Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD

Filing 109

ORDER denying 108 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari and vacating that portion of the Paperless Order 103 granting Defendant an extension of time to file a reply memorandum to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Corrected Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/7/2025. See attached document for full details. (pb00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-61652-CIV-SINGHAL
ACCELERANT SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
JASON BALLARD,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
______________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in
Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness. (DE [108]). Defendant
opposes the present motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
The parties have both filed Daubert motions seeking to exclude the testimony of
their opposition’s expert witness. See (DE [82]) and (DE [98]). The Court’s pretrial order
limits the briefing on Daubert motions and expressly prohibits the filing of reply
memoranda unless leave is granted by the Court. See (DE [24]).
Notwithstanding that prohibition, Defendant sought (and received) an extension of
time to file a reply memorandum in support of his Daubert motion. See (DE [102] and
[103]). Defendant did not previously seek, and the Court had not granted, leave to file a
reply memorandum. The extension of time was, therefore, erroneously granted.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective Daubert motions and concludes
that reply memoranda are not necessary. This is especially true because this case is
being tried to the Court, not to a jury. In a bench trial, barriers to opinion testimony are
more relaxed than in a jury trial. United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1268 (11th Cir.

2005). “There is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is
keeping the gate only for himself.” Id. at 1269. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in
Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness (DE [108]) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the portion of the paperless order at
(DE [103]) granting Defendant an extension of time to file a reply memorandum to
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Corrected Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert (DE [99])
is VACATED. Defendant shall not file a reply memorandum.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of
March 2025.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

2