In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Supreme Court of Florida
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Opinion
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC2023-0962
____________
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
December 5, 2024
PER CURIAM.
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), with an effective date of January 1,
2025, at 12:01 a.m. 1 In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386
So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2024). The amendments created 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 circuit. The
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see
also Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).
amendments 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.
Because the amendments adopted were substantially different
than the alternatives submitted to the Court, interested persons
were given time to file comments. Twenty comments were filed, and
The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed a response
to the comments. The Court is grateful for the commenters’ and the
Committee’s insight and assistance.
After considering the comments, the response, and oral
argument, the Court leaves in place almost all the case
management, proportionality, and discovery amendments that we
adopted in our decision of May 23, 2024. 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 effective date remains January 1,
2025.
-2-
I.
The Court now further amends rules 1.200, 1.201, 1.280,
1.440, and 1.460. The Court also amends 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 Upon Land for Inspection and Other
Purposes), 1.370 (Requests for Admission), 1.380 (Failure to Make
Discovery; Sanctions), and 1.410 (Subpoena). We highlight the
more significant amendments here.
First, as recommended by multiple commenters, we add a
Court Commentary to rule 1.280 to explain that the Court has
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.” This Court Commentary should be
sufficient to lead practitioners and judges to look to federal history
and precedents when applying proportionality.
Next, to avoid discovery objections that just generally cite
proportionality without any further explanation, the Court amends
rules 1.340 and 1.350 to require providing the grounds for objecting
“with specificity,” “including the reasons.”
-3-
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.” And we will be referring the possible
revision of the standard interrogatories to the appropriate Florida
Bar committee.
In rule 1.350, we add 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
then adds 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.” This addition should help
discovery progress when there is only an objection to part of a
request.
We amend rule 1.380 to provide an enforcement mechanism
for the initial discovery disclosure and supplemental discovery
obligations that the Court 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.
-4-
As recommended by multiple commenters, we include a
sanction for a violation of the discovery certification that the Court
added in rule 1.280. This change will make the certification
requirement more meaningful and hopefully more effective in
eliminating noncompliant discovery.
Further, to address the lack of coordination between the
timing of initial discovery disclosures and the timing of the first set
of discovery requests, the Court amends 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 above changes relating to discovery and
proportionality, the Court adopts amendments to correct potential
inconsistencies. The Court first adds “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 next adjusts 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 is added to rule 1.201
to clarify that, while rule 1.202 requires conferral before a motion is
-5-
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. However, the Court deletes the conferral language in
rule 1.460(d) as it is duplicative of rule 1.202.
Finally, the Court exempts trial continuances and extensions
of deadlines in case management orders from the general extension
of time rule, rule 1.090.
II.
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are amended as set forth
in the appendix to this opinion. New language is underscored;
deletions are in struck-through type.
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) shall
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, any extensions of deadlines
specified in those existing case management orders are governed by
amended rule 1.200 or amended rule 1.201. For actions
commenced before January 1, 2025, and in which the court has not
-6-
issued a case management order by that date, a case management
order must be issued by April 4, 2025.
Rehearing does not affect the effective date.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and
SASSO, JJ., concur.
LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
When the majority initially amended Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280(c) in May 2024, I expressed concern about doing
so before receiving input from the rules committee. See In re
Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 497, 501 (Fla. 2024)
(Labarga, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In
particular, I suggested that a rule change as significant as
incorporating the proportionality language of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) should only be done after considering such
input.
Since that time, the Court has received valuable comments on
the amendments that are set to take effect on January 1, 2025, and
in response, the majority now adopts additional changes. However,
even as further amended, while I concur with the framework
-7-
proposed by the amendments and the goal of improving the
resolution of civil cases in our state courts, I dissent because I
cannot agree to incorporating the federal proportionality language
into our state court discovery rules.
The lofty mission of the sweeping reforms mandated by today’s
decision is to “[enhance our] civil case management processes in
order to deliver justice in a timely, cost-efficient, and accountable
manner, while maintaining due process.” Id. at 499(majority opinion) (quoting In re Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Admin. Order No. AOSC19-73 (Fla. Oct. 31, 2019)). As noted by the majority opinion, the previously adopted amendments “created 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 given the varying levels of volume, resources, and available automation.”Id.
(emphasis added).
In order to effectuate this proportional mandate, the majority
has incorporated into the scope of Florida rule 1.280(c)(1) the
proportionality mandate of federal rule 26(b)(1). Accordingly, rule
1.280(c)(1) now provides:
-8-
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.
(Emphasis added.)
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. The proportionality requirement will
serve as an impediment to a justice that is timely, and it will prove
to be far from cost-efficient.
As discussed in the commentary of attorney Thomas Edwards,
Jr., a member of the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil
Cases within the Judicial Management Council, the proportionality
changes to the scope of discovery are not a good fit in our state’s
civil judicial system because of practical differences in the
operations of state and federal courts. Notably, the case load of
federal judges is smaller than that of state court judges, and federal
-9-
trial judges have far more resources to assist them with the strict
mandates of rule 26(b)(1). As Mr. Edwards and other participating
attorneys observed during oral argument, unlike Florida trial
judges, federal district court judges have the assistance of up to
three law clerks to assist with discovery disputes. These judges
may also rely on the aid of 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.
Many proportionality objections will require evidentiary hearings
and are likely to cause tension with newly rewritten rule 1.460
which frowns upon continuances: “[m]otions to continue trial are
disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good
cause shown.” While rule 1.460 authorizes trial judges to impose
sanctions “[i]f a continuance is granted based on the dilatory
conduct of an attorney or named party,” rule 1.280 does not
authorize sanctions for dilatory boilerplate proportionality
objections.
- 10 -
Bolstering my concern about the potential impact of the
proportionality mandate is the practical impact of applying federal
rule 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) has been challenging enough in the
federal courts that multiple advisory notes have been added over
the years, and litigation has ensued to determine its scope. In
recognition of this reality, our majority has added a “Court
Commentary to rule 1.280 to explain that the Court has 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.’ ” Majority op. at 3. However, I am
unconvinced that this guidance will be sufficient to mitigate the
significant changes that the proportionality mandate imposes upon
Florida’s state courts.
My concerns about the proportionality language
notwithstanding, I enthusiastically join the majority in thanking
The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee and the many
commenters for their hard work, dedication, and valuable
recommendations. This effort was a truly heavy lift. In my previous
life as chief justice, I had the opportunity and pleasure to work with
many of the lawyers and judges who dedicated so much of their
- 11 -
time to this massive undertaking. Their dedication to our judicial
system is immeasurable.
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Cosme Caballero, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Miami,
Florida, Judson Lee Cohen, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules
Committee, Miami Lakes, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive
Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Heather Savage
Telfer, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Jigarbhai Amin, Lutz, Florida; Vishrut Amin, Lutz, Florida; Mark R.
