Johnston v. Anti-Defamation League, et al
Filing
87
ORDER. The motion to strike or disregard (Dkt. 83) filed by Defendants Howard Kohr and AIPAC The American and Israel Public Affairs Committee is DENIED. The court will consider Plaintiff's documents (Dkts. 79, 81). As necessary, Plaintiff and Defendants shall cooperate with one another to engage in substantive discussions to meet the conferral requirement in Local Rule 3.01(g). Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/28/2025. (AJL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RICK JOHNSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:24-cv-1465-JSS-UAM
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE,
JONATHAN GREENBLATT, BNAI
BRITH INTERNATIONAL, DANIEL
S. MARIASCHIN, HOWARD KOHR,
and AIPAC THE AMERICAN
ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff, Rick Johnston, proceeding pro se, has filed two documents: a ninepage “partial” response (Dkt. 79) and a twenty-four-page response (Dkt. 81).
Defendants Howard Kohr and AIPAC The American and Israel Public Affairs
Committee move to strike or disregard the documents for violating Local Rule 3.01(b).
(Dkt. 83.) See M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(b) (“A party responding to a motion or brief may file
a legal memorandum no longer than twenty pages inclusive of all parts.”). Plaintiff
opposes the motion to strike. (Dkt. 84.)
“Courts . . . generally view motions to strike with disfavor.” Gill-Samuel v. Nova
Biomedical Corp., 298 F.R.D. 693, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quotation omitted). Moreover,
Local Rule 1.01 authorizes the court to “temporarily modify or suspend the
application of” Local Rule 3.01(b) if doing so is “reasonably necessary” to “advance
efficiency, consistency, convenience, and other interests of justice.” M.D. Fla. R.
1.01(a)–(b). The court thus excuses Plaintiff’s instant noncompliance with Local Rule
3.01(b). Nonetheless, the court cautions Plaintiff that he must comply with the Local
Rules in his future filings. See Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)
(“requir[ing] [pro se litigants] to conform to procedural rules”).
In addition, the court notes that the parties have seemingly experienced issues
regarding Local Rule 3.01(g), which requires them to “confer . . . in a good faith effort
to resolve” each “motion in a civil action, except a motion for injunctive relief, for
judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, or to certify a class,” before the
motion is filed. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). (See Dkt. 83 at 3; Dkt. 84 at 4; Dkt. 86.) The
term “confer” in this rule is defined as engaging in “a substantive discussion.” Moore
v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No. 6:23-cv-1163-PGB-DCI, 2024 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1577, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2024) (citing Middle District Discovery
(2021) at I.A.2). Therefore, as necessary, Plaintiff and Defendants shall cooperate
with one another to engage in substantive discussions to meet the rule’s conferral
requirement.
Accordingly:
1. The motion to strike (Dkt. 83) is DENIED.
2. The court will consider Plaintiff’s documents (Dkts. 79, 81).
-2-
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
Counsel of Record
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?