2025 Florida Civil Procedure Rule Changes – Practical Guide to the New Amendments

Rule 1.202 - Conferral Prior to Filing Motions

(a) Duty. Before filing a non-dispositive motion, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion.

(b) Certificate of Conferral. At the end of the motion and above the signature block, the movant must include a certificate of conferral in substantially the following form:

"I certify that prior to filing this motion, I discussed the relief requested in this motion by [method of communication and date] with the opposing party and [the opposing party (agrees or disagrees) on the resolution of all or part of the motion] OR [the opposing party did not respond (describing with particularity all of the efforts undertaken to accomplish dialogue with the opposing party prior to filing the motion)]."

OR

"I certify that conferral prior to filing is not required under rule 1.202."

(c) Applicability; Exemptions. The requirements of this rule do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented by counsel (pro se). Conferral is not required prior to filing the following motions:

1. for time to extend service of initial process;
2. for default;
3. for injunctive relief;
4. for judgment on the pleadings;
5. for summary judgment;
6. to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted;
7. to permit maintenance of a class action;
8. to involuntarily dismiss an action;
9. to dismiss for failure to prosecute;
10. for directed verdict and motions filed under rule 1.530;
11. for garnishment, attachment, or other motions for enforcement of a judgment under rule 1.570;
12. for writ of possession under rule 1.580;
13. filed in actions proceeding under section 51.011, Florida Statutes; and
14. that do not require notice to the other party under statute or rule.

(d) Sanctions. Failure to comply with the requirements of this rule may result in an appropriate sanction, including denial of a motion without prejudice. The purposeful evasion of communication under this rule may result in an appropriate sanction.

Rule 1.202 Overview

A new rule that requires parties to confer with each other before filing non-dispositive motions. The moving party must make a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion with the opposing party. The rule outlines the requirements for a certificate of conferral, specifies motions that are exempt from the conferral requirement, and addresses sanctions for failure to comply.

Rule 1.080 - Service and Filing of Pleadings; Orders; Documents; and Transcripts

(a) Service. Every pleading after the initial pleading, all orders, and every other document filed or required by statute or rule to be served in the action must be served in conformity with the requirements of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516.

(b) Filing. All documents must be filed in conformity with the requirements of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.525.

(c) Writing and written defined. Writing or written means a document containing information, an application, or a stipulation.

(d) Format of Filed Transcripts. All transcripts filed with the court must be in full-page format, unless condensed transcripts are authorized by the court. The Portable Document Format ("PDF") file(s) of all transcripts must be text searchable.

Amendment(s)

Title of rule changed to include "and Transcripts."

Added subsection (d).

Rule 1.090 - Time

(a) Computation. Computation of time shall be governed by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.514.

(b) Extending Time Enlargement.

1. In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
   1. 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
   2. on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
2. Exceptions. The court may not extend the time for making a motion for new trial, for rehearing, or to alter or amend a judgment; making a motion for relief from a judgment under rule 1.540(b); taking an appeal or filing a petition for certiorari; or making a motion for a directed verdict. Extensions of deadlines in case management orders are governed by rule 1.200 or rule 1.201, and trial continuances are governed by rule 1.460.

(c) Unaffected by Expiration of Term. The period of time provided for the doing of any act or the taking of any proceeding shall not be affected or limited by the continued existence or expiration of a term of court. The continued existence or expiration of a term of court in no way affects the power of a court to do any act or take any proceeding in any action which is or has been pending before it.

(d) For Motions. A copy of any written motion which may not be heard ex parte and a copy of the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing.

Amendment(s)

1. Terminology change → "enlargement" of time was replaced with "extension" of time.
2. Clarification of Rule Applicability:
   1. Case management order deadlines are now explicitly governed by Rule 1.200 or Rule 1.201, not Rule 1.090.
   2. Trial continuances are now explicitly governed by Rule 1.460, not Rule 1.090.

Rule 1.200 - Case Management; Pretrial Procedure

Rule 1.200 was amended quite a lot, and as such, the entire rule will not be copied here, instead, the following subjects and changes will be discussed and broken down below:

1. Case Management Tracks
2. Case Management Orders (CMOs)
3. Modifying Deadlines
4. Trial Delays & Unavailability Notices
5. Case Management Conferences (CMCs)
6. Failure to Meet Deadlines
7. Discovery Deadlines

1. Case Management Tracks

Old Rule: No track differentiation; all cases followed a generalized pretrial process.

