49 Fla. L. Weekly S137a
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2023-0962. May 23, 2024. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel: Judson Lee Cohen, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Miami Lakes, Landis V. Curry III, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Joshua L. Wintle of Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A., Miami; Jed Kurzban of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt P.A., Coral Gables; Lee Gill Cohen, David M. Lipman, Mina Grace, Richard Rosenblum, Matthew D. Levy, Alexis E. Altman, Jorge Fernandez, Maria Victoria Sanchez, Eyal Steven Eisig, Ryan Anthony Masci, and Leon O’Neal Hunter of Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A., Boca Raton; Marc Andrew Krispinsky of Kanner & Pintaluga, Fort Myers, Tamara Lea Klopenstein of David L. Rich, P.A., Margate; William W. Large on behalf of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee; John K. Lawlor, Anthony Brett White, M. Benjamin Murphey, Lyle Michael Koenig, Brittney Eller, and Monica Heuman of Lawlor White & Murphey, Fort Lauderdale; Howard Lawrence Pomerantz of Abramowitz, Pomerantz & Morehead, P.A., Plantation; Hon. Albert Lewis Kelley, Key West; Russell Landy of Damian Valori Culmo, on behalf of The Business Law Section of The Florida Bar, Miami; 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; Karen A. Gievers, Tallahassee; Hon. Angela Cote Dempsey on behalf of the Second Judicial Circuit Judges, Tallahassee; Sara Katherine Marin of Rubenstein Law, P.A., Miami; Timothy David Kenison of Law Offices of Craig Goldenfarb, West Palm Beach; Karly R. Christine of Christine Law, P.A., Sarasota; Jennifer Gentry Fernandez and Frank F. Fernandez, III on behalf of The Fernandez Firm, Tampa; Christopher W. Mathena of Fulgencio Law, PLLC Tampa; Virginia Marie Buchanan of Levin, Papantonio, Rafferty, Proctor, Buchanan, O’Brien, Barr, & Mougey, P.A., Pensacola; Sherri Lynn Scarborough and Spencer L. Pastorin of Howell & Thornhill, P.A., Winter Haven; Hon. Lisa T. Munyon on behalf of the Civil Judges of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orlando; Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Paul L. Huey, Tampa; Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Hon. Lisa Ann Allen, Hon. Helene Daniel, Hon. Alissa McKee Ellison, and David Anthony Rowland, Tampa; S. Katherine Frazier of Hill Ward Henderson on behalf of the Real Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar, Tampa; Jack Patrick Hill of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA, West Palm Beach; Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Sarah Lahlou-Amine of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A. on behalf of Florida Defense Lawyers Association, Miami, Andrew P. Keefe, Assistant County Attorney, Pinellas County Attorney’s Office, Clearwater, John Edwards, Fort Myers; Matthew Joseph Cardillo of Matt Cardillo, P.A, Tampa; Charles S. Stratton, Joshua Scott Stratton, and Sidney Conwell Bigham III of Berger Singerman LLP, Tallahassee, S. Cary Gaylord, Blake H. Gaylord, Kimbel L. Merlin, Lorena Hart Ludovici, and Andrew Gerald Diaz of Gaylord Merlin Ludovici & Diaz, Tampa, Andrew Prince Brigham, Trevor S. Hutson, and Christopher C. Bucalo of Brigham Property Rights Law Firm, PLLC, St. Augustine; Hon. Waddell Arlie Wallace III, on behalf of the Circuit Judges of the Civil Division of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Jacksonville; Hon. Patricia Ann Muscarella on behalf of the Civil Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater; Peter M. Cardillo of Cardillo Law Firm, Tampa; Maegen Peek Luka of Newsome Melton, Orlando; Joseph Anthony Zarzaur, Jr., Stephen F. Bolton, and Alexandra Jane Messmore of Zarzaur Law, P.A., Pensacola; Anna Frederiksen-Cherry of Swope, Rodante P.A., Tampa; and John W. Little, III on behalf of the Business Litigation Practice Group of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart P.A., West Palm Beach, Responding with Comments.
(PER CURIAM.) The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed a report with two alternative proposals to codify active case management in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.1 We adopt a combination of the Committee’s two alternatives with modifications based on the comments filed in this case, the position of the Committee’s minority, and an earlier proposal submitted by the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases.
The amendments create 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 given the varying levels of volume, resources, and available automation. Our amendments also alter discovery by requiring certain initial disclosures, by imposing a duty to supplement, and by requiring that discovery be proportional to the needs of the case. The amendments, which are intended to promote the fair and timely resolution of civil cases, shall become effective January 1, 2025.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2019, Chief Justice Canady established the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases within the Judicial Management Council, explaining that “Florida’s judicial branch is committed to continual improvement of the administration of justice, including enhancement of civil case management processes in order to deliver justice in a timely, cost-efficient, and accountable manner while maintaining due process.” In re Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Admin. Order No. AOSC19-73 (Fla. Oct. 31, 2019). The Workgroup was tasked with examining Florida’s “laws, rules of court, and practices relating to civil procedure and case management to determine whether changes can be made to improve the resolution of civil cases.” Id.
