Modernizing Florida Litigation: The 2025 Civil Procedure Rule Overhaul

On January 1, 2025, major changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure took effect, transforming how civil cases are managed, litigated, and resolved. Rooted in four landmark Florida Supreme Court decisions issued in 2024, these amendments introduce significant updates to case management, discovery rules, and procedural requirements, addressing longstanding inefficiencies while aligning Florida’s rules with federal standards.

While these changes are designed to reduce the cost and burden of modern litigation, they are not without controversy. Concerns include their application across Florida’s diverse state court system—spanning cases of varying complexity—and the comparatively limited resources available to trial judges in state courts. Despite these challenges, the rules are now mandatory and require immediate attention from all practitioners and judges.

For practitioners accustomed to federal court—particularly those handling complex cases involving extensive discovery—many of these changes may feel like familiar territory. However, for many lawyers and judges, the new rules will require significant adjustments to practice and case management approaches. By exploring the context and purpose of these amendments, practitioners and judges will be better able to make the transition from existing rules and navigate and apply the new rules effectively.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE AMENDMENTS

Recognizing the challenges faced by Florida’s state courts—including diverse caseloads, limited judicial resources, and outdated procedural frameworks—the Florida Supreme Court sought to implement reforms aimed at improving efficiency and fairness. The amendments stem from years of study by the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, established in 2019.^[i] Tasked with addressing procedural inefficiencies, the Workgroup recommended reforms to streamline case management, reduce costs, and promote accountability while preserving due process.

The first round of amendments was issued in two decisions on May 23, 2024.^[ii] These initial rulings set the stage for the new rules to take effect on January 1, 2025. To ensure robust feedback, the Court allowed 75 days for public comment.^[iii] This feedback prompted further adjustments, culminating in two additional decisions on December 5, 2024.^[iv] While the two-step process added complexity in absorbing and understanding the amendments, it ensured thorough consideration of input from practitioners, judges, and organizations. This iterative approach reflects the Court’s commitment to crafting rules that address practical concerns and promote justice.

Following the Workgroup’s recommendations and input from The Florida Bar, lawyers, and judges, the amendments aim to create economical and efficient discovery practices and establish a framework for active case management. These rules emphasize adherence to early deadlines based on case complexity and incorporate key principles from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as proportionality in discovery, to ensure litigation efforts align with the needs of each case. The changes also provide flexibility for judicial circuits to tailor processes to their unique needs, reflecting a commitment to continuous improvement in the administration of justice.

Drawing heavily from the federal rules, the amendments reflect a balance between federal civil rules and the realities of Florida’s state courts. New rules and amendments give judges new case management tools, direction, and enforcement mechanisms to direct the progress of cases. Parties are under new obligations of mandatory initial disclosures,^[v] the duty to supplement discovery responses,^[vi] and adherence to the “proportionality” standard as set out in federal court rules. Continuances are still available but will be more restricted by rule.^[vii] A new rule^[viii] incorporates a requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing for most non-dispositive motions, and summary judgment deadlines were adjusted to facilitate compliance with deadlines in case management orders.^[ix]

This article synthesizes the Supreme Court’s insights from all four opinions, providing judges and lawyers with the essential context to navigate and apply the amended rules effectively in practice. The Court’s clear articulation of its intentions in the adopting opinions and accompanying commentary serves as a valuable guide for implementing the new standards. These resources are particularly important as practitioners and judges adapt to significant shifts in discovery practices, such as mandatory initial disclosures, proportionality requirements, and the duty to supplement discovery responses. By focusing on the reasoning behind these changes, the Court’s opinions help clarify the broader goals of efficiency and fairness, making them indispensable for understanding and executing the amended rules in Florida’s civil justice system.

AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY AND SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL CASES

To codify active case management in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 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).^[x] The key amendments and rationale provided in the Supreme Court opinions are as follows:

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 (Case Management; Pretrial Procedure): Florida judges previously had the discretion to assign cases to different tracks and were encouraged to apply differentiated case management. However, Fla. R. Civ P. 1.200 was entirely rewritten to require active differentiated case management. Each civil case must be assigned to one of three case management tracks (complex, general, or streamlined) within 120 days either by an initial case management order or an administrative order on case management issued by the circuit’s chief judge.^[xi] Parties may request a different track but must do so promptly after the appearance of good cause to support the motion.^[xii] The court may change the track on its own motion.^[xiii]

According to the Supreme Court, the amendments were intended to ensure early and active case management tailored to the complexity of each case, allowing circuits to customize their processes based on volume, resources, and available automation.^[xiv] The chief judge of each judicial circuit must enter an administrative order addressing certain case management requirements.^[xv] A circuit may require parties to file proposed case management orders or may produce automated case management orders, among other possible alternatives.^[xvi]

“Complex” cases are actions likely to involve complicated legal or case management issues and require extensive judicial management and may be designated by court order as complex based on factors in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(a). Complex cases must proceed as provided in rule 1.201.^[xvii] “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 of no more than three days.^[xviii] Uncontested cases should generally be presumed to be streamlined cases. “General” cases are all other actions that do not meet the criteria for streamlined or complex.^[xix]

In streamlined and general cases, the court must issue a case management order (“CMO”) 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 CMO 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). The CMO must state that the deadlines will be strictly enforced^[xx] and must include at least eight specified deadlines.^[xxi] In the December 5 rules opinion, the Court added “filing and service of motions for summary judgment” to the list of deadlines that Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(d)(2) requires to be in case management orders^.[xxii]

The court must issue the case management order no later than 120 days after commencement of the action as provided in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050 or 30 days after service of the complaint on the last of all named defendants, whichever date comes first.^[xxiii]

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(e) includes a detailed procedure for modifying the deadlines in CMOs. Deadlines in CMOs “must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.”^[xxiv] However, 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 CMO.^[xxv] Parties’ requests for modifications of actual trial periods are governed by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460. 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.^[xxvi] The order resetting the trial period must reflect what further activity will or will not be permitted.^[xxvii]

There are new provisions in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 regarding case management conferences and pretrial conferences. A court may set case management conferences at any time on its own reasonable notice or on reasonable notice by a party; but if noticed by a party, the notice must identify the specific issues to be addressed during the case management conference and must also provide a list of all pending motions.^[xxviii] 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.^[xxix]

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090 (Extensions of Time): After considering the comments, the response, and oral argument concerning the amendments announced on May 23, the Court issued another opinion^[xxx] on December 5 that left in place almost all case management amendments adopted in the decision of May 23, 2024 and confirmed the effective date of January 1, 2025. However, the court adopted additional amendments to make the May 2024 changes more effective and to resolve potential inconsistencies.^[xxxi] The Court exempted trial continuances and extensions of deadlines in case management orders from the general extension of time rule, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090.^[xxxii] Under revised Rule 1.090(b)(1), when an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201 (Complex Litigation): Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201 was amended to provide that a court may (but is not required to) hold a hearing to determine whether a case should be designated as complex.^[xxxiii] The parties must notify the court immediately if a case management conference or hearing time becomes unnecessary.^[xxxiv] The rule now expressly provides that trial continuances are governed by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460.^[xxxv]

In its December 5 rules opinion, the Court adjusted the conferral language in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201 to account for new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions)(discussed in detail below).^[xxxvi] Language was added to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201 to clarify that, while Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 requires conferral before a motion is 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.^[xxxvii]

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions): On May 23, 2024, the Court, on its own motion, amended Fla. R. Civ. P.1.510 (Summary Judgment)(discussed below) and adopted new Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions) in order to complement the civil case management amendments that the Court adopted in In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 386 So. 3d 497, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 793 (May 23, 2024).^[xxxviii]

New Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 requiring parties to confer before filing non-dispositive motions was adopted to further assist case management efforts.^[xxxix] Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202, 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 on the resolution of the motion.^[xl] A certification that the opposing party was unavailable for a conference before filing the motion should describe all efforts undertaken to accomplish dialogue with the opposing party prior to filing the motion.^[xli] The Court reasoned that:

With a detailed certificate of conferral, the trial judge will be better positioned to address problems between the parties at a hearing. And given constraints on hearing time, parties are expected to confer and attempt to resolve the issues raised in a motion before reserving hearing time.^[xlii]

In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. ii at 118.

After considering the comments, the response, and oral argument concerning the amendments announced on May 23, the Court issued another opinion on December 5 further amending rules 1.510 and 1.202.^[xliii] For Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202, the Court expanded the motions that are exempt from the duty to confer, listing the exempt motions in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(c). The Court also added that the rule’s requirements do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented.^[xliv] In the required certificate of conferral form, the Court added an option for certifying that conferral is not required under the rule. Finally, the Court added a sanctions provision. Under new Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(d), the failure to comply with the conferral requirements “may result in an appropriate sanction, including denial of a motion without prejudice” and the “purposeful evasion” of conferral communication “may result in an appropriate sanction.”

