JOHNSTON
v.
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion to strike and will consider the plaintiff's filings.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed two documents exceeding the page limit for responses. Defendants moved to strike or disregard these documents for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
and AIPAC THE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case No: 6:24-cv-1465-JSS-UAM
ORDER
Plaintiff, Rick Johnston, proceeding pro se, has filed two documents: a nine- page "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]
2. The court will consider Plaintiff's documents (Dkts. 79, 81).
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party Counsel of Record
-3-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Knight v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 333 F.R.D. 245 (M.D. Fla. 2025)