Opinion ID: 2994047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: McLean’s Motion to Strike

Text: McLean cross-appealed the District Court’s Order denying his Motion to Strike the government’s untimely response to his Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for a New Trial. It is McLean’s position that the government 41 Case: 14-10061 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 42 of 43 violated the district court’s local rules when it filed its response one week late, and that the district court should have granted his motions by default. Southern District of Florida Rule 7.l(c) provides: “Each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion. Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.” Notably, the rule does not require the court to strike an untimely memorandum. The district court, consequently, did not violate Rule 7.1(c) in considering the government’s opposition to his motion. Furthermore, this Court will not typically “second-guess the district court’s interpretation of its own Rule” regarding timeliness in an effort to avoid “undermin[ing] the goal of [those] standards that local rules seek to establish.” Clark v. Hous. Auth. of City of Alma, 971 F.2d 723, 727-28 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, McLean provides no reasons to support his contention that the district court abused its considerable discretion in denying his motion to strike the government’s response. Moreover, as the government pointed out at the hearing on the motion, the district court was not constrained by Local Rule 7.1(c) from hearing live argument on the same issues presented in the government’s brief. Thus, striking the brief would not have automatically entitled McLean to judgment in his favor or resulted in the exclusion of the government’s arguments. In the end, the district 42 Case: 14-10061 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 43 of 43 court was well within its discretion to consider the document in order to make a fully informed decision on the merits of McLean’s sufficiency challenge.