New Rule: Mandatory track assignment within 120 days of case initiation. Cases are categorized into:

1. Complex (governed by Rule 1.201),
2. General (default track with moderate deadlines),
3. Streamlined (limited discovery, shorter trials ≤3 days).

2. Case Management Orders (CMOs)

Old Rule: CMOs were optional in most cases, with some courts issuing orders based on case-specific needs.

New Rule: Courts must issue a CMO within 120 days of case commencement. The order must, at a minimum, include the following deadlines:

• Service of complaints
• Service under extensions
• Adding new parties
• Completion of fact discovery
• Completion of expert discovery
• Filing and service of motions for summary judgment
• Filing and resolution for all objections to pleadings
• Filing and resolution of all pretrial motions
• Completion of alternative dispute resolution

If a case is categorized as a complex case, see Rule 1.201 below.

3. Modifying Deadlines

Old Rule: Extensions of time were granted more flexibly on a motion-by-motion basis. Courts could grant individual extensions without modifying the entire schedule.

New Rule: Strict enforcement of deadlines:

• If an extension request impacts multiple deadlines, the entire CMO must be amended, rather than granting piecemeal extensions.
• Extensions for case management deadlines must follow Rule 1.200 or 1.201, while trial continuances follow Rule 1.460.

Motion requirements for Modifying Deadlines:

1. The basis for the extension (why it is needed and when the need became known).
2. Whether the motion is opposed (if all parties agree or if there is a dispute).
3. The specific new deadline requested (not just a general request for more time).
4. A plan for meeting the new deadline (some explanation of how the new deadline will be complied with).

Additional Motion requirements if relevant to the motion:

• Confirming availability of third-party witnesses, experts, or other required participants → If the extension request is due to a scheduling conflict with witnesses, experts, or outside parties, the motion must include this information.
• Listing specific steps and dates for compliance → If the motion relates to discovery delays, document production, or court availability issues, the motion must outline what has been done and what remains to be done.

4. Trial Delays & Unavailability Notices

Old Rule: No clear process when a case is not reached during the trial period. Lawyers could file "Notices of Unavailability" that might affect scheduling.

New Rule: If a case is not reached for trial, the court must enter a new trial order as soon as practicable. Notices of unavailability do not impact deadlines-parties must still comply with case management schedules.

5. Case Management Conferences (CMCs)

Old Rule: Conferences were optional and typically requested by a party. Judges had discretion over their necessity.

New Rule: Courts may now initiate a CMC at any time, and parties must provide notice of issues to be addressed. Judges may resolve pending motions during CMCs, except for:

• Summary judgment motions
• Evidentiary hearings

6. Failure to Meet Deadlines

Old Rule: Missed deadlines could often be cured by filing a motion for extension, which courts frequently granted.

New Rule: Courts may now impose sanctions for missed deadlines, including:

• Striking pleadings
• Exclusion of evidence
• Dismissal of claims or defenses

Trial courts have less discretion to grant leniency, deadlines shall be "strictly enforced."

7. Discovery Deadlines

Old Rule: Discovery schedules were often flexible, with extensions routinely granted.

New Rule: Discovery deadlines must be specified in the CMO and adhered to. Courts may deny discovery if deadlines are missed without good cause.

Rule 1.201 - Complex Litigation

Like rule 1.200, 1.201 was changed quit a lot, so the entire rule will not be copied here, instead, the following issues and subjects will be addressed below:

1. Designation of Complex Cases: Streamlined Process
2. Initial Case Management Conference (ICMC)
3. Case Management Orders (CMOs)
4. Expert Witness & Discovery Management
5. Trial Scheduling and Continuances

1. Designation of Complex Cases: Streamlined Process

Old Rule: A case could be designated complex by:

1. Motion of a party (requiring justification based on case complexity factors).
2. Court's own motion (after a hearing or stipulation by all parties).

The court was required to hold a hearing before granting complex case status unless all parties agreed.

Complexity was determined by a list of factors, such as:

• Number of parties.
• Scope of discovery.
• Legal issues requiring extended judicial management.
• Potentially lengthy trial or post-judgment supervision.

New Rule:

• Hearing requirement removed: The court may hold a hearing but is no longer required to do so before designating a case as complex.
• Cases must be designated as complex within 120 days of filing (if applicable) and assigned to the Complex Track under Rule 1.200.
• Courts must strictly apply complexity factors before granting a designation.
• Designation now results in immediate application of complex case procedures, reducing unnecessary delays.

2. Initial Case Management Conference (ICMC)

Old Rule: Courts were required to hold an Initial Case Management Conference (ICMC) within 60 days of designating a case as complex. Attorneys had to submit a joint statement covering:

• Discovery scope.
• Likelihood of settlement.
• Need for protective orders.