The conferral provision is the counterpart of federal rule “meet and confer” requirements. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 should be a welcome addition to the rules for judges and many practitioners, as many local rules required conferral on discovery motions and communicating with the opposing party on non-dipositive motions makes abundant sense for efficiency and economy: two prime goals of the rule amendments.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440 (Setting Action for Trial): Among the amendments in the December 5 opinion to resolve “potential inconsistencies,”^[xlv] amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a) eliminate the “at issue” requirement and instead provide that the failure of the pleadings to be closed will not preclude the court from setting a case for trial. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c)(2) requires the court to enter an order fixing the trial period 45 days before any projected trial period in a case management order.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460 (Motions to Continue Trial): In the May 23 opinion, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460 was entirely rewritten and now provides that motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown.^[xlvi] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(d) sets out requirements for what must be included in a motion for a trial continuance and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(g) provides that, if a continuance is granted based on the dilatory conduct of an attorney or named party, the court may impose sanctions. In the December 5 opinion, the Court removed the conferral language in rule 1.460(d) as it is duplicative of the new Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (Conferral on Motions)(discussed in detail below).^[xlvii]

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 (Summary Judgment): In the May 23 opinion on Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 and 1.510, the Court on its own motion amended the summary judgment rule to help ensure adherence to the deadlines set forth in the case management orders required under the newly amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 (Case Management; Pretrial Procedure) and 1.201 (Complex Litigation).^[xlviii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b) was amended to tie the deadline to respond to a motion for summary judgment to the date of service of the motion rather than to the hearing date.

After considering the comments and holding oral argument, the Court further amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 on December 5.^[xlix] Amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b) provides that a motion for summary judgment must be filed and served “consistent with any court-ordered deadlines.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5) was amended to provide that a response must be served “[n]o later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment.” To ensure that parties and courts have time to prepare for summary judgment hearings, the Court added Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(6) to specify that “[a]ny 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.”

Practitioners must beware of the change in deadlines. Under the old rule, the response was based on the hearing date, with a requirement to respond at least 20 days before the hearing on the motion. Under the amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5), the response, including the respondent’s factual position, is due no later than 40 days after service of the motion.

Case Management Effective Dates: The amended and new rules apply to all cases pending as of January 1, 2025, except that the requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 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 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 or amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201. For actions commenced before January 1, 2025, and in which the trial court had not issued a case management order by that date, a case management order must be issued by April 4, 2025.^[l] The provisions of amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 and new Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 govern motions filed on or after January 1, 2025, but will not apply to motions filed before that date.^[li]

SCOPE OF DISCOVERY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (General Provisions Concerning Discovery): Sweeping changes to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 add discovery requirements and limitations modeled on federal rules. After the May 23 case called for additional comments, twenty comments were filed, and The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed a response to the comments. After considering the comments, the Court left in place almost all the case management, proportionality, and discovery amendments that we adopted in our decision of May 23. However, additional amendments were adopted on December 5 to make the May 2024 proportionality and discovery changes more effective and to resolve potential inconsistencies and the January 1, 2025 effective date remained in place.^[lii]

1. Initial Disclosure and duty to Supplement: Parties must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties certain initial discovery disclosures unless privileged, protected from disclosure, or exempted by the court.^[liii] Unless exempt by rule or court order, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a) now requires certain initial discovery disclosures within 60 days after the service of the complaint or joinder, unless a different time is set by court order, and there is a duty to supplement discovery in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g). A party is not excused from making its initial discovery disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case, because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s initial discovery disclosures, or because another party has not made its initial discovery disclosures.^[liv]

   After consideration of comments and further oral argument, the Court acted to address the lack of coordination between the timing of initial discovery disclosures and the timing of the first set of discovery requests by adding Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(f)(1) 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.”^[lv] The Court also added Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(d) to provide an enforcement mechanism for the initial discovery disclosure and supplemental discovery obligations that the Court added in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a) and (g). Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(d) details the sanctions available when a party fails to disclose or to supplement an earlier response.^[lvi]

2. Scope of Discovery: Under the previous version of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(Scope of Discovery), parties were permitted to 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,” and it was not grounds for objection “that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”^[lvii] Under the revised Rule 1.280(c)(1), 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). This is a significant shift for Florida courts that reflects the realities of monitoring the cost and efficiency modern litigation as is the addition of proportionality language in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)(1).

