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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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