Osherow on behalf of Osherow, PLLC, Boca Raton, Florida, and
Shari Elessar of Back on Track Mediation, Royal Palm Beach,
Florida; Timothy D. Kenison of GOLDLAW, West Palm Beach,
Florida; Deborah Rachel Ingraham, Miami, Florida; Russell Landy of
Damian Valori Culmo, on behalf of the Business Law Section of The
Florida Bar, Miami, Florida; Lucretia Pitts Barrett of Universal
Property & Casualty Ins. Co., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Ana Cristina
Maldonado, Chair, Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The
Florida Bar, Davie, Florida, and Lawrence Kolin, Alternative Dispute
Resolution Section of the Florida Bar, Orlando, Florida; Spencer H.
Silverglate of Clarke Silverglate, P.A., on behalf of International
Association of Defense Counsel, DRI Center for Law and Public
Policy, Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Association of
Defense Trial Attorneys, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated
Industries of Florida, Florida Insurance Council, American Tort
Reform Association, National Federation of Independent Business
Small Business Legal Center, Inc., American Property Casualty
Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Washington Legal
Foundation, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America, and Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Miami, Florida;
David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte, Gilbert, McNamara & Caldevilla,
P.A., Tampa, Florida; Theodore C. Miloch, II of Wallen Kelley,
Stuart, Florida; Kenneth B. Schurr of Law Offices of Kenneth B.
- 12 -
Schurr, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Honorable Paul L. Huey,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Tampa, Florida;
Kimberly Kanoff Berman of Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Thomas S. Edwards, Jr of Edwards & Ragatz,
P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; W. Braxton Gillam, IV, of Milam Howard
Nicandri & Gillam, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; Maegen Peek Luka of
Newsome Melton, Orlando, Florida; Neal A. Roth of Grossman Roth
Yaffa Cohen, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida, William T. Cotterall of
Florida Justice Association, Tallahassee, Florida, Peter Hunt of
Rubenstein Law, P.A., Miami, Florida, John Mills of Bishop & Mills,
PLLC, Jacksonville, Florida, Henry L. Perry of Perry & Young,
Panama City, Florida, Herman J. Russomanno of Russomanno &
Borello, P.A., Miami, Florida, and Laurie J. Briggs of Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida; and
Andy Bardos of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida,
Responding with comments
- 13 -
APPENDIX
RULE 1.090. TIME
(a) [No Change]
(b) EnlargementExtending Time.
(1) In General. When an act is required or allowed to be
done at or within a specified time by order of court, by these rules,
or by notice given thereunder, for cause shown the court at any
time in its discretionWhen an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without notice, may order the
period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of
the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous
orderwith or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a
request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) upon motion made and notice after the
expiration of the specified period, may permit the act to be done
when failure to act was the result of excusable neglecton motion
made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.
(2) Exceptions. The court may not extend the time for
making a motion for new trial, for rehearing, or to alter or amend a
judgment; making a motion for relief from a judgment under rule
1.540(b); taking an appeal or filing a petition for certiorari; or
making a motion for a directed verdict. Extensions of deadlines in
case management orders are governed by rule 1.200 or rule 1.201,
and trial continuances are governed by rule 1.460.
(c)-(d) [No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
- 14 -
RULE 1.200. CASE MANAGEMENT; PRETRIAL PROCEDURE
(a) Applicability; Exemptions. The requirements of this
rule apply to all civil actions except:
(1) actions required to proceed under section 51.011,
Florida Statutes;
(2) actions proceeding under section 45.075, Florida
Statutes;
(3) actions subject to the Florida Small Claims Rules,
unless the court, under rule 7.020(c), has ordered the action to
proceed under one or more of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
and the deadline for the trial date specified in rule 7.090(d) no
longer applies;
(4) an action or proceeding initiated under chapters
731–736, 738, and 744, Florida Statutes;
(5) an action for review of an administrative proceeding;
(6) eminent domain actions under article X, section 6 of
the Florida Constitution or chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes;
(7) a forfeiture action in rem arising from a state
statute;
(8) a petition for habeas corpus or any other proceeding
to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence;
(9) an action brought without an attorney by a person
in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision;
(10) an action to enforce or quash an administrative
summons or subpoena;
(11) a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in another
court;
(12) an action to enforce an arbitration award;
- 15 -
(13) an action involving an extraordinary writ or remedy
under rule 1.630;
(14) actions to confirm or enforce foreign judgments;
(15) all proceedings under chapter 56, Florida Statutes;
(16) a civil action pending in a special division of the
court established by administrative order issued by the chief judge
of the circuit or local rule (e.g., a complex business division or a
complex civil division) that enters case management orders;
(17) all proceedings under chapter 415, Florida Statutes,
and sections 393.12 and 825.1035, Florida Statutes; and
(18) a claim requiring expedited or priority resolution
under an applicable statute or rule.
(b) Case Track Assignment. Not later than 120 days after
an action commences as provided in rule 1.050, the court must
assign each civil case to 1 of 3 case management tracks either by
an initial case management order or an administrative order on
case management issued by the chief judge of the circuit:
streamlined, general, or complex. Assignment is not based on the
financial value of the case but rather the amount of judicial
attention required for resolution.
(1) “Complex” cases are actions designated by court
order as complex under rule 1.201(a). Complex cases must proceed
as provided in rule 1.201.
(2) “Streamlined” cases are actions that reflect some
mutual knowledge about the underlying facts, have limited needs
for discovery, well-established legal issues related to liability and
damages, few anticipated dispositive pretrial motions, minimal
documentary evidence, and an anticipated trial length of no more
than 3 days. Uncontested cases should generally be presumed to be
streamlined cases.
- 16 -
(3) “General” cases are all other actions that do not
meet the criteria for streamlined or complex.
(c) Changes in Track Assignment.
(1) Change Requested by a Party. Any motion to change
the track to which a case is assigned must be filed promptly after
the appearance of good cause to support the motion.
(2) Change Directed by the Court. A track assignment
may be changed by the court on its own motion.
(d) Case Management Order.
(1) Complex Cases. Case management orders in
complex cases must issue as provided in rule 1.201.
(2) Streamlined and General Cases. In streamlined and
general cases, the court must issue a case management order that
specifies the projected or actual trial period based on the case track
assignment, consistent with administrative orders entered by the
chief judge of the circuit. The order must also set deadlines that are
differentiated based on whether the case is streamlined or general
and must be consistent with the time standards specified in Florida
Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1)(B)
for the completion of civil cases. The order must specify no less
than the following deadlines:
(A) service of complaints;
(B) service under extensions;
(C) adding new parties;
(D) completion of fact discovery;
(E) completion of expert discovery;
(F) filing and service of motions for summary
judgment;
- 17 -
(FG) filing and resolution of all objections to
pleadings;
(GH) filing and resolution of all pretrial motions;
and
(HI) completion of alternative dispute resolution.
