Practice Note, October 2025. A significant procedural distinction exists between the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (“SDNY/EDNY”) and the U.S. District Courts for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida (“M.D./S.D. Florida”) with respect to motion practice. While these courts seek to streamline litigation and reduce unnecessary briefing, their approaches differ markedly.
SDNY/EDNY: Judge-Specific Pre-Motion Letter Requirements
In the SDNY/EDNY, the Local Rules themselves do not impose a general pre-motion conferral requirement. Rather, conferral obligations arise through the individual practices of judges.
Many judges require pre-motion letters—typically limited to three pages—before filing dispositive or significant motions. These letters aim to narrow issues and allow the court to determine whether full briefing is necessary. For example, Judge Katherine Polk Failla in the SDNY requires pre-motion letters before motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, sanctions and discovery, and directs the parties to meet and confer before submitting the letter.
Thus, in the SDNY/EDNY, while there is no district-wide obligation to confer before filing motions, the prevailing practice across judges’ chambers is to require conferral before pre-motion letters.
M.D./S.D. Florida: Uniform Conferral and Certification
By contrast, the M.D./S.D. Florida adopt a district-wide rule of conferral and certification through Local Rules 3.01(g) (M.D. Florida) and 7.1(a)(2) (S.D. Florida), which provide that before filing most motions in a civil action, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the motion, and must file with the motion a statement certifying that the parties have met and conferred and, if the motion is opposed, describing the means by which the conference occurred.
This requirement applies broadly and is enforced rigorously. Judges also emphasize it in their individual rules. For example, the individual rules (or “preferences”) of Judge William Jung in the M.D. Florida caution counsel that “placing a phone call or sending an email is not sufficient,” and warn that “failure to comply with the rule will result in the court denying or striking the motion.” Other judges routinely direct counsel to Local Rules 3.01(g) and 7.1(a)(2) in their individual rules. Notably, unlike in the SDNY/EDNY, judges in the M.D./S.D. Florida do not allow pre-motion letters. Instead, the court’s uniform mechanism for streamlining motion practice is the conferral-and-certification requirement, which applies district-wide.
Conclusion
While these four federal districts aim to reduce unnecessary motion practice, their procedural philosophies diverge:
- In the SDNY/EDNY, conferral obligations are judge-specific, with most judges requiring conferral before pre-motion letters.
- In the M.D./S.D. Florida, conferral obligations are district-wide, mandated by Local Rules 3.01(g) and 7.1(a)(2) respectively, and reinforced in judges’ preferences, without any pre-motion letter requirement.
For practitioners, the lesson is clear: effective advocacy in federal court requires attention not only to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also to the practices of the assigned judge in the SDNY/EDNY and the uniform conferral mandate in the M.D./S.D. Florida.
_____
Madsen Law P.A. is a litigation law firm that provides services in both New York and Florida.