Ottaviano v. Nautilus Insurance Company

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion for leave to file; denying 16 Motion to strike. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/19/2009. (KAK)

JAMES OTTAVIANO, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Plaintiff,

Case No.

8:08-cv-2204-T-33TGW

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER This cause comes before the Court pursuant to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(d) (Doc. # 14), which was filed on January 30, 2009. On

February 9, 2009, defendant filed its response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply. (Doc. # 15). Thereafter, on February 17, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply. (Doc. # 16). This Court

grants the motion for leave to file a reply and denies the motion to strike. Local Rule 3.01(d), M.D. Fla., states, "A motion

requesting leave to file . . . a reply or further memorandum shall not exceed three (3) pages, shall specify the length of the proposed filing, and shall not include, as an attachment or otherwise, the proposed . . . reply."

In

this

case, response

plaintiff to

seeks

to

file

a to

reply

to

defendant's

plaintiff's

motion

determine

entitlement to attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff's motion

for leave to file a reply complies with Local Rule 3.01(d), M.D. Fla., to the extent that it does not exceed three pages in length, and it specifies the length of the requested reply (ten pages). However, reasonable minds could disagree as to

whether plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply actually includes the substance of the reply within the body of the motion. Defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's

motion for leave to file a reply states, "Plaintiff's request for permission to file a reply is nothing more than a thinly veiled argument on the merits ­- without telling the court why he should be allowed to file a reply, Plaintiff rehashes the arguments already made and attacks Nautilus' various

positions." (Doc. # 15 at 5). This Court tends to agree with defendant that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply was more detailed than necessary to communicate to the Court plaintiff's reasons for seeking to file the reply. Nevertheless, this Court will Plaintiff asserts in his

allow plaintiff to file a reply.

motion for leave to file a reply that defendant has misstated the facts and that defendant's case law should not be applied
-2-

to the facts of the present case. This Court finds that these grounds warrant the filing of a reply memorandum. Plaintiff

is granted the opportunity to file a five page reply within ten days of the date of this order. As for plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply, this Court determines that there are no grounds to strike defendant's response. Plaintiff argues that defendant's

response in opposition to the motion for leave to file a reply is prohibited by the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff's argument is simply incorrect.

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply is a motion to which defendant was permitted to respond. Defendant's

response complies with Local Rule 3.01(b). motion to strike is denied. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1)

Accordingly, the

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(d) (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED to the extent

that plaintiff may file a five page reply within ten days of the date of this order.

-3-

(2)

Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. # 16) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 19th

day of February, 2009.

Copies to: All Counsel of Record

-4-