Proposed deadlines for:

• Adding parties.
• Amending pleadings.
• Filing motions.
• Expert disclosures.
• Discovery completion.

New Rule:

• The ICMC must still be held within 60 days, but courts may now issue scheduling orders before the conference.
• The joint statement must now be filed at least 14 days before the ICMC (previously, it was due at the ICMC).
• Expanded content requirements for the joint statement:
  • Specific attorney assignments: Identifying lead attorneys handling different aspects of the case.
  • Mandatory disclosure of expert deadlines.
  • Detailed electronic discovery (ESI) protocols.
  • Trial timeframe estimate.
  • List of expected expert witnesses and fields of expertise.

3. Case Management Orders (CMOs)

Old Rule:

CMOs were issued after the ICMC and set:

• Trial schedule.
• Discovery deadlines.
• Expert disclosure dates.

CMO deadlines could be modified easily, often without requiring a full amendment.

New Rule:

Strict enforcement of CMOS:

• Any modification of one deadline requires a full amendment of the entire CMO.
• No more piecemeal extensions-CMOs must be treated as comprehensive case plans.

Mandatory elements of a CMO:

• Discovery completion deadline.
• Deadline for summary judgment motions.
• Trial date (must be set within 6-24 months).
• Mediation or ADR deadline.
• Deposition scheduling process (parties must agree on three possible dates, or the court will set them).

4. Expert Witness & Discovery Management

Old Rule: Expert disclosure deadlines were set at the ICMC, but parties could extend deadlines informally. Deposition scheduling was flexible, with parties often rescheduling as needed.

New Rule:

• Firm deadlines for expert disclosures:
  • If a party designates an expert in a new field, opposing parties have 30 days to name their own expert in that field.
  • No late expert designations allowed without court approval.
• Strict deposition scheduling:
  • Each expert must provide three available dates.
  • If no agreement is reached, the court will set the schedule.
  • Once set, deposition dates cannot be changed without court approval.

5. Trial Scheduling & Continuances

Old Rule: Trial scheduling was flexible, and continuances were freely granted if good cause was shown.

New Rule:

• Trial must be scheduled within 6-24 months of the ICMC.
• If a trial is not reached during its set period, the court must immediately issue a new trial order.
• Continuances are discouraged and require compliance with Rule 1.460.

Rule 1.280 - General Provisions Governing Discovery

Another long rule that will not be copied in full here. The following subjects and changes to this rule shall be discussed below:

1. Initial Discovery Disclosures (New Requirement).
2. Scope of Discovery - Proportionality Standard Adopted.
3. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) - Limits on Undue Burden.
4. Depositions - "Apex Doctrine" Protection for High-Level Officials.
5. Discovery Timing and Sequence.
6. Supplementing Discovery Responses.
7. Filing Discovery Materials with the Court.

1. Initial Discovery Disclosures (New Requirement)

New Rule:

Mandatory initial disclosures are now required without a discovery request. Parties must disclose within 60 days of service of the complaint or joinder:

1. List of individuals likely to have discoverable information.
2. Description or copies of all documents, ESI, and tangible evidence supporting claims/defenses.
3. Damages computation (excluding non-economic damages).
4. Insurance policies that may satisfy a judgment.

2. Scope of Discovery - Proportionality Standard Adopted.

Old Rule: Broad scope discovery allowed for any non-privileged matter "relevant to the subject matter" of the case. No explicit requirement to consider proportionality.

New Rule → Adopts the federal proportionality standard:

Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case based on:

1. Importance of issues at stake.
2. Amount in controversy.
3. Parties' access to information.
4. Resources available.
5. Burden vs. benefit.

Courts must now weigh proportionality before granting discovery requests.

3. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) - Undue Burden Limits

Old Rule: ESI was discoverable, but no explicit rule addressed burdensome ESI requests.

New Rule:

New objections allowed: A party may refuse ESI production if it is not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost. Courts can require requesting parties to show good cause before ordering production.

4. Depositions - "Apex Doctrine" Protection for High-Level Officials

Old Rule: No special protections for high-ranking corporate or government officers facing depositions.

New Rule: - Apex Doctrine now Codified

High-level corporate/government officers can block depositions if they lack unique, personal knowledge. The requesting party must prove:

1. Other discovery methods have been exhausted.
2. The executive has unique, relevant knowledge.

5. Discovery Timing and Sequence

Old Rule: Parties could start discovery at any time after filing. No required order for discovery methods.

