10.28.26
As of January 1, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court adopted significant changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. These changes were made in an attempt to streamline cases and lighten the docket load on trial courts. The amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure were intended to promote active case management while giving each judicial circuit leeway for customization based on case complexity, volume, and resources. Many, if not all, of the changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were made to mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and promote the timely resolution of cases through effective case management. The changes resulted, in part, from older cases lingering on dockets with little to no activity from the parties.
The goal of the changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure was to promote efficiency and lighten judges’ dockets. However, achieving such efficiency without resources comparable to those available in federal courts has proven costly for many Florida practitioners. While the new rules reward practitioners who work quickly and efficiently, as in federal practice, adapting to the changes has presented challenges for both judges and lawyers.
Among the various changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the ones that most closely resemble federal practice are as follows:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 addresses case management. Case management orders must now specify nine deadlines, and cases are assigned to either a streamlined track or a general track. The nine required deadlines are as follows:
Courts have the authority to impose sanctions when a party fails to meet any of these deadlines. In theory, the now-strict case deadlines ensure that the parties address discovery and procedural matters as soon as it becomes evident that resolution between counsel without court intervention is no longer feasible. The deadlines are intended to ensure trial readiness.
Similar to the Florida Federal Southern Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), requirement of good faith conferral prior to filing non-dispositive motions, the new Florida Rule 1.202 requires counsels to confer on most motions. The party seeking relief must state at the end of the motion, before the signature line, that either 1) moving counsel certified conferral efforts were made, including details as to the communication, date of communication, and result of communications, whether the opposing party agrees or disagrees, or certify that conferral is not required under Rule 1.202(b). Similar to the federal rule, dispositive motions, such as motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for default, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and motions for directed verdict, do not require conferral.
This rule amendment is particularly focused on easing the crowded hearing dockets of Florida circuit courts, which are often inundated with special-set hearings and motion calendars involving issues that may be resolved between the parties. This rule promotes resolution between the parties by requiring counsel to engage in substantive communications and attempt to resolve issues before filing a motion. It also helps preclude the filing of frivolous motions as a litigation tactic.
New Rule 1.280 requires a party, without waiting for a discovery request, to provide the other party with the following information unless it is privileged or protected from disclosure:
A party must make its initial disclosures within 60 days after service of the complaint or joinder unless the court sets a different deadline. Like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a party may not seek discovery from another party until it serves its initial disclosures. In practice, this means that if a plaintiff wishes to serve initial discovery with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff must also serve initial disclosures. A party is not obligated to respond to discovery within the ordinary response period when that discovery was served without the required initial disclosures.
Like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), new Florida Rule 1.280(c)(1) requires discovery to be proportional to the needs of the case, considering the stakes at issue, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to information, and the importance of discovery in resolving the issues.
This amendment is particularly useful to defense attorneys seeking to challenge requests for unnecessary or irrelevant client information made by plaintiffs as a litigation tactic.
Under amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440, cases are no longer required to be “at issue” before they may be set for trial. Previously under Florida Rule 1.440(a), a case had to be “at issue” when any motion directed to the last pleading had to be disposed of and then a party could file a notice for trial signaling the case was ready for trial. Under the amended rule, this is no longer necessary. Instead, courts now issue an order fixing the trial period at least 45 days before the projected trial period established in a case management order.
This change to Rule 1.440 goes hand in hand with Rule 1.460, under which trial continuances are rarely granted unless good cause is shown. From our experience, this rule has been strictly enforced, with trial court judges often having to provide the Florida Supreme Court with the specific reasons a continuance was granted. The new language expressly states:
Generally. Motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. Successive continuances are highly disfavored. Lack of due diligence in preparing for trial is not grounds to continue the case.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460(a).
The changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have been a significant adjustment for Florida attorneys, particularly those who do not have a federal practice background. Cases are no longer easily continued, and practitioners are now required to litigate their cases efficiently. Given the new strict deadlines, many Florida practitioners face the challenge of obtaining hearing dates on a trial judge’s limited calendar before the applicable deadlines and trial periods established in the case management and trial orders.
Some Florida attorneys, especially those practicing in smaller counties, find themselves only a few weeks from trial with various motions still pending because of limited hearing availability on the trial judge’s calendar. Florida attorneys with high-volume caseloads or cases involving multiple parties may test the practicality of these changes. This new shift in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure has caused many attorneys to reevaluate their litigation strategies and make substantial efforts to identify and pursue anticipated discovery early in each case to ensure trial readiness.
One consequence of applying the new rules to older cases filed before the changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure is a stronger push for resolution between the parties because of the limited availability of trial continuances. The new rules have also required practitioners to change their trial preparation strategies. Florida litigators are now forced to give greater consideration to presenting expert testimony by video rather than through the preferred in-person testimony because many trial judges may not find an expert’s unavailability to constitute good cause for a trial continuance.
It will be interesting to observe how the changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure continue to shape Florida litigation practices.
For additional details regarding our attorneys, our business activities, or if you would like to speak to a Weber Gallagher lawyer, please contact:
© 2026 Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP. All Rights Reserved.
