Amendments Align Florida Rules with Federal Standards and Attempt Greater Efficiency

On January 1, 2025, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure changed dramatically. The new rules and amendments are designed to enhance efficiency, impact the setting of cases for trial, case management, discovery practice, summary judgment and more. 

Broadly speaking, the new rules attempt to model the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Brand new provisions include mandatory initial disclosures by all parties, a continuing duty to supplement discovery responses and the “proportionality” standard used in federal court.  Continuances, while still available, will be more difficult to come by. Judges throughout Florida will have additional case management tools and enforcement mechanisms at their fingertips.   

Florida’s state courts are, however, very different from federal courts in the way they operate and the resources available to the often overburdened judicial system. Understanding the new rules and their impact are vital to anyone who litigates in Florida’s state courts.  Highlights of many new changes and their impact are discussed below.

Case Management

Case Tracks

One of the most significant changes is the creation of Rule 1.200, which addresses case management and pretrial procedures.[1] Previously, judges had the discretion to assign cases to case management tracks. Rule 1.200, as rewritten, now requires courts to assign each case a “track” within 120 days of filing.[2] Judges may do this by issuing case management orders, or the chief judge of each circuit may issue an administrative order defining the deadlines for each track.[3] Therefore, attorneys must know whether the circuits in which they appear have standing administrative orders, or whether the judges they appear before will issue one at the outset of the case.

Based on “the amount of judicial attention required for the resolution” of the case, judges must assign each case to one of three case management tracks: (1) complex, (2) general, or (3) streamlined.[4]

Streamlined cases involve limited needs for discovery, well-established legal issues, few dispositive motions, minimal documentary evidence, and a trial length of no more than three days.[5] Complex cases are “likely to involve complicated legal or case management issues and that may require extensive judicial management to expedite the action, keep costs reasonable, or promote judicial efficiency.”[6] Courts must consider eight factors when deciding whether a case is complex, including whether the action is likely to involve numerous pretrial motions, management of a large number of separately represented parties, coordination with related actions pending in other jurisdictions, and any other analytical factors likely to arise in the case that tend to complicate comparable actions.[7] General cases are all other cases that would not qualify as streamlined or complex.[8]

Although judges assign the applicable case track, parties may request a different one. However, they must do so “promptly after the appearance of good cause.”[9]

Rule 1.200 also requires judges to issue case management orders (“CMOs”) for streamlined and general cases that specify the projected trial period and eight other deadlines, including the completion of fact discovery, filing and service of motions for summary judgment, resolution of all objections to pleadings, and completion of alternative dispute resolution.[10] These deadlines “must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.”[11]

Modification of CMO Deadlines

Parties can still submit agreed orders to extend deadlines if an extension will not affect their ability to comply with the remaining CMO dates.[12] If the requested extension does impact other deadlines, the parties must formally seek amendment of the CMO.[13] Additionally, notices of unavailability do not affect CMO deadlines.[14]

If trial dates are already in place, parties must show good cause to change them.[15] Continuances of trial periods “should rarely be granted.”[16] Lack of diligence in preparing for trial will not amount to “good cause.”[17] Further, successive continuances are “highly disfavored.”[18] If the need for a continuance arises, parties must file written motions “promptly.”[19] The parties must confer, and the non-moving party must “cooperate in responding and holding a conference.”[20] If the parties do not confer, the motion must explain the dates and methods of efforts to confer.[21] Failure to communicate may result in sanctions.[22] If a judge grants a continuance, the court order must either set a new trial date or schedule a case management conference while clearly specifying which case activities may proceed.[23]

Case Management Conferences

Rule 1.200 further provides that courts may set case management conferences at any time on their own notice, or on proper notice by a party.[24] A notable requirement of this Rule is that a party’s notice must identify the specific issues to be addressed during the conference and provide a list of all pending motions.[25] At the conference, the court may address any scheduling issues in the case, and may address any pending motions other than motions for summary judgment and motions requiring evidentiary hearings.[26] Under Rule 1.200, attorneys should appear at case management conferences prepared to address any scheduling issues or pending motions in the case.[27]

If a party cannot meet a CMO deadline, including for lack of hearing time, it must “promptly set a case management conference and alert the court.”[28] This Rule may result in logistical problems, where a lack of hearing time before the judge may prevent a party from meeting a CMO deadline, and the party’s recourse is to seek additional time before the judge. Following a case management conference, judges may draft their own orders, or set a deadline for parties to submit a proposed order.[29] If the parties do not agree on a proposed order, they must submit competing orders that identify the basis of any objections at the time of submission.[30]

Discovery

The Court also modified the discovery process by changing the scope of discovery and requiring initial disclosures.[31] Both modifications aim to align Florida’s discovery process with federal standards. 

Scope of Discovery

Previously, parties could discover “any non-privileged matter relevant to the subject matter of the case, so long as it was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”[32] Under the revised Rule 1.280, discoverable information must now be relevant to the specific claims or defenses in the case, aligning Florida’s standard more closely with the federal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).[33] The new Rule also emphasizes the federal Rule’s “proportionality” standard, which requires courts and parties to consider factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, ease of access to information, parties’ resources, and whether the burden or expense of discovery outweighs its likely benefit.[34] The Court, as recommended by multiple commenters, added a Court Commentary to Rule 1.280 to explain that it 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.”[35] As such, the Court gave practitioners and judges the green light to rely on federal precedent when applying proportionality.