3. Proportionality for all Discovery: The Court incorporated into the scope of discovery subdivision of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 the proportionality language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).^[lviii] Proportionality now expressly applies to all discovery,^[lix] not just electronically stored information as required by the former Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d) since the 2012 rule amendments.^[lx]

   Proportionality was a key topic among the comments leading to the initial May 23 amendments and again before the December 5 opinion. After considering the comments, the Civil Rules Committee response, and oral argument, the Court stood firm on the proportionality and scope of discovery amendments that were adopted in the decision of May 23. In the December 5 opinion, the Court added a Commentary to rule 1.280 to explain that the Court has adopted almost all the text of federal rule 26(b)(1) verbatim and that it is “to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard.”^[lxi] The Court expressed that the “Commentary should be sufficient to lead practitioners and judges to look to federal history and precedents when applying proportionality.”^[lxii]

   A significant advantage of adopting the language and structure of the federal rules is the ability to rely on established federal precedent. This offers invaluable guidance for practitioners and judges as they navigate the application of the new proportionality standard. Federal courts have generated a substantial body of published case law on discovery issues, far surpassing what is available in Florida’s state courts. Florida courts can draw from this wealth of authority to resolve disputes and interpret the new rules effectively, which ensures that the proportionality standard is applied thoughtfully and uniformly across cases, promoting fairness and efficiency in discovery. As the Florida courts begin to implement these amendments, the availability of federal precedent will be an essential tool for interpreting and refining the proportionality standard.

4. Requirements for Objections and Interrogatories. To further assist in the transition to proportionality as a scope of discovery issue for all discovery, the Court amended Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340 and 1.350 to require parties to provide the grounds for objecting “with specificity,” “including the reasons.”^[lxiii] In Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340, Court added a Court Commentary to explain that “[a]ny use of standard interrogatories must be adjusted for proportional discovery.”^[lxiv] The Court will be referring the possible revision of the standard interrogatories to the appropriate Florida Bar committee.^[lxv] In rule 1.350, added the requirement that “[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”^[lxvi] Adding this sentence derived from the federal rule was done to eliminate resources being needlessly wasted on objections where no materials are being withheld.^[lxvii] The Court also added the next sentence from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34: “An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” This was added to help discovery progress when there is only an objection to part of a request.^[lxviii]

   The requirement of specificity in objections has been a valuable part of federal civil procedure.^[lxix] These rules ensure that objections are clear and detailed, preventing vague or boilerplate objections that can hinder the discovery process and result in delay. If a party believes that a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome, they must explain from the outset the specific and particular ways in which the request is problematic. The requirement of specificity is an effective tool for discovery case management and has found its way into local rules^[lxx] and in discovery rules and procedures required by federal judges.^[lxxi] The Florida Supreme Court recognized this approach as a sensible and forward-thinking way to avoid discovery objections that just generally cite proportionality without any further explanation.^[lxxii] Properly embraced and enforced by Florida judges and practitioners, these amendments will move parties away from wasteful boilerplate and vague objections so the parties and court can focus on real issues in more timely and efficient ways.

RESPONDING TO CHANGE: THE CHALLENGES AND VALUE OF FLORIDA’S NEW RULES

Florida courts face distinct challenges compared to their federal counterparts, including the absence of magistrate judges and law clerks, as well as a broader range of case sizes and types. Unsurprisingly, the May 23 opinions^[lxxiii] elicited mixed reactions, with the courts receiving a wide range of passionate comments.

In a partial dissent to the May 23^[lxxiv] and December 5^[lxxv] opinions, Justice Jorge LaBarga expressed concerns about adopting the federal proportionality standard, citing significant differences in workload and resources between Florida judges and their federal counterparts. ^[lxxvi] Justice LaBarga’s concerns are valid; ^[lxxvii] Florida’s trial judges often manage heavier caseloads with fewer resources. However, it is important to note that proportionality has been part of Florida’s discovery rules for electronically stored information since 2012 (former Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d), now 1.280(e)). The recent amendments merely extend this principle to all discovery, aligning the rules with what is both logical and necessary for modern litigation.

