1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE and KATHRYN LANE,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 4:20-cv-00020-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES; 

JONATHAN SATTER, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of the Florida 

Department of Management Services; 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES; MORTEZA 

HOSSEINI, in his official capacity as 

Chair of the University of Florida 

Board of Trustees; THOMAS KUNTZ, 

DAVID BRANDON, JAMES 

HEAVENER, LEONARD JOHNSON, 

MICHAEL MURPHY, DANIEL 

O’KEEFE, RAHUL PATEL, MARSHA 

POWERS, JASON ROSENBERG, 

ROBERT STERN, RAY THOMAS, 

and ANITA ZUCKER, in their official 

capacities as Members of the 

University of Florida Board of 

Trustees; and ANDY THOMAS, in his 

official capacity as Public Defender of 

the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida. 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

JOINT REPORT OF RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and this Court’s Order (ECF 21), the 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 17
2

parties submit the following report of their case management conference. 

Before proceeding with the details of the case management conference, 

the parties respectfully submit the challenges posed by the current health 

crisis due to COVID-19 and related travel and work restrictions complicates 

the parties’ ability to engage in or complete discovery and for that reason 

respectfully request an enlargement of the deadlines previously set by this 

Court as well as the ability of all parties to respond to unforeseen 

impediments related to discovery responses. The parties submit the 

following report of their case management conference:

1. Meeting of the Parties: The following counsel for the parties

participated in a Rule 26(f) conference by telephone on March 30, 2020: 

counsel for Plaintiffs (Simone Chriss, Jodi Siegel, Kirsten Anderson, Daniel 

Tilley, Anton Marino, and Eric Lindstrom); counsel for Defendant Florida 

Department of Management Services and Jonathan Satter, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services 

(Steven Carter and Miriam Coles); counsel for Defendant University of 

Florida Board of Trustees and individually named Trustee Defendants in 

their official capacities (Mark Logan and Jeffrey Slanker); and counsel for 

Defendant Andy Thomas, in his official capacity as Public Defender of the 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 17
3

Second Judicial Circuit of Florida (Mark Logan and Jeffrey Slanker).

2. Initial Disclosures: The parties agree to exchange the 

disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), by Monday, April 29, 2020.

3. Discovery Plan: The parties propose this discovery plan:

a. Subject of discovery: The parties agree that discovery will be 

needed on matters related to the Plaintiffs’ claims and the 

Defendants’ defenses.

b. Dates for commencing and completing discovery, 

including discovery commenced or completed before other 

discovery: The parties did not agree on this issue, and 

therefore: 

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that all discovery shall be due by, and 

as such the due date of all requested discovery shall not 

be later than, October 15, 2020.

ii. Defendants’ position is that all discovery shall be due by, 

and as such the due date of all requested discovery shall 

not be later than, January 1, 2021. Defendants request 

additional time because of disruptions to Defendants’ 

operations and anticipated discovery delays over the next 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 3 of 17
4

few months caused by Covid-19 precautions.

c. Maximum number of interrogatories by each party to 

another party, and the dates the answers are due: The 

parties agree that the number of interrogatories shall be 

governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. The parties did not agree as to 

the dates answers are due. 

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that the dates answers are due be 

governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, which states responding 

party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 

days after being served with the interrogatories.

ii. Defendants’ position is that responding party must serve 

its answers and any objections within 60 days after being 

served with the interrogatories.

d. Maximum number of requests for admissions, along with 

dates responses due: The parties agree that requests for 

admissions are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, which provides 

no limits on the number of requests for admissions. The parties 

did not agree as to the dates responses are due.

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that the date responses are due be 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 4 of 17
5

governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, which states a matter is 

admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the 

party to whom the request is directed serves on the 

requesting party a written answer or objection addressed 

to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.

ii. Defendants’ position is that responding party must 

respond within 60 days after being served.

e. Maximum number of depositions by each party: The parties 

agree to a maximum of 10 depositions by each party, 

consistent with the limits in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.

f. Limits of the length of depositions in hours: The parties 

agree to the limits in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d).

g. Dates for exchanging reports of expert witnesses: The 

parties did not agree on this issue, and therefore: 

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that the deadline is August 15, 2020,

for initial expert disclosures of any witness the parties 

intend to call at trial. The deadline for rebuttal reports is 

September 15, 2020, if the expert is intended to solely 

rebut or contradict evidence by an expert called by 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 5 of 17
6

another party in this case.

ii. Defendants’ position is that the deadline is October 28, 

2020 for initial expert disclosures of any witness the 

parties intend to call at trial. The deadline for rebuttal 

reports is November 28, 2020 if the expert is intended to 

solely rebut or contradict evidence by an expert called by 

another party in this case.

h. Dates for supplementation under Rule 26(e): The parties 

agree to inform opposing parties within 15 days of learning that 

a response is incomplete or incorrect, if the additional or 

corrective information has not otherwise been made known to 

the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.