(3) Strict Enforcement of Deadlines. The case
management order must indicate that the deadlines established in
the order will be strictly enforced by the courtunless changed by
court order.
(4) Timing of Issuance. The court must issue the case
management order no later than 120 days after commencement of
the action as provided in rule 1.050 or 30 days after service of the
complaint on the last of all named defendants, whichever date
comes first. No case management conference is required to be set
by the court before issuance.
(e) Extensions of Time; Modification of Deadlines.
(1) Deadlines are Strictly Enforced. Deadlines in a case
management order must be strictly enforced unless changed by
court order. Parties may submit an agreed order to extend a
deadline if the extension does not affect the ability to comply with
the remaining dates in the case management order. If extending an
individual case management deadline may affect a subsequent
deadline in the case management order, parties must seek an
amendment of the case management order, rather than submitting
a motion for extension of an individual deadline.
(2) Modification of Actual Trial Period. Once an actual
trial period is set, the parties must satisfy the requirements of rule
1.460 to change that period. During the time a trial period is still a
projection, the parties may seek to change the projected trial period
through the process in subdivision (e)(3).
- 18 -
(3) Modifications of Deadlines or Projected Trial Period.
Any motion to extend a deadline, amend a case management order,
or alter a projected trial period must specify:
(A) the basis of the need for the extension,
including when the basis became known to the movant;
(B) whether the motion is opposed;
(C) the specific date to which the movant is
requesting the deadline or projected trial period be extended, and
whether that date is agreed by all parties; and
(D) the action and specific dates for the action that
will enable the movant to meet the proposed new deadline or
projected trial period, including, but not limited to, confirming the
specific date any required participants such as third-party
witnesses or experts are available.
(f) Notices of Unavailability. Notices of unavailability have
no effect on the deadlines set by the case management order. If a
party is unable to comply with a deadline in a case management
order, the party must take action consistent with subdivision (e)(1).
(g) Inability to Meet Case Management Deadlines. If any
party is unable to meet the deadlines set forth in the case
management order for any reason, including due to the
unavailability of hearing time, the affected party may promptly set a
case management conference and alert the court. The notice of case
management conference must identify the issues to be addressed in
the case management conference.
(h) If Trial Is Not Reached During Trial Period. If a trial is
not reached during the trial period set by court order, the court
must enter an order setting a new trial period that is as soon as
practicable, given the needs of the case and resources of the court.
The order resetting the trial period must reflect what further activity
will or will not be permitted.
- 19 -
(i) Forms. Except for case management orders issued in
cases governed by rule 1.201, the forms for case management
orders will be set by the chief judge of the circuit. The form orders
must comply with the requirements of this rule.
(j) Case Management Conferences.
(1) Scheduling. The court may set case management
conferences at any time on its own notice or on proper notice by a
party. Whether set by the court or a party, the amount of notice
must be reasonable. If noticed by a party, the notice itself must
identify the specific issues to be addressed during the case
management conference and must also provide a list of all pending
motions. The court may set, or the parties may request, case
management conferences on an as-needed basis or an ongoing,
periodic basis.
(2) Issues That May Be Addressed. During a case
management conference, the court may address all scheduling
issues, including requests to amend the case management order,
and other issues that may impact trial of the case. In addition, on
reasonable notice to the parties and adequate time available during
the conference, the court may elect to hear a pending motion, other
than motions for summary judgment and motions requiring
evidentiary hearings, even if the parties have not identified the
motion as an issue to be resolved. Motions for summary judgment
and motions requiring evidentiary hearings may not be heard as
part of a case management conference, unless agreed to by the
parties.
(3) Preparation Required. Attorneys and self-
represented litigants who appear at a case management conference
must be prepared on the pending matters in the case, be prepared
to make decisions about future progress and conduct of the case,
and have authority to make representations to the court and enter
into binding agreements concerning motions, issues, and
scheduling. If a party is represented by more than 1 attorney, the
attorney(s) present at a case management conference must be
prepared with all attorneys’ availability for future events.
- 20 -
(4) Other Hearings Convertible. Any scheduled hearing
may be converted to a sua sponte case management conference by
agreement of the parties at the time of the hearing.
(5) Proposed Orders. At the conclusion of the case
management conference, unless the court is drafting its own order,
the court must set a deadline for submitting proposed orders
arising out of the case management conference. A proposed order
must be submitted by that deadline unless an extension is
requested. If the parties do not agree to the contents of a proposed
order, competing proposed orders must be submitted to the court.
The parties must notify the court of the basis of any objections at
the time the competing orders are submitted.
(6) Failure to Appear. On failure of a party to attend a
case management conference, the court may dismiss the action,
strike the pleadings, limit proof or witnesses, or take any other
appropriate action against a party failing to attend.
(k) Pretrial Conference. After the action has been set for an
actual trial period, the court itself may, or must on the timely
motion of any party, require the parties to appear for a pretrial
conference to consider and determine:
(1) a statement of the issues to be tried;
(2) the possibility of obtaining evidentiary and other
stipulations that will avoid unnecessary proof;
(3) the witnesses who are expected to testify, evidence
expected to be proffered, and any associated logistical or scheduling
issues;
(4) the use of technology and other means to facilitate
the presentation of evidence and demonstrative aids at trial;
(5) the order of proof at trial, time to complete the trial,
and reasonable time estimates for voir dire, opening statements,
closing arguments, and any other part of the trial;
- 21 -
(6) the numbers of prospective jurors required for a
venire, alternate jurors, and peremptory challenges for each party;
(7) finalize jury instructions and verdict forms; and
(8) any other matters the court considers appropriate.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
1984 Amendment. [No Change]
2024 Amendment. Rule 1.200 as amended is intended to
supersede any case management rules issued by circuit courts and
administrative orders on case management to the extent of
contradiction. The rule is not intended to preclude the possibility of
administrative orders issued by circuit chief judges and local rules
under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration
2.215 that refine and supplement the procedures delineated in the
rule, including rollover practices for situations where a trial is not
reached during the scheduled trial period.
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
RULE 1.201. COMPLEX LITIGATION
(a) Complex Litigation Defined. At any time after all
defendants have been served, and an appearance has been entered
in response to the complaint by each party or a default entered, any
party, or the court on its own motion, may move to declare an
action complex. However, any party may move to designate an
action complex before all defendants have been served subject to a
showing to the court why service has not been made on all
defendants. The court may convene a hearing to determine whether
the action requires the use of complex litigation procedures.
- 22 -
(1)–(2) [No Change]
(3) A case will be designated or redesignated as
complex in accordance with rule 1.200.
(b) Initial Case Management Report and Conference. The
court must hold an initial case management conference within 60
days from the date of the order declaring the action complex.