The shift to the federal model for discovery and case management brings the added advantage of established federal precedent, offering invaluable guidance for judges and practitioners. Yet, the true advancements lie in the expanded scope of discovery, mandatory conferral requirements, initial disclosure obligations, informative objections, and reinforced proportionality standards. Together, these reforms mark significant progress toward efficiency and cost-effectiveness in litigation.

Keeping pace with the rapid growth of modern data and the ever-expanding methods of creating, exchanging, and storing information is critical. Emails, social media, cloud-based documents, instant messages, and other digital formats have fundamentally reshaped the litigation landscape. The sheer volume and diversity of this data present immense challenges for courts and litigants alike.

This data explosion does not exclusively burden large corporations with the resources to manage complex discovery. Small businesses and individuals, often facing asymmetrical discovery demands, struggle with the substantial costs and complexities involved. By equipping courts with tools to enforce proportional discovery, the amendments help level the playing field and foster fairer outcomes for all litigants.

These changes, while demanding significant adjustments from judges and practitioners, are essential to ensure Florida’s justice system remains equipped to handle the realities of modern litigation. The Supreme Court’s commitment to revisiting and refining these rules over time reflects a pragmatic approach, ensuring the reforms remain effective as they are tested in practice.

Although adapting to these new processes may be challenging, the Supreme Court’s efforts are commendable. By implementing these reforms, the Court has taken a decisive step toward modernizing Florida’s civil justice system, and it will undoubtedly continue to adjust as experience with the new rules provides further insights.

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

In my view as a former Florida judge, the proportionality provisions are not the greatest challenge of the new rules. The real difficulty lies in the increased burden on judges to actively manage cases across diverse and often overwhelming dockets. Meeting this challenge will require education, diligent effort, and significant adjustments by the judiciary. Chief Judges can play a pivotal role by issuing administrative orders that tailor case management processes to the specific needs and resources of their circuits—a flexibility built into the new rules. ^[lxxviii] Embracing and enforcing the rules will be a key to success. Tools for enforcing the rules and direction from the Court are provided in the rules, Commentary, and adopting opinions.^[lxxix] It is now up to the judiciary to employ them.

Equally important, however, is the need for lawyers and litigants to shift their approach to case management and discovery. Resolving disputes proactively and minimizing unnecessary court involvement will be crucial. This demands thorough preparation, deliberate case management by attorneys, and strict attention to deadlines. Clients must also understand their responsibilities under the new rules, including their disclosure obligations, tighter timelines, and the potential consequences of noncompliance.

The days of foot-dragging, overbroad discovery requests, boilerplate objections, and reliance on the court to micromanage cases are over. Under the new rules, these counterproductive practices will no longer be tolerated. Instead, success will require a commitment to efficiency, cooperation, and the principles of the rule of law.

Key Takeaways

1. Mandatory Active Case Management:
   Judges must actively oversee case progression with tailored case management orders issued early in the litigation process. This includes assigning cases to “complex,” “general,” or “streamlined” tracks, with strict enforcement of deadlines designed to reflect each case’s complexity.
2. Proportionality in Discovery:
   The scope of discovery now applies proportionality principles uniformly across all discovery—not just electronically stored information. This change aligns Florida’s rules with the federal standard, emphasizing efficiency and relevance to claims and defenses.
3. Initial Disclosures and Duty to Supplement:
   Parties are now required to provide initial discovery disclosures without awaiting formal requests and to supplement those disclosures as needed. Noncompliance can result in sanctions, signaling the Court’s commitment to timely and transparent discovery.
4. Conferral Requirements:
   New Rule 1.202 mandates that parties confer before filing most non-dispositive motions. This requirement, modeled after federal “meet and confer” provisions, promotes communication and reduces unnecessary court involvement.
5. Summary Judgment Deadlines:
   Deadlines for filing and responding to summary judgment motions have been adjusted to align with case management orders, ensuring consistency and adequate preparation time for all parties.
6. Stricter Rules for Continuances:
   Motions to continue trials are now disfavored and require detailed justification, with courts empowered to impose sanctions for dilatory behavior that necessitates delays.
7. Federal Precedent as a Resource:
   By adopting language consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida practitioners and judges can draw on a robust body of federal case law to guide the interpretation and application of the amended rules.

