Alpha Comm Enterprises, Inc. v. The Next Vision, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Relief from In-Person Requirement for Case Management Meeting. Order to Show cause discharged. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. on 1/9/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ALPHA COMM ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:13-cv-1379-Orl-37DAB

THE NEXT VISION, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.

Order to Show Cause (Doc. 23), filed December 31, 2013;

2.

Joint Stipulated Motion for Relief from In-Person Requirement for Case
Management Meeting (Doc. 24), filed January 7, 2014;

3.

Case Management Report (Doc. 25), filed January 7, 2014; and

4.

Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause [Dkt. No. 23] (Doc. 26), filed
January 8, 2014.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that the parties’ joint motion for relief (Doc. 24) is due
to be granted, and the Court’s Order to Show Cause is due to be discharged.
At this early stage of the case, the Court takes this opportunity to remind the parties
that the Orders of this Court are not merely advisory but are to be strictly followed absent
an order permitting otherwise. As the parties noted (Doc. 24, p. 1), the Court requires that
“[l]ead counsel must meet in person and not by telephone absent an order permitting
otherwise.” (Doc. 5-2, p. 3) Nevertheless, the parties responded to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause (Doc. 23) by conferring telephonically without first seeking relief from the in-

person requirement (see Doc. 24, p. 2). They then filed a nonconforming Case
Management Report contemporaneously with the motion for relief. (Docs. 24, 25). Court
Orders, however, may not be stipulated around or modified by agreement of counsel.
Parties seeking to deviate from outstanding Court Orders must seek relief first, not
forgiveness later. Although the Court will grant the parties’ requested relief, it expects full
compliance with its Orders as this litigation progresses.
Additionally, the Court notes that the Parties attached to their Case Management
Report a Stipulated Protective Order. (See Doc. 25-1.) The proposed order is intended to
“govern all confidential and protected information produced” in this action. (Id. at 1.) As
the Court has previously indicated, “The parties may reach their own agreement regarding
the designation of materials as ‘confidential.’ There is no need for the Court to endorse
the confidentiality agreement. The Court discourages unnecessary stipulated motions for
a protective order. The Court will enforce appropriate stipulated and signed confidentiality
agreements.” (Doc. 5-2, p. 8.) Accordingly, the Court declines to issue the parties
Stipulated Protective Order at this juncture and encourages the parties instead to enter
into their own stipulated and signed confidentiality agreement. See Local Rule 4.15.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 23) is DISCHARGED.

2.

The Joint Stipulated Motion for Relief from In-Person Requirement for Case
Management Meeting (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 9, 2014.

2

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3