(1) At least 20 days prior to the date of the initial case
management conference, attorneys for the parties as well as any
parties appearing pro se must confer and prepare a joint statement,
which must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14
days before the conference, outlining a discovery plan and stating:
(A)-(D) [No Change]
(E) the proposed limits on the time:
(i) to join other parties and to amend the
pleadings;
(ii) to file and hear motions;
(iii) to identify any nonparties whose identity
is known, or otherwise describe as specifically as practicable any
nonparties whose identity is not known;
(iv) to disclose expert witnesses; and
(v) to complete discovery;
(F)-(O) [No Change]
(P) any other information that might be helpful to
the court in setting further conferences and the trial dateperiod.
(2) Lead trial counsel and a client representative must
attend the initial case management conference.
- 23 -
(3) At the initial case management conference, the
court will set the trial date or datesperiod no sooner than 6 months
and no later than 24 months from the date of the conference unless
good cause is shown for an earlier or later setting. The trial date or
datesperiod must be on a docket having sufficient time within
which to try the action and, when feasible, for a date or dates
certain. The trial dateperiod must be set after consultation with
counsel and in the presence of all clients or authorized client
representatives. The court must, no later than 2 months before the
date scheduled for jury selection, arrange for a sufficient number of
available jurors. Continuance of the trial of a complex action should
rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. Any
motion for continuance will be governed by rule 1.460.
(c) The Case Management Order. Within 10 days after
completion of the initial case management conference, the court
must enter a case management order. The case management order
must address each matter set forth under rule 1.200(d)(2) and set
the action for a pretrial conference and trial. The case management
order also must specify the following:
(1) Dates by which all parties must name their expert
witnesses and provide the expert information required by rule
1.280(c)(5). If a party has named an expert witness in a field in
which any other parties have not identified experts, the other
parties may name experts in that field within 30 days thereafter. No
additional experts may be named unless good cause is shown.
(2) Not more than 10 days after the date set for naming
experts, the parties must meet and schedule dates for deposition of
experts and all other witnesses not yet deposed. At the time of the
meeting each party is responsible for having secured three
confirmed dates for its expert witnesses. In the event the parties
cannot agree on a discovery deposition schedule, the court, on
motion, must set the schedule. Any party may file the completed
discovery deposition schedule agreed on or entered by the court.
Once filed, the deposition dates in the schedule may not be altered
without consent of all parties or on order of the court. Failure to
- 24 -
comply with the discovery schedule may result in sanctions in
accordance with rule 1.380.
(3) [No Change]
(4) The court must schedule periodic case management
conferences and hearings on lengthy motions at reasonable
intervals based on the particular needs of the action. In addition to
the conferral required under rule 1.202, Tthe attorneys for the
parties as well as any parties appearing pro se must confer no later
than 15 days prior to each case management conference or hearing.
The parties must notify the court immediately if a case management
conference or hearing time becomes unnecessary. Failure to timely
notify the court that a case management conference or hearing time
is unnecessary may result in sanctions.
(5)-(6) [No Change]
(7) The case management order must be consistent
with the time standard in Florida Rule of General Practice and
Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1)(B) for the completion of complex
cases.
(d) Final Case Management Conference. The court must
schedule a final case management conference not less than 90 days
before the date the case is set for trial. At least 10 days before the
final case management conference the parties must confer to
prepare a case status report, which must be filed with the clerk of
the court either before or at the time of the final case management
conference. The status report must contain in separately numbered
paragraphs:
(1)-(5) [No Change]
(6) Certification that copies of witness and exhibit lists
will be filed with the clerk of the court at least 48 hours before the
date and time of the final case management conference.
- 25 -
(7) A deadline for the filing of amended lists of
witnesses and exhibits, which amendments will be allowed only on
motion and for good cause shown.
(8) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 1.280. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY
(a) Initial Discovery Disclosure.
(1) In General. Except as exempted by subdivision (a)(2)
or as ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a
discovery request, provide to the other parties the following initial
discovery disclosures unless privileged or protected from disclosure:
(A) the name and, if known, the address,
telephone number, and e-mail address of each individual likely to
have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that
information—that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment;
(B) a copy—or a description by category and
location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and
tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession,
custody, or control (or, if not in the disclosing party’s possession,
custody, or control, a description by category and location of such
information) and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless
the use would be solely for impeachment;
(C) a computation for each category of damages
claimed by the disclosing party and a copy of the documents or
other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from
disclosure, on which each computation is based, including
materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered;
- 26 -
provided that a party is not required to provide computations as to
noneconomic damages, but the party must identify categories of
damages claimed and provide supporting documents; and
(D) a copy of any insurance policy or agreement
under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or
part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or
reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
(2) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Discovery Disclosure.
Unless ordered by the court, actions and claims listed in rule
1.200(a) are exempt from initial discovery disclosure.
(3) Time for Initial Discovery Disclosures. A party must
make the initial discovery disclosures required by this rule within
60 days after the service of the complaint or joinder, unless a
different time is set by court order.
(4) Basis for Initial Discovery Disclosure; Unacceptable
Excuses; Objections. A party must make its initial discovery
disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to
it. A party is not excused from making its initial discovery
disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because
it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s initial discovery
disclosures or because another party has not made its initial
discovery disclosures. A party who formally objects to providing
certain information is not excused from making all other initial
discovery disclosures required by this rule in a timely manner.
(b) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by 1
or more of the following methods: depositions on oral examination
or written questions; written interrogatories; production of
documents or things or permission to enter on land or other
property for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental
examinations; and requests for admission. Unless the court orders
otherwise and under subdivision (d), the frequency of use of these
methods is not limited, except as provided in rules 1.200, 1.340,
and 1.370.
- 27 -
(c) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by court
order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope
of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
(2) [No Change]
(3) Electronically Stored Information. A party may obtain
discovery of electronically stored information under these rules.
(4) Trial Preparation; Materials. Subject to the
provisions of subdivision (c)(5), a party may obtain discovery of
documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under
subdivision (c)(1) and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for
trial by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative,
including that party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor,
insurer, or agent, only on a showing that the party seeking
discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case
and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial
equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of
the materials when the required showing has been made, the court
must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other
representative of a party concerning the litigation. Without the
required showing a party may obtain a copy of a statement
concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that
party. On request without the required showing a person not a
party may obtain a copy of a statement concerning the action or its
subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is
refused, the person may move for an order to obtain a copy. The
provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses
incurred as a result of making the motion. For purposes of this
- 28 -
paragraph, a statement previously made is a written statement
signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or
a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or
transcription of it that is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral
statement by the person making it and contemporaneously
recorded.
