As we approach the new year, important amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure will come into effect on January 1, 2025. These amendments, aimed at ensuring the fair and timely resolution of cases through effective case management, will impact how civil litigation is conducted in Florida.
Some notable changes:
- A case does not need to be at issue before it is set for trial.
- Parties must strictly comply with case management deadlines, which include an actual or projected trial period.
- Trial continuances are disfavored and should be rarely granted.
- The parties have a duty to confer before filing certain non-dispositive motions.
- Parties must exchange initial discovery disclosures.
- Parties have an ongoing duty to supplement initial discovery disclosures and responses.
- Imposes Proportionality requirements with respect to the scope of discovery.
- The deadline for responding to a motion for summary judgment is tied to the date of service of the motion.
Many changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure align closely with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These changes reflect a growing trend to harmonize state and federal procedures. Federal case law may offer valuable precedent as we navigate these changes.
For our clients, these amendments will have a significant impact on the ways in which cases are litigated. At Bowman and Brooke, we are committed to keeping our clients informed and prepared for these changes. For more information on the amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, click here.
Here is a summary of the key changes and how they might affect your case.
I. Case Management and Timelines
One of the most significant changes involves tightening the timeline for civil cases. Cases that previously took years to litigate will now be completed in 18-30 months, depending on the case track assignment.
Case Track Assignment: Rule 1.200 provides that each civil case must be assigned to one of three case management tracks (complex, general, or streamlined) within 120 days.
Case Management Orders: The court will issue a case management order no later than 120 days after commencement of the action that specifies the projected or actual trial period based on the case track assignment and expressly contains numerous enumerated pretrial deadlines.
Case Management Conferences: During a case management conference, the court may address all scheduling issues, but on reasonable notice to the parties and time permitting, the court may also elect to hear certain shorter, simpler pending motions.
Extending Case Management Order Deadlines: These deadlines will be strictly enforced unless changed by court order. The 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.
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:
- the basis of the need for the extension, including when the basis became known to the movant;
- whether the motion is opposed;
- 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
- 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.
Elimination of At-Issue Requirement: Rule 1.440 provides that cases are no longer required to be “at issue” before they are set for trial. The projected trial period based on case track assignment is as follows:
- 30 months for complex cases;
- 18 months for jury trial;
- 12 months for non-jury trial.
See Fla. R. of Gen. Prac. and Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B).
Trial Continuances: Rule 1.460 provides that motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. Failure to promptly request a continuance may be a basis for denying the motion to continue. Lack of due diligence in preparing for trial is not grounds to continue the case. 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.
Impact on Clients: The new rules shorten the time lawsuits take in Florida and ensure the court’s time is being used efficiently. The emphasis on case management will require more careful planning from the outset of a case. Our attorneys are prepared to help clients navigate these changes to develop effective strategies.
II. Discovery and Conferral Requirements
The new discovery rules look to the discovery practices set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Florida now has an initial discovery disclosure requirement, an ongoing duty to supplement initial disclosures and discovery, and proportionality requirements.
We are prepared to work closely with our clients to ensure compliance with the new requirements by gathering relevant information and documents upon learning of a claim.
Initial Discovery Disclosures: Except as exempted by subdivision (a)(2) or as ordered by the court, Rule 1.280 requires a party to provide initial discovery disclosures to the other parties. These disclosures must be made within 60 days after service of the complaint or joinder (unless a different time is set by court order), and include:
- the name, address, telephone number and email 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;
- a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses;
- a computation of damages; and
- a copy of any insurance policy or agreements that may satisfy all or part of a judgment or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
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. Generally, a party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosure obligations are satisfied.
Ongoing Duty to Supplement Initial Discovery Disclosures and Discovery Responses: A party who has made a disclosure or who has responded to a discovery request must supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a timely manner if it is material, incomplete, or incorrect and has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. Rule 1.380 details the sanctions available when a party fails to disclose or supplement an earlier response.
Proportionality: The scope of discovery now includes a proportionality requirement that is to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality is assessed by considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 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.
Objecting with Specificity: Rules 1.340 and 1.350 now require the grounds for objecting to a discovery request to be stated “with specificity, including the reasons.” Under rule 1.350, 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.
Conferral Requirements: Rule 1.202 provides that, before filing a non-dispositive motion, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. The requirements of this rule do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented. Conferral is not required prior to filing certain motions, including but not limited to, motions: for default; for judgment on the pleadings; for summary judgment; to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; to involuntarily dismiss an action; to dismiss for failure to prosecute; and for directed verdict and motions filed under rule 1.530. Failure to comply with the rule’s conferral requirements and purposeful evasion of conferral communication may result in sanctions.
III. Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment: Rule 1.510 requires summary judgment motions to be filed and served in accordance with any court ordered deadlines. The nonmovant must serve a response no later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment. Any hearing on a motion for summary judgment must be set for a date at least 10 days after the deadline for serving a response, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.
IV. How We Can Help
At Bowman and Brooke, we are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the new rules and our team is prepared to help you navigate these challenges seamlessly. We are ready to assist with updating litigation strategies and ensuring that your cases are resolved in an efficient and cost-effective manner. If you have any questions about how the new Florida Rules of Civil Procedure may impact your cases, please don’t hesitate to contact us.