New Rule:

• Discovery cannot begin until initial disclosure obligations are met unless otherwise ordered by the court.
• Methods of discovery may proceed in any sequence, but ongoing discovery must not delay another party's discovery.

6. Supplementing Discovery Responses

Old Rule: No duty to supplement discovery unless ordered by the court.

New Rule: - Mandatory supplementation:

If a party learns that prior responses were incomplete or incorrect, they must update responses in a timely manner.

7. Filing Discovery Materials with the Court

Old Rule: Discovery could not be filed unless required for a pending motion.

New Rule:

• Good cause is now required before filing discovery materials with the court.
• Filings must comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425, limiting unnecessary personal information.

Rule 1.340 - Interrogatories to Parties

Amendments:

1. Number of Interrogatories → still 30, including subparts. Like the previous rule, subparts still count unless they are "logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question."
2. Language and Formatting Adjustments → language clarified/simplified, including:
   • "Served upon any other party" vs. "served on any other party."
   • Emphasis on clear, separate numbering for each interrogatory and subpart.
3. Objections → objections to interrogatories must be stated with specificity including the reasons. Going forward, if an attorney objects to an interrogatory on grounds of burden or relevance, they must state the objection clearly and explain the reasoning (no more vague objections).

Rule 1.350 - Production of Documents and Things

The majority of changes to this rule are only wording and phrasing; however, the changes allow for the potential affects in practice:

1. Sharper Enforcement of Partial Objections → new rule now requires that if you object to only part of a request, you must permit inspection of the rest. While this was within the spirit of the old rule, it was not directly spelled out. The amended rule also requires that "[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection." Objections must include specificity.
2. Explicit Handling of ESI → new rule adds that requesting parties can (and should) specify the format (e.g., native files, PDFs). If not, responding parties must say how they're producing it.
3. Tighter Tie to Proportionality Under Rule 1.280 → new rule's cross-reference to Rule 1.280 may make courts more likely to limit overbroad requests by enforcing proportionality (cost, burden, etc.).

Rule 1.380: Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions

New Section

(d) Failure to Disclose or to Supplement an Earlier Response. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by rule 1.280(a) or (g), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:

1. may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by the failure;
2. may inform the jury of the party's failure; and
3. may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in rule 1.380(b)(2)(A)-(b)(2)(D).

Rule 1.440 - Setting Action for Trial

Amendments:

1. Subdivision (a): Notice for Trial

   Old Rule: A party could file a notice when the action was "at issue." The notice needed to include an estimate of time required for trial and whether it was to be tried before a jury or not.

   New Rule:

   • The term "ready for trial" replaces "at issue".
   • Adds clarification that all motions directed to the last pleading must be resolved before a case is ready.
   • Includes new procedural clarity: A party must serve and file a notice stating the action is ready and indicate:
     • The estimated trial time
     • Whether it is a jury or nonjury trial
     • The dates unavailable for trial by the party
     • Whether the party agrees the case is ready for trial
2. Subdivision (b): Trial Order

   Old Rule: Once a notice is filed, the court was to enter an order fixing the trial period.

   New Rule: Adds language requiring the court to coordinate scheduling with parties, not just unilaterally assign a date. The order must specify a trial period or a specific date and set deadlines for pretrial procedures.

Rule 1.460 - Motions to Continue Trial

Amendments:

"Motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown."

Four requirements that must be included in a motion to continue:

1. the basis of the need for the continuance, including when the basis became known to the movant;
2. whether the motion is opposed;
3. the action and specific dates for the action that will enable the movant to be ready for trial by the proposed date, including, but not limited to, confirming the specific date any required participants such as third-party witnesses or experts are available; and
4. the proposed date by which the case will be ready for trial and whether that date.

If a continuance is granted because of attorney or party's dilatory conduct, court may impose sanctions.

Removal of conferral language → previously, Rule 1.460 had required a certification of conferral before seeking a continuance, but since new Rule 1.202 covers conferral, that language was removed.

Rule 1.510 - Summary Judgment

Amendments:

• Subsection (c)(5) amended to provide that nonmovant must serve a response "[n]o later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment."
• Subsection (c)(6) amended to provide that the hearing must be set for a date "at least 10 days after the deadline for serving a response" absent stipulation or court order otherwise. I.e., there should be at least a 50-day minimum gap from MSJ service to hearing (40+10).

Differences from old rule

• Timing to file a MSJ is based on the deadlines specified in the CMO (previously, the motion had to be filed at least 40 days before the time fixed for hearing, which language has been deleted).
• Timing to respond is based on the date the MSJ is served, not on the hearing date.