For the busy Florida litigator, a subtle but significant change to the rules governing the timing of discovery is now in effect. The Florida Supreme Court has amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(f), a move designed to curb a frustrating delay tactic and streamline the discovery process.
In a recent order, the state’s highest court addressed a growing problem in civil litigation: parties refusing to engage in discovery by arguing that their opponent’s initial disclosures were not “satisfied.” This small word choice was creating big delays. By changing a single word, the Court aims to get cases moving more efficiently.
This post will break down the amendment, the Court’s reasoning behind it, and what it means for your practice.
The Old Problem: The “Satisfaction” Standard
As part of a recent major overhaul of Florida’s civil procedure rules, the Court introduced a requirement for initial disclosures. To manage the sequence of discovery, Rule 1.280(f) was amended to state: “A party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosure obligations are satisfied, except when authorized by stipulation or by court order.”
While the intent was to ensure parties exchanged essential information before inundating each other with discovery requests, the word “satisfied” created a loophole. The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee reported that some litigants were using this subjective term to their advantage. They would receive initial disclosures from the opposing party and then refuse to respond to any subsequent discovery, claiming the disclosures were incomplete or inadequate and, therefore, the obligation had not been “satisfied.” This forced the discovering party into time-consuming motion practice just to get the process started.
The Solution: A Shift from “Satisfied” to “Served”
Recognizing this unintended consequence, the Florida Supreme Court has again amended Rule 1.280(f), acting swiftly on the Committee’s recommendation. The key change is the replacement of one word.
The amended rule now reads:
“A party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosures are served on the other party, except when authorized by stipulation or by court order.”
This is a critical clarification. The trigger for commencing discovery is no longer the subjective “satisfaction” of the disclosure obligation, but the objective act of “service.” Once you have served your initial disclosures on the opposing party, you are permitted to serve interrogatories, requests for production, and other discovery tools.
What About Inadequate Disclosures? The Role of Rule 1.380(d)
The Supreme Court’s order wisely anticipates the follow-up question: What is the remedy if the initial disclosures you receive are woefully inadequate?
The Court directs practitioners to the proper tool for this scenario: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(d) (Failure to Disclose or to Supplement an Earlier Response).
This is the key takeaway for your practice. The new amendment does not leave you without recourse in the face of a document dump or a skeletal disclosure. Instead of holding all discovery hostage, the proper procedure is to:
- Proceed with your own discovery as permitted under the new “served” standard.
- Address the deficiencies in the opposing party’s initial disclosures through a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions under Rule 1.380(d).
This approach separates the timing of discovery from disputes over the completeness of initial disclosures, allowing the case to move forward while specific discovery squabbles are resolved through the appropriate channels.
Practical Implications for Florida Lawyers
This amendment, though small in text, has a significant practical impact on discovery strategy:
- Serve Promptly: To initiate your own discovery, ensure your initial disclosures are served on the opposing party in a timely manner.
- Don’t Wait for Perfection: You do not need to wait for what you deem “perfect” or “complete” initial disclosures from the other side before you can begin serving your discovery requests. The clock starts ticking upon their service, not your approval of their sufficiency.
- Use the Right Tool: If you believe the opposing party’s initial disclosures are deficient, do not use it as a basis to refuse to answer their discovery requests. The proper remedy is a motion under Rule 1.380(d).
- Update Your Templates: Review your internal checklists and template letters to ensure they reflect this updated rule and strategy.
In conclusion, the Florida Supreme Court has closed a loophole that was leading to unnecessary litigation and delays. By changing “satisfied” to “served,” the Court has clarified the rules of the road for the commencement of discovery, promoting a more efficient and straightforward process for all. As Florida practitioners continue to adapt to the new discovery landscape, this change is a welcome move toward clarity and efficiency.
Additional Resources
