Replies Typically Not Allowed in the Middle District of Florida
In civil litigation, a motion is simply a request for a court to take or not take a specific action. Ordinarily, a party can file a motion, the opposing party can file a response to the motion, and the moving party can file a reply to the opposing party’s response. However, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a Local Rule prohibits the filing of replies. See M.D. Fla. L.R. 3.01(c).
Local Rule 3.01(c) provides that “[n]o party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to the motion or response allowed in (a) and (b) unless the Court grants leave.” M.D. Fla. L.R. 3.01(c). “Where a party has improperly filed a reply, it is appropriate for the Court to strike the reply.” Williams v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 8:08–cv–2448–T–33EAJ, 2010 WL 1380138, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2010). In Williams, the Court struck an unauthorized reply “[b]ecause [p]laintiff did not seek leave of Court to file his reply and the Court [wa]s unpersuaded by the reasons given by [p]laintiff for the need to file a reply ….” Id.
Unauthorized Replies are Usually Stricken in the Middle District of Florida
In the Middle District, under Local Rule 3.01(c), unauthorized replies are subject to being stricken by the Court. See, e.g.:
- Morris-Huse v. GEICO, No: 8:16-cv-1353-T-36AEP, 2018 WL 6040288, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2018) (“Because the Reply was unauthorized, it has not been considered by the Court.”);
- Farrell v. Fla. Republicans, No. 2:13–cv–140–FtM–29DNF, 2013 WL 5498277, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2013) (“The document appears to be a reply …. The document was not filed with leave of Court. The Motion to Strike … will be granted and the document stricken.”);
- Barcomb v. Fiserv Health, Inc., No. 8:08–cv–1790–T–23TGW, 2009 WL 2765468, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009) (“This submission constitutes an unauthorized post-hearing reply which is prohibited by Local Rule 3.01(c) and, as such, should be stricken by the court.”);
- Serefex Corp. v. Hickman Holdings, LP, No. 2:08–cv–692–FtM–29DNF, 2010 WL 2573852, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2010) (“Since Defendant … did not seek leave from the Court … the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [the] Reply.”).
Replies are Allowed with Court Permission if the Requesting Party can Establish Good Cause why a Reply is Necessary
In the Middle District, a party wishing to file a reply must first seek permission from court, which is only granted if the moving party can establish “good cause” for why a reply is necessary.
The Court addressed the principles of Local Rule 3.01(c) in Regions Bank v. Hyman, No. 8:09–cv–1841–T–17MAP, 2013 WL 12166237, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2013). There the Court denied a motion for leave to file a reply. Id. The Court found that “[p]laintiff’s request to reply to the [d]efendants’ answer, presents the same theme – one more attempt to have one more say.” Id.
However, “[c]ontrary to the [p]laintiff’s comment that such motions are commonly allowed … motions for leave to file a reply are not typically granted.” Regions Bank, 2013 WL 12166237, at *1 (emphasis added). “Indeed, replies or any other pleading directed to the motion are disfavored (see Local Rule 3.01(c), which requires leave of court before filing a reply; hence, the rule infers the practice should be sparingly considered).” Id. (emphasis added).
Consequently, “[w]hile parties may ask for leave to file a reply, they must show good cause.” McDonald v. United States, No. 3:13–cv–168–J–37MCR, 2013 WL 3901871, at *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2013) (emphasis added). In McDonald, the Court denied leave to file a reply finding that “[p]etitioner has not shown good cause for filing a reply in this case and … the Court discerns no reason to grant leave.” Id.
In Skiles v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-813-Orl-28GJK, 2008 WL 11435613, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008), the defendant requested leave to reply to the plaintiff’s response. The Court noted, “Pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) and Local Rule 3.01(c), a party must seek leave of court prior to filing a reply brief and establish good cause for filing a reply.” Id. The Court denied leave finding “[t]he [d]efendant has not shown good cause why a reply brief is necessary.” Id. (emphasis added).