Practice Note, January 2026. Practitioners in the Middle District of Florida confront a procedural landscape unlike that in many other federal courts. Local Rule 3.01(e) provides that, absent leave of court, no party may file a reply directed to a response “except for a reply to a motion for summary judgment or a reply brief in a social security action.” In practical terms, this means that in the great majority of civil cases, the movant files an opening brief, the opponent responds, and the court decides the motion without further briefing. A reply is neither expected nor permitted unless expressly authorized, and courts grant leave sparingly.
The contrast with other districts is striking. In the Southern District of Florida, Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) explicitly provides that a movant may file a reply within seven days after service of a response. Likewise, in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Joint Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) sets out a conventional briefing sequence that includes reply memoranda as of right. Together, these districts maintain the familiar rhythm of motion–response–reply, which many federal practitioners take for granted.
The implications for strategy in the M.D. of Florida are profound. Because a reply is ordinarily unavailable, the movant must treat the opening memorandum as both a sword and a shield. Arguments that in other courts might be reserved for a reply must instead be anticipated and addressed in advance. The opening brief is not merely the first word—it is often the only word the movant will have on the merits of the motion. This front-loading of arguments requires careful attention to likely defenses, counterpoints, and alternative grounds that the opposing party might raise.
For the respondent, the prohibition on replies magnifies the importance of the opposition brief. Without a guaranteed opportunity to rebut, the movant is forced to live with whatever arguments appear in the response, unless those points were already anticipated in the opening submission. This dynamic gives the non-movant’s filing a special weight: it may be the last written submission the court sees before ruling.
Taken together, the absence of replies as of right transforms motion practice in the M.D. of Florida into something closer to a one-round contest. Counsel must approach the opening memorandum with the mindset that there will be no second chance, while opponents can draft knowing their arguments may stand unrebutted. By contrast, in the S.D. of Florida, S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y., the more traditional tripartite briefing schedule remains intact, offering movants an additional opportunity to refine arguments and neutralize opposition points.
The takeaway for counsel is clear: in the M.D. of Florida, thorough preparation, anticipatory advocacy, and a self-contained motion strategy are not merely best practices—they are essential to effective representation.
_____
Madsen Law P.A. is a litigation law firm that provides services in both New York and Florida.