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

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID 5064




                    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 & PREVENTION,
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
 HUMAN SERVICES,
 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION,
 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
 SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF
 TRANSPORTATION, JOSEPH
 R. BIDEN, JR. , GREATER
 ORLANDO AVIATION
 AUTHORITY and CENTRAL
 FLORIDA REGIONAL
 TRANSPORTATION
 AUTHORITY,

                   Defendants.
                                     /

                                    ORDER

       This cause is before the Court on Defendants Centers for Disease Control

 and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Transportation

 Security Administration, Department of Transportation, Department of

 Homeland Security, and Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s (hereinafter, the “Federal

 Defendants”) Motion to Strike. (Doc. 163 (the “Motion”)). Plaintiff Lucas Wall

 responded in opposition. (Doc. 164). Upon consideration, the Motion is granted.
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID 5065




        On October 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Irick issued a Report and

 Recommendation (Doc. 155 (the “Report”)) on the following filings: Defendant

 Greater Orlando Aviation Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49); Defendant

 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82);

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83); and the Federal Defendants’

 Motion to Dismiss, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and Opposition to

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 125) (collectively, the “Original

 Motions”). Plaintiff objected to the Report, submitting a 55-page brief in support

 of his position. (Doc. 162 (the “Objections”)).

        On October 26, 2021, the Federal Defendants filed the instant Motion,

 arguing that the Court should strike Plaintiff’s Objections without prejudice as a

 violation of Local Rule 3.01’s page limit. (Doc. 163). Plaintiff counters that: (1)

 neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules allow the Court to

 strike his Objections; (2) Local Rule 3.01’s page limit do not apply to his

 Objections; (3) 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) does not impose page limit on his Objections,

 and therefore the Court should not impose one, particularly as Plaintiff’s failure to

 object to any of Magistrate Judge Irick’s factual findings or legal conclusions, and

 the Court’s subsequent adoption of those findings and conclusions, would waive

 his ability to challenge them on appeal under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-11; and (4)



 1   “A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
     report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives
     the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and
     legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the



                                                 2
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID 5066




 enforcement of Local Rule 3.01’s page limit would prejudice Plaintiff and delay this

 case. (Doc. 164).

        First, the Court has the authority to strike Plaintiff’s Objections as incident

 to its inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N.

 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936); see also Fisher v. Whitlock, 784 F. App’x 711,

 712 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)2 (affirming the district court’s order striking the

 pro se plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to the district court’s

 inherent power “to manage its docket and curb vexatious litigation”); Jones v.

 United Space All., L.L.C., 170 F. App’x 52, 57 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district

 court’s order striking the pro se plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as a violation

 of its local rules and stating that the Eleventh Circuit gives great deference to the

 district court’s interpretation of its local rules); Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday &

 Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating that federal courts’

 “well-established” inherent powers “are not governed by rule or by statute, but by

 the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve

 the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”).




     consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however,
     the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”

 2   “Unpublished opinions are not controlling authority and are persuasive only insofar as their
     legal analysis warrants.” Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc., 487 F.3d 1340, 1345 n.7 (11th
     Cir. 2007).



                                                 3
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID 5067




       Second, Local Rule 3.01, titled “Motions and Other Legal Memorandums,”

 establishes a 20-page limit for a response to a motion, and this 20-page limit

 applies to Plaintiff’s Objections because they constitute “Other Legal

 Memorandums” synonymous to a response. Legends Collision Ctr., LLC v. State

 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-6006, 2016 WL 3406409, at *1 (M.D. Fla.

 June 21, 2016) (striking the plaintiff’s objections for exceeding Local Rule 3.01’s

 20-page limit). In other words, the Report, similar to a motion (and, notably, even

 filed as a motion on the Court’s docket), requires the Court to affirmatively adopt

 or reject Magistrate Judge Irick’s recommendations after a de novo review of the

 record, and Plaintiff’s Objections, like a response, adds argument for the Court’s

 consideration in ruling on the Report.

       Plaintiff contends that application of Local Rule 3.01’s page limit to his

 Objections would extend the page limit to the Court’s orders, including Magistrate

 Judge Irick’s 21-page Report. (Id. at p. 4). But Local Rule 3.01 covers “Other Legal

 Memorandums” akin to a “Motion,” not the Court’s orders, which impartially

 evaluate the claims and make legal determinations. As a practical matter, the Court

 requires flexibility to explain its decisions thoroughly. Likewise, the Report is

 exempt from Local Rule 3.01’s page limit because it is a neutral analysis of the

 questions presented in this case that assists the Court’s de novo review of the

 Original Motions, whereas Plaintiff’s Objections further advocate his positions.

       Plaintiff also argues that the only “Other Legal Memorandums”

 encompassed by Local Rule 3.01 are those specified in the Rule (i.e., a response to



                                          4
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5068




 a motion, a reply, and a notice of supplemental authority). (Id. at p. 4). However,

 the term “Other Legal Memorandums” is broad, and Plaintiff’s Objections are

 obviously “Other Legal Memorandums” as a matter of common sense.

       Third, although § 636(b)(1) and Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1 do not impose a

 page limit, that does not mean this Court cannot do so. In fact, the statute provides,

 “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file

 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided

 by rules of court,” which, logically, includes the Court’s Local Rules. § 636(b)(1)(C)

 (emphasis added). The page limit does not unduly restrict Plaintiff’s ability to raise

 arguments in support of his case, especially as Plaintiff can move for a reasonable

 extension of the page limit. The Court preemptively informs Plaintiff that it is not

 inclined to grant an extension over 10 pages in any case, even those dealing with

 complicated issues of law and fact—30 pages is more than enough space to

 succinctly brief the Court on the disputed matters.

       Finally, Plaintiff does not suffer prejudice from this decision. The Court

 reiterates that Plaintiff is free to refile his Objections and move for an additional

 10 pages, and Plaintiff can even request a reasonable extension of time to amend if

 necessary. Plaintiff states that enforcement of the page limit forces him to discard

 over half of his 22 objections, but he also recognizes that the Report does not

 address the merits of his case on all counts. (Doc. 164, pp. 6–7). The Court

 encourages Plaintiff to prioritize the factual findings and legal conclusions




                                           5
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID 5069




 addressed in the Report as the Court has access to the Original Motions, which

 presumably brief the questions that the Report does not discuss.

       Relatedly, this delay is essential to streamline the issues before the Court. In

 a prior Order, the Court explained that Local Rule 3.01’s page limits maintain

 judicial economy, and the same rationale applies here. (Doc. 67, p. 6). By Plaintiff’s

 logic, his Objections could be 100 pages in length (or more), and the Federal

 Defendants’ response could be 100 pages in length (or more), requiring the Court

 to sift through 200 pages (or more) of unwieldly and likely cumulative briefing.

 The Court reiterates that Plaintiff’s claims will receive due attention, but the Court

 has a large docket and cannot be reasonably expected to devote itself solely to this

 case. Any further filings exceeding Local Rule 3.01’s page limits will be stricken in

 accordance with this Order.

       For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ Motion to

 Strike. (Doc. 163). Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 162) are DISMISSED WITHOUT

 PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile his Objections in accordance with this Order on

 or before November 12, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to timely refile his Objections, then

 the Court will deem Magistrate Judge Irick’s Report unopposed.

       DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 4, 2021.




                                           6
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 168 Filed 11/04/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID 5070




 Copies furnished to:

 Counsel of Record
 Unrepresented Parties




                                      7


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.168.0.pdf

Size

119,328 bytes

SHA-256

360148914f51b80539d6c11dcf132b657125014683b5979df3a26306637ffdf6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.168.0.pdf

Original

archive.org