Doolin v. American Optical Corporation et al

Filing 178

ORDER striking #128, #129, #130, #131, #134, #175, and #176 Notices of Joinder. Defendants shall have up to and including April 6, 2018, to file amended dispositive and Daubert motions, if they so choose. Such motions shall not exceed thirty (30) pages in length. Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 25, 2018, to respond to any amended motions. To the extent Defendants were previously granted leave to reply, such replies are due no later than May 10, 2018. The final pretrial conference is continued to October 22, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Jury trial set for trial term commencing on November 5, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/22/2018. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
STACEY DOOLIN, as the
Personal Representative of the
Estate of Richard E. Doolin,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB

BORG WARNER CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Currently pending before the Court
are the motions for summary judgment filed by each remaining Defendant (Docs. 120, 122,
and 127), as well as several Daubert1 motions to preclude or limit the testimony of certain
expert witnesses (Docs. 115, 117, 118, and 124-126).

In addition, Defendants filed

multiple “notices of joinder” purporting to join in each other’s Daubert and summary
judgment motions. See Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Notice of Joinder (Doc.
128); Pneumo Apex LLC’s Notice of and Joinder (Doc. 129); Defendant’s Notice of and
Joinder (Doc. 130) and Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Notice of Joinder (Doc.
131), all filed on November 15, 2017; Ford Motor Company’s Notice of Joinder (Doc. 134),
filed on November 17, 2017; Pneumo Abex LLC’s Notice of Joinder (Doc. 175) and Ford
Motor Company’s Notice of Joinder (Doc. 176), both filed on March 20, 2018 (collectively,
Notices of Joinder). However, Defendants’ Notices of Joinder are improper and due to
1

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

be stricken in that adopting and incorporating by reference the arguments of other
Defendants violates Local Rule 3.01(a), United States District Court, Middle District of
Florida (Local Rule(s)) and places an undue burden on judicial resources.
As aptly explained in Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC,
845 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2012), incorporation by reference “foists upon the Court
the burden of sifting through irrelevant materials to find the materials referenced while
permitting the movant to circumvent this Court’s page limit requirement.” See Mobile
Shelter, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 1253 aff’d in part, 505 F. App’x 928 (11th Cir. 2013). 2
Significantly, the page limit requirement is not designed to burden the parties, but to
conserve judicial resources by “focus[ing] the parties’ attention on the most pressing
matters and winnow[ing] the issues to be placed before the Court . . . .” Id. at 1253. By
both filing their own motions and incorporating everyone else’s arguments as well,
Defendants have done no “winnowing” and instead have engaged in a “throw-thespaghetti-and-see-what-sticks motion practice [which] leads to imprecise and inartful
briefing.” See Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Path Medical, Case No. 8:17-cv-2848-T17TGW, ECF No. 79 at 2 (M.D. Fla. entered Mar. 2, 2018) (order denying motions to
dismiss without prejudice).
For example, Defendant Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) has not only filed
its own twenty-page motion for summary judgment (Doc. 120), but also seeks to
incorporate by reference the summary judgment motions of every other Defendant. As

2
The Court notes that incorporating by reference the arguments set forth in other documents also violates
Local Rule 3.01(a)’s requirement that a movant shall include its request for relief, basis for the request and
supporting legal authority in a “single document.” See Local Rule 3.01(a) (“In a motion or other application
for an order, the movant shall include a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the
basis for the request, and a memorandum of legal authority in support of the request, all of which the movant
shall include in a single document not more than twenty-five (25) pages.” (emphasis added)).

-2-

such, were the Court to “adopt and incorporate by reference” these other motions,
Honeywell’s summary judgment briefing would total seventy-seven pages, well in excess
of the 25-page limit set by Local Rule 3.01(a). More importantly, much of the material
incorporated would be redundant or irrelevant, but it would fall to the Court to sift through
this voluminous briefing to determine which arguments are potentially relevant to
Honeywell, and extrapolate how such arguments might apply in a different context to a
different Defendant. This is not a proper or efficient use of judicial resources.
Accordingly, the Court will strike the Notices of Joinder and provide Defendants with
the opportunity to file amended motions which set forth the entirety of their arguments.3
As the Court recognizes that the parties may need additional space in which to do so, the
Court will extend the page limit to thirty pages. Also, to accommodate the period for
additional potential briefing, the Court will continue the final pretrial conference and trial in
this matter. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Notice of Joinder (Doc. 128), Pneumo
Apex LLC’s Notice of and Joinder (Doc. 129), Defendant’s Notice of and Joinder
(Doc. 130), Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Notice of Joinder (Doc.
131), Ford Motor Company’s Notice of Joinder (Doc. 134), Pneumo Abex LLC’s
Notice of Joinder (Doc. 175), and Ford Motor Company’s Notice of Joinder (Doc.
176) are STRICKEN.

The Court is not terminating the currently pending motions. As such, if the parties do not file amended
motions by the deadline set forth in this Order, the Court will proceed to consider the motions as filed without
reference to any “incorporated” arguments. If on the other hand the parties do file amended motions, the
Court will terminate the pending motions and await completion of briefing on the newly filed amended
motions.

3

-3-

2. Defendants shall have up to and including April 6, 2018, to file amended
dispositive and Daubert motions, if they so choose, which set forth the entirety
of their arguments. Such motions shall not exceed thirty (30) pages in length.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 25, 2018, to respond to any
amended motions. To the extent Defendants were previously granted leave to
reply, such replies are due no later than May 10, 2018.
3. The following deadlines shall apply
All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine

OCTOBER 1, 2018

Responses to All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine

OCTOBER 15, 2018

Joint Final Pretrial Statement

OCTOBER 15, 2018

Final Pretrial Conference

OCTOBER 22, 2018
10:00 A.M.
NOVEMBER 5, 2018
9:30 A.M.
10-15 days

Trial Term Begins
Estimated Length of Trial
Jury/ Non Jury

Jury

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 22nd day of March, 2018.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-