(5) Trial Preparation; Experts. Discovery of facts known
and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the
provisions of subdivision (c)(1) and acquired or developed in
anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as
follows:
(A) (i)-(ii) [No Change]
(iii) A party may obtain the following
discovery regarding any person disclosed by interrogatories or
otherwise as a person expected to be called as an expert witness at
trial:
1.-3. [No Change]
4. An approximation of the portion of
the expert’s involvement as an expert witness, which may be based
on the number of hours, percentage of hours, or percentage of
earned income derived from serving as an expert witness; however,
the expert will not be required to disclose the expert’s earnings as
an expert witness or income derived from other services.
An expert may be required to produce financial and business
records only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances
and may not be compelled to compile or produce nonexistent
documents. On motion, the court may order further discovery by
other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and other
provisions under subdivision (c)(5)(C) concerning fees and expenses
as the court may deem appropriate.
(B) [No Change]
- 29 -
(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, the
court will require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a
reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under
subdivisions (c)(5)(A) and (c)(5)(B); and concerning discovery from
an expert obtained under subdivision (c)(5)(A) the court may
require, and concerning discovery obtained under subdivision
(c)(5)(B) will require, the party seeking discovery to pay the other
party a fair part of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by
the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
(D) As used in these rules an expert witness is
defined in rule 1.390(a).
(6) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation
Materials. When a party withholds information otherwise
discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or
subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party must
make the claim expressly and must describe the nature of the
documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in
a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the
privilege or protection.
(d) Protective Orders. On motion by a party or by the
person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown,
the court in which the action is pending may make any order to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires,
including 1 or more of the following:
(1) that the discovery not be had;
(2) that the discovery may be had only on specified
terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place
or the allocation of expenses;
(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of
discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
- 30 -
(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the
scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present
except persons designated by the court;
(6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only
by order of the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be
disclosed only in a designated way; and
(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified
documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be
opened as directed by the court.
If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the
court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any
party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of rule
1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to
the motion.
(e) Limitations on Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information.
(1) [No Change]
(2) In determining any motion involving discovery of
electronically stored information, the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it
determines that:
(A) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another
manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; or
(B) the burden or expense of the discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the
- 31 -
amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues.
(f) Sequence andTiming and Sequence of Discovery.
(1) Timing. 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.
(2) Sequence. Except as provided in subdivision (c)(5), or
unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise, methods
of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party
is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, must
not delay any other party’s discovery.
(g) Supplementing of Responses. A party who has made a
disclosure under this rule or who has responded to an
interrogatory, a request for production, or a request for admission
must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(1) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some
material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not
otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
discovery process or in writing; or
(2) as ordered by the court.
(h) Court Filing of Documents and Discovery. Information
obtained during discovery may not be filed with the court until such
time as it is filed for good cause. The requirement of good cause is
satisfied only when the filing of the information is allowed or
required by another applicable rule of procedure or by court order.
All filings of discovery documents must comply with Florida Rule of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.425. The court has
the authority to impose sanctions for violation of this rule.
- 32 -
(i) Apex Doctrine. A current or former high-level
government or corporate officer may seek an order preventing the
officer from being subject to a deposition. The motion, whether by a
party or by the person of whom the deposition is sought, must be
accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the officer explaining
that the officer lacks unique, personal knowledge of the issues
being litigated. If the officer meets this burden of production, the
court shall issue an order preventing the deposition, unless the
party seeking the deposition demonstrates that it has exhausted
other discovery, that such discovery is inadequate, and that the
officer has unique, personal knowledge of discoverable information.
The court may vacate or modify the order if, after additional
discovery, the party seeking the deposition can meet its burden of
persuasion under this rule. The burden to persuade the court that
the officer is high-level for purposes of this rule lies with the person
or party opposing the deposition.
(j) Form of Responses to Written Discovery Requests.
When responding to requests for production served under rule
1.310(b)(5), written deposition questions served under rule 1.320,
interrogatories served under rule 1.340, requests for production or
inspection served under rule 1.350, requests for production of
documents or things without deposition served under rule 1.351,
requests for admissions served under rule 1.370, or requests for the
production of documentary evidence served under rule 1.410(c), the
responding party must state each deposition question,
interrogatory, or discovery request in full as numbered, followed by
the answer, objection, or other response.
(k) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests;
Responses; and Objections. Every initial discovery disclosure
under subdivision (a) of this rule and every discovery request,
response, or objection made by a party represented by an attorney
must be signed by at least 1 attorney of record and must include
the attorney’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. A
self-represented litigant must sign the request, response, or
objection and must include the self-represented litigant’s address,
e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or
self-represented litigant certifies that to the best of the person’s
- 33 -
knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable
inquiry:
(1) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and
correct as of the time it is made; and
(2) with respect to a discovery request, response, or
objection, it is:
(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by
existing law or a good faith argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law;
(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such
as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of litigation; and
(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or
expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in
the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation.
No party has a duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request,
response, or objection until it is signed. If a certification violates
this rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or
on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the
party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction
may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
2024 Amendment. The scope of discovery in subdivision (c)(1) is
amended to adopt almost all the text of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) and is to be construed and applied in accordance
with the federal proportionality standard.
- 34 -
RULE 1.310. DEPOSITIONS ON ORAL EXAMINATION
(a)-(c) [No Change]
(d) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. At any
time during the taking of the deposition, on motion of a party or of
the deponent and on a showing that the examination is being
conducted in bad faith or in any manner as unreasonably to annoy,
embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, or that objection and
instruction to a deponent not to answer are being made in violation
of rule 1.310(c), the court in which the action is pending or the
circuit court where the deposition is being taken may order the
officer conducting the examination to cease immediately from
taking the deposition or may limit the scope and manner of the
taking of the deposition under rule 1.280(d). If the order terminates
the examination, it will be resumed thereafter only on the order of
the court in which the action is pending. On demand of any party or
the deponent, the taking of the deposition must be suspended for
the time necessary to make a motion for an order. Rule 1.380(a)
applies to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
(e)-(h) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
[No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
(a) Procedure for Use.
- 35 -
(1) Without leave of court, any party may serve on any
other party written interrogatories to be answered:
(1A) by the party to whom the interrogatories are
directed,; or
(2B) if that party is a public corporation, or private
corporation, or partnership, or association, or governmental agency,
by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available
to that party.
(2) Interrogatories may be served on the plaintiff after
commencement of the action and on any other party with or after
service of the process and initial pleading on that party.
(3) The interrogatories must not exceed 30, including
all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion
and notice and for good cause.
(4) If the supreme court has approved a form of
interrogatories for the type of action, the initial interrogatories on a
subject included within must be from the form approved by the
court.
(5) A party may serve fewer than all of the approved
interrogatories within a form.
(6) Other interrogatories may be added to the approved
forms without leave of court, so long as the total of approved and
additional interrogatories does not exceed 30.
