Discovery disputes are won or lost before the motion is filed. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 requires good faith conferral(s) before filing most non-dispositive motions and demands a substantive certificate of compliance identifying dates, methods of communication, positions, and any failure to respond. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have similar requirements, coupled with specific requirements in each Florida district court. Some practitioners may treat conferral requirements as a checklist item rather than as a meaningful tool to advance the client’s advocacy, strengthen the merits of the case, and demonstrate to the court the parties’ ability to reach effective resolutions. Courts are enforcing these obligations and sanctioning noncompliance, including shifting fees to counsel personally. The following cases map the contours of what “good faith” means, what isn’t enough, and who pays when lawyers cut corners.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 imposes a duty on the party filing a non-dispositive motion to confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. This requirement does not apply when the movant or nonmovant is pro se. Conferral is also not required for the non-dispositive motions specifically listed in Rule 1.202(c). Therefore, any motion not explicitly listed, must include a certificate of conferral. Importantly, Rule 1.202 specifically provides for sanctions, even including denial of the motion, for failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements of this rule. The “purposeful evasion” of communication as it relates to conferrals may also result in sanctions.
Some practitioners fail to recognize the certificate of conferral is always required by either stating the efforts taken or the movant specifically certifying a conferral is not required under rule 1.202:
(b) Certificate of Conferral. At the end of the motion and above the signature block, the movant must include a certificate of conferral in substantially the following form:
“I certify that prior to filing this motion, I discussed the relief requested in this motion by [method of communication and date] with the opposing party and [the opposing party (agrees or disagrees) on the resolution of all or part of the motion] OR [the opposing party did not respond (describing with particularity all of the efforts undertaken to accomplish dialogue with the opposing party prior to filing the motion)].”
OR
“I certify that conferral prior to filing is not required under rule 1.202.”
Florida Courts Increasingly Enforce Stricter Conferral Requirements
In Jet Blast, Inc. v. Blue Lake Serv., LLC, 348 F.R.D. 706 (N.D. Fla. 2025), the Northern District of Florida reminded the parties the conferral requirements are taken seriously by the court and the conferral included in the motion was inadequate to meet that standard. The movant included a certificate of good faith conferral that represented its attempts to resolve the issues in the motion were futile. However, the movant filed its motion only one day after receiving a message from opposing counsel regarding the discovery. This undermined the notion that a meaningful meet and confer even had the opportunity to take place:
Finally, Jet Blast’s motion contains a certificate of good faith conference that represents attempts to resolve the issues raised in the motion were futile. However, Jet Blast filed its motion one day after receiving Buckles’ message, and there is no indication Jet Blast’s counsel asked the Defendants whether they had the materials referenced in the message before filing the motion. As this Court discussed with the parties at the hearing, this Court takes the Local Rules’ meet and confer requirements seriously. A meet-and-confer must be meaningful and, generally, an email sent shortly before a motion is filed demanding certain conduct be taken is not sufficient. Parties facing discovery disputes are wise to have an actual phone conversation, or even better, an in-person conversation, when possible. It would seem to the Court that had such a conversation taken place after Jet Blast received Buckles’ message, the Court would not have had to intervene.
Similarly, in Ofer Peleg v. Joe Genovese et al., No. 24-23413-CV, 2025 WL 3737632 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2025), the Southern District made clear the conferral requirement is mandatory, even for motions the parties believe a meet and confer would be futile, such as a motion for sanctions.
It isn’t Silent Strategy—it’s Sanctionable.
In Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Miele Inc., No. 3:22CV23795-TKW-HTC, WL 10406716 (N.D. Fla. June 21, 2023), U.S. Magistrate Judge Hope Cannon granted defendant Miele Inc.’s motion to compel codefendant Builder Specialties, Inc. to respond to discovery requests and awarded attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). The court determined discovery was properly served and the silent response of counsel warranted sanctions.
On April 6, 2023, Miele propounded discovery requests on Builder, but after the deadline passed without response, Miele’s counsel sent five separate emails to Builder’s firm before filing the motion to compel.
The court ultimately found that Miele’s counsel properly served discovery requests on both of Builder’s attorneys, Mr. Talbert and Ms. Payne from the Quintairos firm, at their email addresses registered with the court. The court dismissed Builder’s excuse that Mr. Talbert was out of the office for over five weeks, noting there was no indication Miele’s counsel knew of his absence, no out-of-office reply was indicated, and no notice of non-availability was filed. The court also rejected the argument that neither attorney handles discovery unless alerted by a junior associate, calling this excuse “unacceptable” and noting it does not abdicate counsel’s responsibility for meeting discovery obligations.
The court detailed Miele’s extensive efforts to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing the motion to compel including that Miele’s counsel sent at least five emails to multiple firm personnel for the opposing party, including Mr. Talbert, as lead counsel, two paralegals, and an administrative assistant. One of the paralegals responded, “I am in the process of putting these together. I will make sure that Mr. Talbert sees your message. I apologize for the delay and I appreciate your patience.”
However, Mr. Talbert took the position that that the paralegal’s response should not be considered because the paralegal was not listed on the email designation list with the court. The court rejected the attempt to disregard the staff response as “unauthorized,” noting the individual worked at the same firm and for lead counsel: “While that argument reveals a potential problem with the working relationship between Mr. Talbert and his staff, Miele’s counsel certainly cannot be impugned for relying on Mr. Watford’s email as both confirmation that Mr. Talbert was aware of the discovery and would provide written responses.”
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), when a court grants a motion to compel, it must require payment of reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees, unless the opposing party’s conduct was substantially justified.
The Court found the party’s failure to timely respond to Miele’s discovery requests and its objection to the motion to compel to not be substantially justified. Therefore, Miele was entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of the motion to compel.
The message is straightforward: wholly ignoring email communications and conferral attempts invites sanctions.
Key Implications for Practitioners
- Exchange ideas, not emails. Courts expect real-time dialogue (phone or in-person) aimed at resolution, especially where definitions and categories drive discovery disputes.
- Be timely. Conferrals must be proximate to filing. Some Florida jurisdictions require conferrals prior to filing and again prior to the hearing.
- Be accurate. Certifications are representations to the court and any inaccuracies may invite sanctions.
- Document efforts. Identify dates, modes, participants, topics, and any nonresponses in your certificate.
- Expect fee shifting to counsel. Courts increasingly tailor sanctions so lawyers, not the clients, bear the cost of noncompliance.
- Don’t ignore outreach. Silence and delay will be construed against you and can justify fees on a motion to compel.
Bottom Line: Florida courts are enforcing meet-and-confer obligations with practical rigor, they require genuine dialogue, contemporaneous efforts, and candid certifications. Failures can result in compelled actions, adverse fee awards, and counsel-paid sanctions. Treat conferral as an integral part of advocacy, because Florida judges are too.