4. Other Items:

a. Scheduling order conference is requested: The parties do

request a scheduling order conference.

b. Requested dates for pretrial conference: The parties did not

agree on this issue, and therefore: 

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that the parties will be ready for a 

pretrial conference on or after December 13, 2020.

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 6 of 17
7

ii. Defendants’ position is that the parties will be ready for a

pretrial conference on or after April 13, 2021.

c. Plaintiffs’ deadline to amend pleadings or join parties: The 

parties agree Plaintiffs’ deadline to amend pleadings or join 

parties is June 13, 2020.

d. Defendants’ deadline to amend pleadings or join parties:

The parties agree Defendants’ deadline to amend pleadings or 

join parties is July 13, 2020.

e. Final dates to file dispositive motions: The parties did not 

agree on this issue, and therefore: 

i. Plaintiffs’ propose that the final date to file dispositive 

motions is November 5, 2020.

ii. Defendants’ position is that the final date to file dispositive 

motions is January 22, 2021.

f. Prospects for settlement: The parties have discussed 

whether settlement is possible and whether mediation might be 

helpful in settlement, either now or after certain limited 

discovery has taken place. The parties agree the prospects for 

settlement cannot be determined at this early stage, but all 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 7 of 17
8

parties are open to mediation in furtherance of attempted 

settlement. 

g. Identify any alternative dispute resolution procedure that 

may enhance prospects for settlement: The parties agree 

that alternative dispute resolution can enhance the prospects 

for settlement, and as stated above all parties are open to 

mediation. 

h. Final dates for submitting 26(a)(3) witness lists, 

designations of deposition testimony, and exhibit lists: Per 

this Court’s Order (ECF 21, at 8), the parties did not set these 

deadlines and will await the Court’s further instructions after the 

close of discovery.

i. Final dates to file objections under Rule 26(a)(3): Per this 

Court’s Order (ECF 21, at 8), the parties did not set these 

deadlines and will await the Court’s further instructions after the 

close of discovery.

j. Suggested trial date and estimate of trial length: The parties 

did not agree on this issue, and therefore: 

i. Plaintiffs estimate the case will be ready for trial by

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 8 of 17
9

January 13, 2021. 

ii. Defendants’ position is that the case will be ready for trial 

by May 13, 2021. 

iii. The parties estimate that a minimum of two weeks will be 

necessary for trial.

5. Amendment/Revisions Needed to Court’s Initial Scheduling 

Order:

a. Discovery Deadline- Plaintiffs request that the deadline be 

extended to October 15, 2020; Defendants request that the 

deadline be extended to January 01, 2021.

b. Dispositive Motions- Plaintiffs request the deadline be 

extended to November 5, 2020; Defendants request the 

deadline be extended to January 22, 2021.

c. Expert Disclosures - Plaintiffs request that the deadline be 

extended to August 15, 2020, for initial expert disclosures of 

any witness the parties intend to call at trial, and extended to

September 15, 2020, for rebuttal reports if the expert is 

intended to solely rebut or contradict evidence by an expert 

called by another party in this case. Defendants request that 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 9 of 17
10

the deadline be extended to October 28, 2020, for initial expert 

disclosures of any witness the parties intend to call at trial, and 

extended to November 28, 2020, for rebuttal reports if the 

expert is intended to solely rebut or contradict evidence by an 

expert called by another party in this case.

6. Conference regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction: The 

parties have conferred regarding their willingness to consent to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction.

7. Nature and Basis of all Claims and Defenses, and Good 

Faith Attempt to Identify the Principal Factual and Legal Issues in 

Dispute:

a. Plaintiffs: The nature and basis of Plaintiffs’ claims against 

Defendants include discrimination on the basis of sex and 

failure to conform to gender stereotypes in violation of Title VII,

and discrimination on the basis of sex, failure to conform to 

gender stereotypes, and being transgender in violation of the 

Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs are employees of the State 

of Florida, and receive employer-sponsored health insurance 

benefits as part of their compensation for employment. All of 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 10 of 17
11

the State Plans, including those provided to Plaintiffs, explicitly 

exclude coverage for gender-affirming care. Plaintiffs have 

been, and continue to be, denied coverage for medically 

necessary gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria due to 

this categorical exclusion. The State Plans single out 

transgender employees, like Plaintiffs, for unequal treatment, by 

categorically depriving them of coverage for gender-affirming 

care while non-transgender employees receive coverage for all 

of their medically necessary care. 

b. Defendants:

i. (Public Defender Defendant). The Public Defender 

Defendant has raised several defenses to Plaintiff Lane’s 

claims via his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint 

(ECF 19). First, the Public Defender asserts the Plaintiff’s 

Claims against him, in his official capacity, fail for a lack of 

standing. None of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries are fairly 

traceable or can be redressed by the Public Defender 

Defendant. Second, the Public Defender Defendant 

asserts the Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by sovereign 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 11 of 17
12

immunity. Finally, the Public Defender Defendant seeks 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII claim as it does not state 

an actionable claim for sex-stereotyping discrimination.