(7) Each interrogatory must be answered separately
and fully in writing under oath unless it is objected to, in which
event the grounds for objection must be stated and signed by the
attorney making it.
(8) The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must
be stated with specificity, including the reasons. Any ground not
- 36 -
stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good
cause, excuses the failure.
(9) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed
must serve the answers and any objections within 30 days after the
service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve
answers or objections within 45 days after service of the process
and initial pleading on that defendant. The court may allow a
shorter or longer time.
(10) The party submitting the interrogatories may move
for an order under rule 1.380(a) on any objection to or other failure
to answer an interrogatory.
(b) Scope; Use at Trial.
(1) Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can
be inquired into under rule 1.280(bc), and the answers may be used
to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence except as otherwise
provided in this subdivision (b).
(2) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not
objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory
involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or calls for a
conclusion or asks for information not within the personal
knowledge of the party.
(3) A party must respond to such an otherwise proper
interrogatory by giving the information the party has and the source
on which the information is based.
(4) Such aA qualified answer may not be used as direct
evidence for or impeachment against the party giving the answer
unless the court finds it otherwise admissible under the rules of
evidence.
(5) If a party introduces an answer to an interrogatory,
any other party may require that party to introduce any other
- 37 -
interrogatory and answer that in fairness ought to be considered
with it.
(c) Option to Produce Records.
(1) When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived
or ascertained from the records (including electronically stored
information) of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed or
from an examination, audit, or inspection of the records or from a
compilation, abstract, or summary based on the records and the
burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the
same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party to
whom it is directed, then an answer to the interrogatory specifying
the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained
and offering to give the party serving the interrogatory a reasonable
opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the records and to make
copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries is a sufficient
answer.
(2) An answer must be in sufficient detail to permit the
interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the
party interrogated, the records from which the answer may be
derived or ascertained, or must identify a person or persons
representing the interrogated party who will be available to assist
the interrogating party in locating and identifying the records at the
time they are produced.
(3) If the records to be produced consist of
electronically stored information, the records must be produced in a
form or forms in which they are ordinarily maintained or in a
reasonably usable form or forms.
(d) Effect on Co-Party. Answers made by a party shall not
beare not binding on a co-party.
(e) Service and Filing.
- 38 -
(1) Interrogatories must be served on the party to
whom the interrogatories are directed and copies must be served on
all other parties.
(2) A certificate of service of the interrogatories must be
filed, giving the date of service and the name of the party to whom
they were directed.
(3) The answers to the interrogatories must be served
on the party originally propounding the interrogatories and a copy
must be served on all other parties by the answering party.
(4) The original or any copy of the answers to
interrogatories may be filed in compliance with Florida Rule of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.425 and rule
1.280(g)(h) by any party when the court should consider the
answers to interrogatories in determining any matter pending before
the court.
(5) The court may order a copy of that the answers to
interrogatories be filed at any time when the court determines that
examination of the answers to interrogatories is necessary to
determine any matter pending before the court.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
1984 Amendment. [No Change]
2024 Amendment. Any use of standard interrogatories must
be adjusted for proportional discovery.
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
- 39 -
RULE 1.350. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
AND ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER
PURPOSES
(a) Request; Scope. Any party may request any other party:
(1) to produce and permit the party making the
request, or someone acting in the requesting party’s behalf, to
inspect and copy any designated documents, including
electronically stored information, writings, drawings, graphs,
charts, photographs, audio, visual, and audiovisual recordings, and
other data compilations from which information can be obtained,
translated, if necessary, by the party to whom the request is
directed through detection devices into reasonably usable form, that
constitute or contain matters within the scope of rule 1.280(bc) and
that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom
the request is directed;
(2) to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible
things that constitute or contain matters within the scope of rule
1.280(bc) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the
party to whom the request is directed; or
(3) to permit entry upon designated land or other
property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the
request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring,
surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any
designated object or operation on it within the scope of rule 1.280
(bc).
(b) Procedure.
(1) Without leave of court the request may be served on
the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other
party with or after service of the process and initial pleading on that
party.
- 40 -
(2) The request shallmust set forth the items to be
inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe each
item and category with reasonable particularity.
(3) The request shallmust specify a reasonable time,
place, and manner of making the inspection or performing the
related acts. The party to whom the request is directed shallmust
serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request,
except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after
service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant. The
court may allow a shorter or longer time.
(4) For each item or category the response shallmust
state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as
requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the
reasons for the objection shall be statedor state with specificity the
grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.
(5) If an objection is made to part of an item or
category, the partobjection shallmust be specifiedstate with
specificity the grounds for objecting, including the reasons.
(6) An objection must state whether any responsive
materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An
objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.
(7) When producing documents, the producing party
shallmust either produce them as they are kept in the usual course
of business or shallmust identify them to correspond with the
categories in the request.
(8) A request for electronically stored information may
specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information
is to be produced. If the responding party objects to a requested
form, or if no form is specified in the request, the responding party
must state the form or forms it intends to use. If a request for
- 41 -
electronically stored information does not specify the form of
production, the producing party must produce the information in a
form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably
usable form or forms.
(9) The party submitting the request may move for an
order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond
to the request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection
as requested.
(c) Persons Not Parties. This rule does not preclude an
independent action against a person not a party for production of
documents and things and permission to enter upon land.
(d) Filing of Documents. Unless required by the court, a
party shallmust not file any of the documents or things produced
with the response. Documents or things may be filed in compliance
with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration
2.425 and rule 1.280(gh) when they should be considered by the
court in determining a matter pending before the court.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
RULE 1.370. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
(a) Request for Admission. A party may serve upon any
other party a written request for the admission of the truth of any
matters within the scope of rule 1.280(bc) set forth in the request
that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of
law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described
in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the
request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made
available for inspection and copying. Without leave of court the
request may be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the
action and upon any other party with or after service of the process
and initial pleading upon that party. The request for admission
- 42 -
shall not exceed 30 requests, including all subparts, unless the
court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good
cause, or the parties propounding and responding to the requests
stipulate to a larger number. Each matter of which an admission is
requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted
unless the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the
party requesting the admission a written answer or objection
addressed to the matter within 30 days after service of the request
or such shorter or longer time as the court may allow but, unless
the court shortens the time, a defendant shall not be required to
serve answers or objections before the expiration of 45 days after
service of the process and initial pleading upon the defendant. If
objection is made, the reasons shall be stated. The answer shall
specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why
the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A
denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission,
and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny
only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the
party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the
remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or
knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless that party
states that that party has made reasonable inquiry and that the
information known or readily obtainable by that party is insufficient
to enable that party to admit or deny. A party who considers that a
matter of which an admission has been requested presents a
genuine issue for trial may not object to the request on that ground
alone; the party may deny the matter or set forth reasons why the
party cannot admit or deny it, subject to rule 1.380(c). The party
who has requested the admissions may move to determine the
sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the court
determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an
answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not
comply with the requirements of this rule, it may order either that
the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.
