. The 2014 amendments created a situation where proposed sealed filings would sit in suspense, requiring action by the clerk's office, if the court denied the motion to seal. The amended rule addresses this issue.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(2)—Proposed Orders On Ex Parte Motions, Temporary Restraining Orders and Other Emergency Filings
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(2) lists the motions for which proposed orders must be submitted. Emergency motions, motions for temporary restraining orders, and ex parte motions were added to the list.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(2)—Page Limits
This minor amendment clarifies that tables of contents and tables of citations do not count toward the page limits set forth in the Local Rules.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b) and 26(f)(3)—Model E-Discovery Rules
This amendment makes clear that e-discovery issues are to be discussed during the initial scheduling conferences. The amendments also include a discretionary checklist to guide lawyers in the district. The rule does, however, make clear that it is not mandatory to discuss every item on the checklist.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b)(3)—Timing of Scheduling Orders
This is a minor amendment to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b)(3) to ensure consistency with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) regarding the timing of the issuance of scheduling orders.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(f)(2) and 16.4—Notices of Settlement
This amendment is intended to improve the system for notifying the court of settlements. It does this through a minor change to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(f)(2) regarding the timing of such notices in the mediation context, and by adding a new S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.4 to require parties to notify the court of settlements that occur outside of mediation.
Revisions to Attorney Discipline Rules
The district's peer review and attorney discipline rules have been substantially restructured. The amendments include combining the peer review and discipline rules into a single procedure, tightening applicable time frames, and addressing various discrete issues including attorney incapacity, inactive status, student practice, and committee structure.
Revisions to Local Admiralty Rule Governing Vessel Seizure—Rule E(10)(a)
Local Admiralty Rule E(10)(a) was amended to conform to actual practice by adding a practitioner's note explain a discrepancy between the rule and actual practice, and to otherwise revise the rule to detail the marshal's security obligations if there is a deviation from that practice.
Aaron S. Weiss is a shareholder with Carlton Fields in Miami.
The Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida have been amended. The recent amendments take effect Dec. 1. Lawyers in the district should be aware of several small procedural tweaks included in this year's set of amendments.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.3—Procedure for Filing Trial and Hearing Exhibits
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.3 was amended to conform with recent amendments to the Eleventh Circuit Rules. As amended, the rule lays out the procedure for electronically filing trial and hearing exhibits. This should help streamline citation and the compilation of appellate records.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4—Treatment of Motions Seeking Sealing of Documents
Lawyers in the district cheered the amendments that took effect Dec. 1, 2014, which provided that motions to seal be electronically filed. Previously, motions to seal were among the few items that had to be filed in paper form. The 2014 amendments created a situation where proposed sealed filings would sit in suspense, requiring action by the clerk's office, if the court denied the motion to seal. The amended rule addresses this issue.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(2)—Proposed Orders On Ex Parte Motions, Temporary Restraining Orders and Other Emergency Filings
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(2) lists the motions for which proposed orders must be submitted. Emergency motions, motions for temporary restraining orders, and ex parte motions were added to the list.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(2)—Page Limits
This minor amendment clarifies that tables of contents and tables of citations do not count toward the page limits set forth in the Local Rules.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b) and 26(f)(3)—Model E-Discovery Rules
This amendment makes clear that e-discovery issues are to be discussed during the initial scheduling conferences. The amendments also include a discretionary checklist to guide lawyers in the district. The rule does, however, make clear that it is not mandatory to discuss every item on the checklist.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b)(3)—Timing of Scheduling Orders
This is a minor amendment to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1(b)(3) to ensure consistency with
S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(f)(2) and 16.4—Notices of Settlement
This amendment is intended to improve the system for notifying the court of settlements. It does this through a minor change to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(f)(2) regarding the timing of such notices in the mediation context, and by adding a new S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.4 to require parties to notify the court of settlements that occur outside of mediation.
Revisions to Attorney Discipline Rules
The district's peer review and attorney discipline rules have been substantially restructured. The amendments include combining the peer review and discipline rules into a single procedure, tightening applicable time frames, and addressing various discrete issues including attorney incapacity, inactive status, student practice, and committee structure.
Revisions to Local Admiralty Rule Governing Vessel Seizure—Rule E(10)(a)
Local Admiralty Rule E(10)(a) was amended to conform to actual practice by adding a practitioner's note explain a discrepancy between the rule and actual practice, and to otherwise revise the rule to detail the marshal's security obligations if there is a deviation from that practice.
Aaron S. Weiss is a shareholder with
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
6 minute readTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How I Made Partner: 'Take Every Opportunity to Get Involved in the Business Side of the Firm,' Says Alyssa Domzal of Ballard Spahr
- 2People in the News—Feb. 5, 2025—Eckert Seamans, Rawle & Henderson
- 3Librarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
- 4Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
- 5Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250