Foreseeing that this Rule may bring about bare-bones proportionality objections, the Court also amended Rules 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties) and 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry on Land for Inspection and Other Purposes) to require attorneys to provide the grounds for objecting with specificity, “including the reasons” for the objection.[36] In its commentary on Rule 1.340, the Court prompted the Florida Bar committee to revisit the standard interrogatories to align them with the federal discovery standard.[37] Additionally, hoping to “eliminate resources being needlessly wasted on objections where no materials are being withheld,” the Court added that objections must state whether responsive materials are being withheld based on the objection.[38]

Although narrower, Florida’s new discovery standard may reduce the potential for overly broad or burdensome discovery practices, promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The proportionality standard may also increase the need for judicial involvement in discovery, as judges decide what is proportional to a case’s needs.

Initial Disclosures

To further align the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure with the Federal Rules, Rule 1.280 requires parties to now make initial disclosures within sixty days after service of the complaint or joinder.[39] Parties must disclose (1) the names of persons with knowledge (and of what) the disclosing party may use to support claims/defenses, (2) copies or descriptions of documents that the disclosing party may use to support claims/defenses, (3) damage computations for each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party and a copy of the document on which each computation is based, and (4) insurance policies which might satisfy all or part of a judgment.[40] The amendments expressly state that a party is not excused from making its initial disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case, challenges the sufficiency of another party’s initial disclosures, or because another party has not made its initial disclosures.[41]

Importantly, parties are under a continuing obligation to supplement or correct these initial disclosures, and any discovery responses, on their own accord and promptly upon learning that a response was incomplete or incorrect.[42] Therefore, all discovery requests are now considered continuing, and parties must disclose information or documents they obtain after serving discovery responses immediately.[43]

Motion Practice

To ensure adherence to the deadlines set forth in the CMOs, the Florida Supreme Court also amended the Summary Judgment Rule.[44] Previously, the deadline to respond to a motion for summary judgment was tied to the hearing date, and a party had to respond at least 20 days before the hearing on the motion.[45] Now, the response is due 40 days after the service of the motion for summary judgment.[46] As a result, practitioners should begin preparing their responses to motions for summary judgment as soon as possible, without regard for hearing dates.

The Court also adopted an entirely new Rule, which requires parties to communicate before filing non-dispositive motions.[47] Under this Rule, parties are expected to confer and attempt to resolve the issues raised in a motion before reserving hearing time.[48] The movant must file with the motion a statement certifying that the movant has conferred with the opposing party and stating whether the opposing party agrees with the resolution of the motion.[49] If the opposing party is unavailable for a conference before the motion is filed, the motion should describe all of the movant’s efforts to establish a dialogue between the parties.[50] This Rule aims to reduce the number of motions requiring judicial attention and rulings. How effective this will be in resolving motions remains uncertain, especially given the predominantly adversarial nature of motion practice.

Implications

With the implementation of mandatory and stringent case management deadlines and narrower discovery, these amendments aim to streamline civil litigation and promote efficiency in case management. However, with all eyes on the judiciary, many wonder whether these Rules will stretch the bench too thin. Florida state court judges manage exceptionally voluminous caseloads and lack comparable resources to their federal counterparts. As such, requiring state court judges to take a more hands-on role in overseeing deadlines, discovery disputes, and other pretrial matters has the potential to strain the system.  Courts are resilient, however and will no doubt adapt to the new landscape.  

For attorneys, these changes mean an increased emphasis on preparation and proactive case management. Attorneys will need to comply rigorously with deadlines set in CMOs, which leave less room for extensions and last-minute motions. The Rules also revamp discovery by introducing initial disclosures and proportionality considerations, calling for attorneys who normally practice in state court to freshen up on federal standards.

Another implication of the amendments is the need for attorneys to educate their clients on the new Rules. With tighter deadlines to meet, mandatory disclosures, and the possibility for both attorney and client sanctions, attorneys must inform their clients early on about the transitional difficulties posed by the Rules.

Finally, although the new Rules aim to reduce unnecessary motions, the potential for disputes over compliance with disclosure requirements and CMO deadlines could lead to additional litigation, offsetting some of the intended efficiency benefits.

Conclusion

Ultimately, while the new Rules aspire to modernize civil litigation in Florida and reduce inefficiencies, their success will depend heavily on how judges and practitioners adapt. For judges already navigating high caseloads with limited resources, the increased demands could delay rather than expedite case resolution. For attorneys, these changes emphasize the importance of diligent case preparation, effective client communication, and strategic thinking to avoid unnecessary conflicts and stay ahead in this evolving procedural landscape.

[1] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 (2024).

[2] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b) (2024).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b)(2) (2024).

[6] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(a)(1) (2024).

[7] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(a)(2) (2024).

[8] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b)(3) (2024).

[9] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(c)(1) (2024).

[10] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(d)(2) (2024).

[11] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(d)(3) (2024).

[12] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(e)(1) (2024).

[13] Id.

[14] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(f) (2024).

[15] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(a) (2024).

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(c) (2024).

[20] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(d) (2024).

[21] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(d)(4) (2024).

[22] Id.

[23] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(h) (2024).

[24] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(j)(1) (2024).

[25] Id.

[26] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(j)(2) (2024).

[27] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(j)(3) (2024).

[28] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(g) (2024).

[29] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(j)(5) (2024).

[30] Id.

[31] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (2024).

[32] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (2012).

[33] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)(1) (2024); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

[34] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)(1) (2024).

[35] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (2024).

[36] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340 (2024); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 (2024).

[37] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340 (2024).

[38] In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P., 49 Fla. L. Weekly S289 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024).

[39] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(1) (2024); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(3) (2024).

[40] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(1) (2024).

[41] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(4) (2024).

[42] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g) (2024).

[43] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g)(1) (2024).

[44] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 (2024).

[45] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 (2021).

[46] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5) (2024).

[47] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (2024).

[48] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(a) (2024).

[49] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(b) (2024).

[50] Id.