Instead of these orders the court may determine that final
disposition of the request be made at a pretrial conference or at a
designated time before trial. The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply
to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
- 43 -
(b) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
RULE 1.380. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS
(a) Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. UpoOn
reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, a party
may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:
(1) Appropriate Court. An application for an order to a
party may be made to the court in which the action is pending or in
accordance with rule 1.310(d). An application for an order to a
deponent who is not a party shallmust be made to the circuit court
where the deposition is being taken.
(2) Motion.
(A) If a party fails to make a disclosure required by
rule 1.280(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and
for appropriate sanctions.
(B) The discovering party may move for an order
compelling an answer if:
(i) If a deponent fails to answer a question
propounded or submitted under rule 1.310 or 1.320,; or a
corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under rule
1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a), or
(ii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory
submitted under rule 1.340, or if.
- 44 -
(C) The discovering party may move for an order
compelling a designation if a corporation or other entity fails to
make a designation under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a).
(D) The discovering party may move for an order
compelling an inspection if a party in response to a request for
inspection submitted under rule 1.350 fails to respond that
inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit
inspection as requested, or if a party.
(E) The discovering party may move for an order
compelling an examination if a party:
(i) in response to a request for examination
of a person submitted under rule 1.360(a) objects to the
examination,;
(ii) fails to respond that the examination will
be permitted as requested, or;
(iii) fails to submit to examination; or
(iv) fails to produce a person in that party’s
custody or legal control for examination, the discovering party may
move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation or an
order compelling inspection, or an order compelling an examination
in accordance with the request. The motion must include a
certification that the movant, in good faith, has conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the
discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without
court action.
(F) A discovering party may move for an order
compelling a response if a party fails to produce documents and
things under rule 1.350(b).
- 45 -
(G) When taking a deposition on oral examination,
the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the
examination before applying for an order.
(H) If the court denies the motion in whole or in
part, it may make suchthe protective order as it would have been
empowered to make on a motion made pursuant tounder rule
1.280(c)(d).
(3) Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For purposes of this
subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer shall beis treated as a
failure to answer.
(4) Award of Expenses of Motion.
(A) If the motion is granted and after opportunity
for hearing, the court shallmust require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion, or the party or counsel
advising the conduct, to pay to the moving party the reasonable
expenses incurred in obtaining the order that may include
attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the movant failed to
certify in the motion that a good faith effort was made to obtain the
discovery without court action, that the opposition to the motion
was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.
(B) If the motion is denied and after opportunity
for hearing, the court shallmust require the moving party to pay to
the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable
expenses incurred in opposing the motion that may include
attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion
was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.
(C) If the motion is granted in part and denied in
part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred as
a result of making the motion among the parties and persons.
- 46 -
(b) Failure to Comply with Order.
(1) [No Change]
(2) If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent
of a party or a person designated under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a)
to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or
permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of
this rule or rule 1.360, the court in which the action is pending may
make any of the following orders:
(A) An order that the matters regarding which the
questions were asked or any other designated facts shallwill be
taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance
with the claim of the party obtaining the order.
(B)-(C) [No Change]
(D) Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in
addition to them, an order treating as a contempt of court the
failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to an
examination made pursuant tounder rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) or
subdivision (a)(2) of this rule.
(E) When a party has failed to comply with an
order under rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) requiring that party to produce
another for examination, the orders listed in paragraphs (A), (B),
and (C)subdivisions (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(C), and (b)(2)(D) of this
subdivisionrule, unless the party failing to comply shows the
inability to produce the person for examination.
(3) Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in addition
to them, the court shallmust require the party failing to obey the
order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which
may include attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the failure
was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.
- 47 -
(c) Expenses on Failure to Admit. If a party fails to admit
the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter as
requested under rule 1.370 and if the party requesting the
admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of the document or
the truth of the matter, the requesting party may file a motion for
an order requiring the other party to pay the requesting party the
reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, which may
include attorneys’ fees. The court shallmust issue such anthe order
at the time a party requesting the admissions proves the
genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, upon
motion by the requesting party, unless it finds that:
(1) the request was held objectionable pursuant
tounder rule 1.370(a),;
(2) the admission sought was of no substantial
importance,; or
(3) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.
(d) Failure to Disclose or to Supplement an Earlier
Response. If a party fails to provide information or identify a
witness as required by rule 1.280(a) or (g), the party is not allowed
to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion,
at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially
justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction,
the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:
(1) may order payment of the reasonable expenses,
including attorneys’ fees, caused by the failure;
(2) may inform the jury of the party’s failure; and
(3) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including
any of the orders listed in rule 1.380(b)(2)(A)–(b)(2)(D).
- 48 -
(de) Failure of Party to Attend at Own Deposition or Serve
Answers to Interrogatories or Respond to Request for
Inspection.
(1) The court in which the action is pending may take
any action authorized under subdivisions (b)(2)(A)-(b)(2)(C) of this
rule iIf a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party
or a person designated under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a) to testify
on behalf of a party fails:
(1A) to appear before the officer who is to take the
deposition after being served with a proper notice,;
(2B) to serve answers or objections to
interrogatories submitted under rule 1.340 after proper service of
the interrogatories,; or
(3C) to serve a written response to a request for
inspection submitted under rule 1.350 after proper service of the
request, the court in which the action is pending may take any
action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this rule.
(2) Any motion specifying a failure under clause (2) or
(3) of this subdivisions (e)(1)(B) or (e)(1)(C) shallmust include a
certification that the movant, in good faith, has conferred or
attempted to confer with the party failing to answer or respond in
an effort to obtain suchthe answer or response without court
action.
(3) Instead of any order or in addition to it, the court
shallmust require the party failing to act to pay the reasonable
expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys’ fees,
unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or
that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
(4) The failure to act described in this subdivision may
not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is
- 49 -
objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a
protective order as provided by rule 1.280(c)(d).
(ef) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information.
If electronically stored information that should have been preserved
in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party
failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be
restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of
the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to
cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon a finding that the party acted with the
intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the
litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was
unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume
the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
RULE 1.410. SUBPOENA
(a)-(b) [No Change]
(c) For Production of Documentary Evidence. A subpoena
may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the
- 50 -
books, documents (including electronically stored information), or
tangible things designated therein, but the court, upon motion
made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in
the subpoena for compliance therewith, may (1) quash or modify
the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or (2) condition
denial of the motion on the advancement by the person in whose
behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing
the books, documents, or tangible things. If a subpoena does not
specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the
person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is
ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. A
person responding to a subpoena may object to discovery of
electronically stored information from sources that the person
identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue costs or
burden. On motion to compel discovery or to quash, the person
from whom discovery is sought must show that the information
sought or the form requested is not reasonably accessible because
of undue costs or burden. If that showing is made, the court may
nonetheless order discovery from such sources or in such forms if
the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations
set out in rule 1.280(de)(2). The court may specify conditions of the
discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses of the
discovery be paid by the party seeking the discovery. A party
seeking a production of evidence at trial which would be subject to
a subpoena may compel such production by serving a notice to
produce such evidence on an adverse party as provided in Florida
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516. Such notice shall have the
same effect and be subject to the same limitations as a subpoena
served on the party.
