Motion to Strike Objections to R&R — Wall v. CDC

Summary

Federal Defendants' Motion to Strike, filed in Lucas Wall against Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others, United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI (Doc. 163). It moves to strike Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 162), without prejudice to refiling in compliance with the Local Rules, because Plaintiff's 55-page filing exceeds the page limits set forth in Local Rule 3.01. The motion argues that the 20-page limit in Local Rule 3.01(b) applies, or at least the 25-page limit of Local Rule 3.01(a) if the objection were analogized to a motion. The certification states that Plaintiff reported that he opposes the relief requested.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID 4997




                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                               ORLANDO DIVISION



  LUCAS WALL,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.                                 Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

  CENTERS FOR DISEASE
  CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
  et al.,

                        Defendants.


                  FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

       Federal Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate

 Judge’s Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 162, without prejudice to refiling in

 compliance with the Local Rules, because Plaintiff’s 55-page filing exceeds the page

 limits set forth in Local Rule 3.01. As good cause for this request, Federal Defendants

 offer the following:

       1.        On October 7, 2021, the Honorable Daniel C. Irick issued a 21-page

 Report & Recommendation. ECF No. 155.

       2.        On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report &

 Recommendation. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff’s objections brief is 55 pages long.

       3.        The Local Rules do not contemplate the filing of 55-page legal

 memoranda. Instead, pursuant to Local Rule 3.01—titled “Motions and Other Legal
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID 4998




 Memorandums”—substantive filings are generally limited to either 20 or 25 pages. See

 Local Rule 3.01(a) (“A motion must include — in a single document no longer than

 twenty-five pages inclusive of all parts — a concise statement of the precise relief

 requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting

 the request.”); Local Rule 3.01(b) (“A party responding to a motion may file a legal

 memorandum no longer than twenty pages inclusive of all parts.”).

       4.     There does not appear to be a Local Rule that explicitly addresses the

 length of objections to a Report & Recommendation. Accordingly, the 20-page limit

 in Local Rule 3.01(b) for a “response” applies. See, e.g., Legends Collision Ctr., LLC v.

 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-6006-GAP-EJK, Dkt. 117 (M.D. Fla. June

 21, 2016) (“The Objection is also due to be stricken because it exceeds the 20 page

 limitation established by M.D. Fla. 3.01(b).”).

       5.     Even if an objection to a Report & Recommendation were analogized to

 a “motion,” then the 25-page limit of Local Rule 3.01(a) would apply, and Plaintiff’s

 filing would still have been 30 pages over the limit. See, e.g., Barr v. One Touch Direct,

 No. 8:15-cv-2391-VMC-MAP, 2017 WL 1023378, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2017)

 (“The objection, however, violated Local Rule 3.01(a) because it was comprised of

 more than a single filing and exceeded twenty-five pages in length.”).

       6.     Federal Defendants’ understanding is that Plaintiff’s position is that

 because the page limits in Local Rule 3.01 mention a “motion” or a “response,” there

is no page limit for “objections” to a Report & Recommendation. But if that were

correct, then a party could file, say, a 155-page brief objecting to a Report
                                             2
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID 4999




 & Recommendation. Indeed, there would be no page limits for any filings in this

 District other than those explicitly captioned as a “motion” or a “response.” That

 position is untenable as a practical matter, and inconsistent with local practice. It is

 also inconsistent with the title of the rule, which governs “Motions and Other Legal

 Memorandums.” Plaintiff’s 55-page filing was an “other legal memorandum,” and

 thus exceeded the page limits set forth in Local Rule 3.01 by at least 30 pages.

        7.     As this Court held earlier in this litigation, “[a] trial court has the inherent

 power to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with court orders or the

 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Order, ECF No. 55 (quoting Harris Corp. v. Fed.

 Express Corp., 2010 WL 11474444, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (citing Zocaras v.

Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 490 (11th Cir. 2006)). “When faced with such a violation, ‘[t]he

 Court may, among other things, strike a non-compliant motion or other filing.’” Id.

 (citing Jones v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 170 Fed. App’x 52, 57 (11th Cir. 2006)

 (district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion that violated local rules)).

        8.     Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by enforcement of the page limits in

 Local Rule 3.01, as 20 pages is more than sufficient to object to the Report

 & Recommendation, which itself was only 21 pages long, and primarily focused on

 threshold and procedural matters that are unrelated to the merits of this case. On the

 other hand, Federal Defendants would be prejudiced by having to file a 20-page

response to Plaintiff’s 55-page filing. Enforcing the Local Rules will also promote

efficiency and judicial economy—both by incentivizing compliance with the Local

Rules, and also by requiring Plaintiff to refile a shorter brief that will presumably
                                               3
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID 5000




 include less discussion of extraneous and irrelevant material, which currently

 comprises a significant portion of Plaintiff’s 55-page filing.

       9.     Accordingly, Federal Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s objections to

 the Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 162, without prejudice to refiling in

 compliance with the page limits set forth in Local Rule 3.01.

                      LOCAL RULE 3.01(g) CERTIFICATION

       Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), on October 25th and 26th, counsel for the

 Federal Defendants conferred by email with all other parties or their counsel. Counsel

 for Defendants Greater Orlando Aviation Authority and Central Florida Regional

 Transportation Authority each reported that they do not oppose the relief requested in

 this motion. Plaintiff reported that he opposes the relief requested in this motion.




                                             4
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5001




       Dated: October 26, 2021            Respectfully submitted,

                                          BRIAN M. BOYNTON
                                          Acting Assistant Attorney General

                                          KARIN HOPPMANN
                                          Acting United States Attorney

                                          ERIC B. BECKENHAUER
                                          Assistant Branch Director

                                     By: /s/ Stephen M. Pezzi
                                         MARCIA K. SOWLES
                                           Senior Trial Counsel
                                         STEPHEN M. PEZZI
                                         ANDREW F. FREIDAH
                                           Trial Attorneys
                                         United States Department of Justice
                                         Civil Division
                                         Federal Programs Branch
                                         1100 L Street NW
                                         Washington, DC 20005
                                         Telephone: 202-305-8576
                                         Email: stephen.pezzi@usdoj.gov

                                          Counsel for the Federal Defendants




                                      5
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 163 Filed 10/26/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID 5002




                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has been authorized by the Court to

 use the CM/ECF system. ECF No. 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff (along with counsel for

 all other parties) will receive service of this filing through the CM/ECF system.


                                                /s/Stephen M. Pezzi
                                                STEPHEN M. PEZZI
                                                Trial Attorney
                                                United States Department of Justice




                                            6


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.163.0.pdf

Size

134,757 bytes

SHA-256

d59de0168f1e0198b996048e2cbdc82b4e6612019d4cf43fcb30340f1fb014da

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.163.0.pdf

Original

archive.org