The Public Defender reserves the right to contest facts 

asserted by the Plaintiff in support of her claims, including 

the medical necessity of the care or procedures sought 

and the application of other exclusions to such care or 

procedures including, but not limited to, cosmetic surgery 

exclusions. 

ii. (UF Defendants). The UF Defendants have asserted

several defenses, via their Motion to Dismiss, to Plaintiff

Claire’s claims (ECF 20). These include, first that the 

claims fail for a lack of standing. None of the Plaintiff’s 

alleged injuries are fairly traceable or can be redressed by 

the UF Defendants. The UF Defendants also assert the 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. The 

UF Defendants reserve the right to contest facts asserted 

by the Plaintiff in support of her Claims, including the 

medical necessity of the care or procedures sought and 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 12 of 17
13

the application of other exclusions to such care or 

procedures including, but not limited to, cosmetic surgery 

exclusions. 

iii. (DMS Defendants). Defendants, DMS and Satter, 

deny that Plaintiffs were subjected to any manner of 

gender or sex discrimination and assert that all of its 

actions have a rational basis and were undertaken for 

legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. None of 

Defendants’ actions constitute discrimination under Title 

VII or violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant further incorporates 

by reference the defenses included in its recently filed 

answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

8. Electronic Discovery: 

Each party is likely to request or produce information from electronic 

or computer-based media limited to data reasonably available to the parties 

in the ordinary course of business. At this time the parties do not anticipate 

the production of electronic data not reasonably available to the parties in 

the ordinary course of business. 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 13 of 17
14

Where possible, electronic data will be produced in a uniform format 

such as PDF; however, .pst files are acceptable as well. Upon specific 

request, electronic data must be produced in both PDF and in the form as it 

is kept in the ordinary course of business with the understanding that 

certain specific software may be required to open and view such data and 

that the producing party has no obligation to provide the requestor with 

such software. Electronic data will be produced via email, a mutuallyacceptable file hosting or file sharing service, by delivery of a data storage 

device (e.g., CD, DVD, USB drive, Hard Drive, etc.), or made available for 

copying and inspection at a time and place mutually agreeable to the 

parties. 

The parties agree to take reasonable measures to preserve 

potentially discoverable data from alteration or destruction.

9. Inadvertent Disclosure: Any inadvertent inclusion of privileged 

material in any disclosure or discovery response shall not result in a waiver 

of any associated privilege nor result in a subject matter waiver of any kind. 

A party who receives information which appears to be privileged shall 

immediately inform the producing party and shall, upon request 1) 

immediately return all inadvertently produced information; and 2) destroy all 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 14 of 17
15

copies or versions of the information.

10. Confidentiality Order: The parties request a Confidentiality 

Order to deal with protected health information and confidentiality of 

Plaintiffs’ personal medical information and records. The parties will submit 

a proposed order for approval by this Court.

Dated: April 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Simone Chriss 

SIMONE CHRISS, Fla. Bar No. 124062

simone.chriss@southernlegal.org

KIRSTEN ANDERSON, Fla. Bar No. 17179

kirsten.anderson@southernlegal.org

JODI SIEGEL, Fla. Bar No. 511617

jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org

Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.

1229 NW 12th Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 271-8890

DANIEL TILLEY, Fla. Bar No. 102882

dtilley@aclufl.org

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler St., Suite 400, 

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

ANTON MARINO, Fla. Bar. No. 1021406

amarino@aclufl.org

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler St., Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 15 of 17
16

(786) 363-2707

ERIC LINDSTROM, Fla. Bar No. 104778

elindstrom@eganlev.com

Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A.

P.O. Box 5276

Gainesville, FL 32627

(352) 672-6901

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

s/ J. Steven Carter 

J. STEVEN CARTER

Florida Bar No. 896152

scarter@henryblaw.com

MIRIAM R. COLES

Florida Bar No. 58402

mcoles@henryblaw.com

JACOB M. SALOW

Florida Bar No. 1019760

jsalow@henryblaw.com

Post Office Drawer 14079

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4079

(850) 222-2920: Telephone

(850) 224-0034: Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, AND JONATHAN SATTER

s/ Jeffrey D. Slanker 

JEFFREY D. SLANKER

Florida Bar No. 100391

E-mail: jslanker@sniffenlaw.com

MICHAEL P. SPELLMAN

Florida Bar No. 937975

E-mail: mspellman@sniffenlaw.com

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 16 of 17
17

MARK K. LOGAN

Florida Bar No. 0494208

E-mail: mlogan@sniffenlaw.com

SNIFFEN & SPELLMAN, P.A.

123 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Telephone: (850) 205-1996

Facsimile: (850) 205-3004

ATTORNEYS FOR THE UF AND PUBLIC 

DEFENDER DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of April, 2020, a true copy of 

the foregoing has been filed with the Court utilizing its CM/ECF system, 

which will transmit a notice of electronic filing to all Plaintiffs’ and 

Defendants’ counsel of record registered with the Court for that purpose.

/s/ Simone Chriss 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 31 Filed 04/13/20 Page 17 of 17