The Workgroup submitted to the Court a report proposing extensive amendments to multiple rulesets. The Workgroup’s report explained that effective case management requires early judicial intervention and adherence to established deadlines. After holding oral argument, however, the Court declined to adopt the Workgroup’s proposed amendments. Instead, the Court made multiple referrals for the refinement and study of the Workgroup’s proposal.
As part of these referrals, the Court tasked The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee with studying and refining certain amendments proposed by the Workgroup for the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In response, the Committee filed a report with two alternative proposals. According to the Committee, the first option was intended to implement the existing case management requirements that were established by the Court in its COVID-19 administrative orders. The second option was intended to refine the proposal submitted by the Workgroup.
A majority of the Committee voted in favor of recommending the first option to the Court, and the Board of Governors voted to recommend acceptance of the proposed amendments. The Court published both alternatives for comment, and 55 comments were received.
After holding oral argument and considering the various proposals and comments as well as the Committee’s response, the Court now adopts a modified combination of the two alternatives proposed by the Committee.
II. AMENDMENTS
To codify active case management in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, we amend 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).2
Rule 1.200 is rewritten entirely and provides that each civil case must be assigned to one of three case management tracks (complex, general, or streamlined) within 120 days. Under rewritten rule 1.200, the chief judge of each judicial circuit is required to enter an administrative order addressing certain case management requirements. This approach allows each circuit to customize the process that works best for that circuit given the varying levels of volume, resources, and available automation. A circuit is free to require parties to file proposed case management orders, or a circuit may produce automated case management orders, among other possible customizations.
Rewritten rule 1.200 provides that “[i]n 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 deadlines in the case management order must be “differentiated based on whether the case is streamlined or general” and “consistent with the time standards specified in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1)(B),” and the order must include at least eight specified deadlines.
Rewritten rule 1.200 includes a detailed procedure for modifying the deadlines set forth in case management orders. It states that deadlines in case management orders “must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.” But it allows parties to “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.” The rule further explains that parties’ requests for modifications of actual trial periods are governed by rule 1.460. And “[i]f 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.”
Rule 1.200 also includes new provisions regarding case management conferences and pretrial conferences. A “court may set case management conferences at any time on its own notice or on proper notice by a party.” But “[i]f 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 address any scheduling issues at a case management conference and may, on reasonable notice to the parties, address any pending motions other than motions for summary judgment and motions requiring evidentiary hearings.
Complex cases proceed under rule 1.201, which we amend to provide that a court may (but is not required to) hold a hearing to determine whether a case should be designated as complex. We also amend rule 1.201 to provide that “[t]he parties must notify the court immediately if a case management conference or hearing time becomes unnecessary” and to expressly state that motions for trial continuances are governed by rule 1.460.
For rule 1.280, the Court incorporates into the scope of discovery subdivision the proportionality language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Rule 1.280 is further amended to require certain initial discovery disclosures “within 60 days after the service of the complaint or joinder, unless a different time is set by court order.” We also amend rule 1.280 to impose a duty to supplement discovery.
Our amendments to rule 1.440 eliminate the “at issue” requirement and instead provide that “[t]he failure of the pleadings to be closed will not preclude the court from setting a case for trial.” In addition, rule 1.440 is amended to require the court to enter an order fixing the trial period 45 days before any projected trial period in a case management order.
Finally, the Court rewrites rule 1.460 entirely to provide that “[m]otions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown.” Rewritten rule 1.460 also sets forth requirements for what must be included in a motion for a trial continuance and explains that, “[i]f a continuance is granted based on the dilatory conduct of an attorney or named party, the court may impose sanctions.”
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 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 shall become effective January 1, 2025, at 12:01 a.m. Because the amendments we adopt today are substantially different than either alternative submitted by the Committee, interested persons have 75 days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.3
The Court is grateful for the Committee’s and the Workgroup’s hard work, dedication, and recommendations. We also extend our appreciation to the commenters for their insight and assistance.
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.)
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
[Editor’s note: The Appendix is not included in this report. It may be viewed in its entirety in our Rule Revisions section of our website at www.FloridaLawWeekly.com at no charge. Subscribers may call our office at 800-351-0917 to request a copy.]
__________________
1We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see also Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).
2These titles reflect the amended titles for rules 1.200 and 1.460.
3All comments must be filed with the Court on or before August 6, 2024, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927.
__________________
(LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.) I concur with the majority’s decision to amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. However, in the absence of input from The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, I dissent to incorporating the proportionality language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) into rule 1.280(c), “Scope of Discovery.”
I would refer the issue of proportionality to the rules committee for its consideration and commentary before amending rule 1.280 to include the rule 26(b)(1) proportionality language.* * *