Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK

ROBERT H JERRY, II, LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on several open motions. Defendants have pending a

renewed Motion to Dismiss, to which Plaintiffs have responded. On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a Motion to Strike, Doc. 91, to which Defendants have responded, Doc. 102. Plaintiff has filed a

Motion for Leave to reply to that response, Doc. 105. This Court has ordered a hearing on open

motions, which is currently scheduled for July 22, 2010. 

Three days after this Court ordered the hearing on open motions, Plaintiff filed several

new motions. Those include a Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Recusal, a Motion

for Scheduling Conference, and Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Defendants have

indicated in correspondence with Plaintiff and the Clerk that they are prepared to oppose those

motions at the hearing on July 22nd. Plaintiff indicated in reply that she would be prejudiced if

Defendants were able to present their opposition for the first time at oral argument, with Plaintiff

unable to see Defendants’ argument and authority beforehand. Defendants then indicated that

there was not sufficient time to respond in writing to the July 15 motions before the July 22

hearing, and that they oppose “yet another effort at a delay in hearing the defendants’ longpending dispositive motion.” 

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 108 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK

While the Court does not encourage delay, neither does it encourage the duplication of

effort that may result from full argument of a motion to dismiss a Complaint if that Complaint is

to be later amended. Therefore, oral argument will only take place once the parties have had a

full and fair opportunity to file written briefs on outstanding motions. The Court has considered

all pending motions, and determined which ones require further consideration and argument. 

Additionally, the Court has considered the correspondence and the form of

correspondence from the parties thus far. As Local Rule 7.1(F) states, unless invited or directed

by a judicial officer, attorneys shall not address or present to the Court in the form of a letter or

the like any application requesting relief. As Local Rule 5.1(F) states, facsimile transmission

shall not be used for the routine filing of papers. Thus, any request for relief must be filed with

the Clerk and docketed, with copies sent to the opposing party. Parties should not be faxing

letters or requests for relief to this Court while neglecting to provide identical copies to the

opposition. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 96, regarding recusal, is DENIED. 

2. Motion for Leave to File Reply, Doc. 105, is GRANTED. 

3. Counsel are directed to comply with Local Rules 5.1 and 7.1. 

3. The Clerk is directed to CANCEL the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2010.

4. The Clerk is directed to set by separate notice a hearing on all open motions after

Defendants have responded to the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, Doc. 98,

and Motion for Scheduling Conference, Doc. 101.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 108 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2