CONCLUSION

The Florida Supreme Court’s overhaul of the discovery and case management rules is both ambitious and necessary, reflecting a commitment to aligning civil litigation with principles of justice, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. These amendments provide the structure to address longstanding inefficiencies and create a fairer and more effective civil justice system.

The success of this transformation lies in the ability of judges, lawyers, and litigants to embrace the changes with a collaborative spirit and a commitment to adapting their practices. Judges must lead through proactive case management, while lawyers must prioritize preparation, communication, and adherence to the new procedural expectations. Clients, too, must be educated on their responsibilities and the potential consequences of noncompliance.

While challenges are inevitable, Florida’s legal community has consistently demonstrated resilience and adaptability in the face of change. By collectively embracing these reforms, Florida’s legal community can foster a more efficient and equitable justice system—one that meets the demands of modern litigation while honoring the enduring principles of the rule of law. The Florida Supreme Court has provided a roadmap; it is now up to the legal community to turn this vision into reality.

Read the article, originally published in Practical Guidance, here.

Notes

[i] In re Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Admin. Order No. AOSC19-73 (Fla. Oct. 31, 2019).

[ii] In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 386 So. 3d 497, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 793 (Fla. May 23, 2024), and In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510 & New Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.202, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 791 (Fla. May 23, 2024).

[iii] In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[iv] In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024), and In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510 & New Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.202, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1917 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024).

[v] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a).

[vi] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g).

[vii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460

[viii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202.

[ix] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510.

[x] In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[xi] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b).

[xii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.20(c)(1).

[xiii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.20(c)(2).

[xiv] In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[xv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b).

[xvi] In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[xvii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b)(1).

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

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

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

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

[xxii] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *7.

[xxiii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(d)(4).

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

[xxv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(e)(2).

[xxvi] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(h).

[xxvii] Id.

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

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

[xxx] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv.

[xxxi] Id. at *4.

[xxxii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(2).

[xxxiii] 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[xxxiv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(c)(4).

[xxxv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(b)(3).

[xxxvi] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *7.

[xxxvii] Id.

[xxxviii] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. ii at 118.

[xxxix] Id.

[xl] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(b).

[xli] Id.

[xlii] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. ii at 118.

[xliii] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. iv at *3.

[xliv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202(c).

[xlv] Id. at *4.

[xlvi] Id. at *7.

[xlvii] Id.

[xlviii] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. ii at 118.

[xlix] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. iv at *3.

[l] Id. at *7-8.

[li] In re Amendments to 1.510 & 1.202, supra n. iv at *4.

[lii] Id. at *6-7.

[liii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a). Relevant information to be disclosed includes the names and pertinent information about witnesses and what they might know, information about documents and other evidence, computation of damages, and copies of insurance policies or agreements. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(1)(A)-(D). A valid objection in part to initial disclosure does not excuse a party from the remaining initial disclosure. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)(4).

[liv] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a)

[lv] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *6-7.

[lvi] Id. at *6.

[lvii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1)(2012).

[lviii] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *10.

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

[lx] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(now Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(e)).

[lxi] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *5.

[lxii] Id.

[lxiii] Id. at * 5-6.

[lxiv] Id.

[lxv] Id.

[lxvi] Id.

[lxvii] Id.

[lxviii] Id.

[lxix] Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); 34(b)(2)(b).

[lxx]See, e.g., U.S. District Court S.D. Fla., Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(A) found at 24-11-06 2024 Local Rules effective 120224 – FINAL.pdf.

[lxxi] See, e.g., DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREN F. LOUIS (S.D. Fla.) found at DiscoveryProceduresLFL.pdf.

[lxxii] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *5.

[lxxiii] In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 386 So. 3d 497 and In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510 & New Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.202, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 791, supra n. ii.

[lxxiv] In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Proc., 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 527.

[lxxv] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv at *64.

[lxxvi] Id. at *67.

[lxxvii] The Florida Supreme Court has certified the need for 48 additional trial court judgeships statewide—23 in circuit court and 25 in county court in its most recent findings submitted to the Legislature. See In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges., 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1947 (Fla. December 12, 2024).

[lxxviii] In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii at 500.

[lxxix] In re Amendments, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1914, supra n. iv; and In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510 & New Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.202, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 1917, supra n. iv; In re Amendments, 386 So. 3d, supra n. ii, and In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510 & New Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.202, 2024 Fla. LEXIS 791, supra n. ii.