(d) [No Change]
(e) Subpoena for Taking Depositions.
(1) Filing a notice to take a deposition as provided in
rule 1.310(b) or 1.320(a) with a certificate of service on it showing
service on all parties to the action constitutes an authorization for
the issuance of subpoenas for the persons named or described in
the notice by the clerk of the court in which the action is pending or
by an attorney of record in the action. The subpoena must state the
- 51 -
method for recording the testimony. A party intending to
audiovisually record a deposition must state in the subpoena that
the deposition is to be audiovisually recorded and identify the
method for audiovisually recording the deposition, including, if
applicable, the name and address of the operator of the audiovisual
recording equipment. If a party intends to take a deposition by
communication technology, the subpoena must state the deposition
is to be taken using communication technology, identify the specific
form of communication technology to be used, and provide
instructions for access to the communication technology. The
subpoena may command the person to whom it is directed to
produce designated books, documents, or tangible things that
constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within
the scope of the examination permitted by rule 1.280(bc), but in
that event the subpoena will be subject to the provisions of rule
1.280(cd) and subdivision (c) of this rule. Within 10 days after its
service, or on or before the time specified in the subpoena for
compliance if the time is less than 10 days after service, the person
to whom the subpoena is directed may serve written objection to
inspection or copying of any of the designated materials. If objection
is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to
inspect and copy the materials except pursuant to an order of the
court from which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been
made, the party serving the subpoena may move for an order at any
time before or during the taking of the deposition on notice to the
deponent.
(2) [No Change]
(f)-(h) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
- 52 -
RULE 1.440. SETTING ACTION FOR TRIAL
(a) Setting TrialPleadings. The failure of the pleadings to be
closed will not preclude the court from setting a case for trial.
(b) Motion for Trial. For any case not subject to rule 1.200
or rule 1.201 or for any case in which any party seeks a trial for a
date earlier than the projected or actual trial period specified in a
case management order, any party may file and serve a motion to
set the action for trial. The motion must include an estimate of the
time required, whether there is a basis for expedited trial, whether
it is to be a jury or non-jury trial, whether the trial is on the original
action or a subsequent proceeding, and, if applicable, indicate that
the court has authorized the participation of prospective jurors or
empaneled jurors through audio-video communication technology
under rule 1.430(d). The moving party must serve a copy of the
motion on the presiding judge at the time the motion is filed.
(c) FixingSetting Trial Period.
(1) On a party’s motion or upon the court’s own
initiative, if the court finds the action ready to be set for a trial
period earlier than the projected or actual trial period specified in
the case management order entered under rule 1.200 or rule 1.201,
the court may enter an order fixingsetting an earlier trial period.
(2) For any case subject to rule 1.200 with a projected
trial period in the case management order, not later than 45 days
before the projected trial period set forth in the case management
order, the court must enter an order fixingsetting the trial period.
(3) For any case not subject to rule 1.200 or 1.201, on
a party’s motion or upon the court’s own initiative, if the court finds
the action ready to be set for trial, the court must enter an order
fixingsetting the trial period.
- 53 -
(4) Any order setting a trial period must set the trial
period to begin at least 30 days after the date of the court’s service
of the order, unless all parties agree otherwise.
(d) Service on Defaulted Parties. In actions in which the
damages are not liquidated, the order setting an action for trial
must be served on parties who are in default in accordance with
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516.
(e) Applicability. This rule does not apply to actions under
chapter 51, Florida Statutes.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
1984 Amendment. [No Change]
2024 Amendment. This rule has been substantially amended.
It no longer requires that a case be “at issue” before the case can be
set for trial, and it ties the date of trial directly to any projected trial
period set forth in a case management order.
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
RULE 1.460. MOTIONS TO CONTINUE TRIAL
(a) Generally. Motions to continue trial are disfavored and
should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown.
Successive continuances are highly disfavored. Lack of due
diligence in preparing for trial is not grounds to continue the case.
Motions for continuance based on parental leave are governed by
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.570.
(b) Motion; Requirements. A motion to continue trial must
be in writing unless made at a trial and, except for good cause
- 54 -
shown, must be signed by the named party requesting the
continuance.
(c) Motion; Timing of Filing. A motion to continue trial
must be filed promptly after the appearance of good cause to
support such motion. Failure to promptly request a continuance
may be a basis for denying the motion to continue.
(d) Motion; Contents. The moving party or counsel must
make reasonable efforts to confer with the non-moving party or
opposing counsel about the need for a continuance, and the non-
moving party or opposing counsel must cooperate in responding
and holding a conference. All motions for continuance, even if
agreed, must state with specificity:
(1) the basis of the need for the continuance, including
when the basis became known to the movant;
(2) whether the motion is opposed;
(3) the action and specific dates for the action that will
enable the movant to be ready for trial by the proposed date,
including, but not limited to, confirming the specific date any
required participants such as third-party witnesses or experts are
available; and
(4) the proposed date by which the case will be ready
for trial and whether that date is agreed by all parties.
If the required conference did not occur, the motion must explain
the dates and methods of the efforts to confer. Failure to confer by
any party or attorney under this rule may result in sanctions.
(e) Efforts to Avoid Continuances. To avoid continuances,
trial courts should use all appropriate methods to address the
issues causing delay, including requiring depositions to preserve
testimony, allowing remote appearances, and resolving conflicts
with other judges as provided in the Florida Rules of General
Practice and Judicial Administration.
- 55 -
(f) Setting Trial Date. When possible, continued trial dates
must be set in collaboration with attorneys and self-represented
litigants as opposed to the issuance of unilateral dates by the court.
(g) Dilatory Conduct. If a continuance is granted based on
the dilatory conduct of an attorney or named party, the court may
impose sanctions on the attorney, the party, or both.
(h) Order on Motion for Continuance. When ruling on a
motion to continue, the court must state, either on the record or in
a written order, the factual basis for the ruling. An order granting a
motion to continue must either set a new trial period or set a case
management conference. If the trial is continued, the new trial must
be set for the earliest date practicable, given the needs of the case
and resources of the court. The order must reflect what further
activity will or will not be permitted.
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Authors’ Comment
[No Change]
- 56 -
Reference
- Status
- Published