Opinion
Case No. 3:06-cv-152-J-33HTS.
July 17, 2006
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Consolidated Motion to Strike, or Alternatively Partially Strike Defendants' Pleadings (Dockets 37, [3] 8, 42) (Doc. #43; Motion), filed on June 19, 2006. Defendants have filed opposition thereto. Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Pleadings (Doc. #45), filed on June 22, 2006.
Because it is essentially an unauthorized reply, the Motion is STRICKEN in light of Rule 3.01(c), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)).
Additionally, the Motion was filed in violation of Local Rule 3.01(g). A "very important rule[,]" Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996), Local Rule 3.01(g) mandates "a substantive conversation in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the motion without court action, and does not envision an exchange of ultimatums by fax or letter." Lockheed Martin Corp. v. The Boeing Co., Case No. 6:03-cv-796-Orl-28KRS, 2003 WL 22962782, at *5 (M.D. Fla. October 21, 2003); see also Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575, at *2 n. 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000) ("Rule 3.01(g) requires counsel and unrepresented parties to . . . speak to each other in person or by telephone[.]"). Active dialogue undertaken in a good faith effort to come to an agreement is potentially much more effective than a volley of letters. In view of the importance of such effort, "`Local Rule 3.01(g) . . . is strictly enforced.'" New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Reid, No. 3:05-cv-1280-J-12MCR, 2006 WL 1760624, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2006) (quoting Middle District Discovery (2001)).
DONE AND ORDERED.