Allston v. Florida Department of Revenue et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 53 Motion to Lift Protective Order and Discovery Stay; denying 62 Motion to seal. The Supplement (Doc. 60) and Notices of Errata (Docs. 61, 63) are STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 1/8/2025. (TNP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JACOB BARRY ALLSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-1085-CEM-DCI

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, 18TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT,
TITUSVILLE, BREVARD COUNTY
and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR
VEHICLES,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff’s recently filed Motions and
Notices. Docs. 53, 60, 61, 62, 63. The Motions and Notices are due to be denied or stricken for
several reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Clarification to Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint” (Doc. 60) (the Supplement) and
the Notices of Errata (Docs. 61, 63) are due to be stricken as improper filings. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court do not permit a “Notice of Errata” to correct
a motion or response to a motion and Plaintiff must first seek leave to amend his filings in
accordance with Local Rule 3.01(a) and (g). He has not done so. Further, to the extent Plaintiff
files the Supplement and the December 26, 2024 Notice of Errata (Docs. 60, 61) to add content to
the Response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 59) (the Response), those filings are stricken because
the Response already exceeds the page limit set forth in Local Rule 3.01(b).

Second, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 62) is due to be denied because Plaintiff has not
complied with Local Rule 3.01(g). Specifically, Local Rule 3.01(g)(1) requires the movant to
confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the motion and Plaintiff does not
certify that conferral occurred. See Doc. 62. Further, the Court is not persuaded that the filing of
the “Certified Transcript of Birth and Certificate of Live Birth” is necessary. Accordingly, the
request to seal the item is denied pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(b)(3).
Third, Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Protective Order and Discovery Stay (Doc. 53) is denied
for the same reasons stated in the Court’s October 21, 2024 Order granting Defendants’ Motion to
Stay Discovery and All Rule 26 Obligations. Doc. 39. Namely, the Court ordered the stay until
Defendants file an answer in this case, if that occurs. Doc. 39. It has not occurred. While the
Court has since ruled on Defendants’ original motion to dismiss, which was the impetus for
Defendants’ request to stay, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint and Defendants have filed
another motion to dismiss reasserting largely the same arguments for dismissal. Doc. 58. The
Court still finds as it did in the October 21, 2024 Order that discovery and the Rule 26 obligations
are due to be stayed given the arguments set forth in Defendants’ requests for dismissal.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s October 21, 2024 Order
(Doc. 39) or Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify (Doc. 52), “[t]he court’s reconsideration
of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy and exercise of this power must be used sparingly.”
Lahey v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2008 WL 1766764, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17,
2008) (citing Taylor Woodrow Const. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Authority, 814 Supp.
1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider
the stay.

-2-

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. the Motion to Lift Protective Order and Discovery Stay (Doc. 53) is DENIED;
2. the Motion to Seal (Doc. 62) is DENIED; and
3. the Supplement (Doc. 60) and Notices of Errata (Docs. 61, 63) are STRICKEN.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 8, 2025.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-