defandant's motion for leave to file a reply in support of his motion to transfer venue

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

ERICA KINSMAN, )))))))))

Case No.: 6:15-cv-696-Orl-22GJK

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMEIS WINSTON,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLYIN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Defendant Jameis Winston hereby respectfully moves for leave to file a reply in

support of its Motion to Transfer Venue.

On May 8, 2015, Mr. Winston filed a Motion to Transfer this case to the Northern

District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. 8. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Erica

Kinsman filed a Response in Opposition to the motion, along with a separately filed set of

supporting materials. Dkt. 23 & 24. Permitting Mr. Winston to file a reply to this

Opposition brief is appropriate because Plaintiff’s Opposition raised new, misleading

assertions of fact and law that are not present in or otherwise contemplated by her Complaint.

These include but are not limited to the following:

• A supporting declaration and nine additional exhibits that total 144 pages (in addition

to the 22-page Opposition brief). See Dkt. 24 & Exhibits. These new materials raise

new issues and factual assertions not addressed in her Complaint or elsewhere. These

include declarations from James L. Williams, Jr. (providing a summary and sub-

Case 6:15-cv-00696-ACC-GJK Document 26 Filed 05/29/15 of 5 PageID 548

2

exhibits addressing polling data on the purported jury pool in the Northern District of

Florida); from Susan K. Whitbourne (providing what appears to be an expert report,

with even more new sub-exhibits referenced by hyperlink (not included in the above

page counts)); and from John Clune (raising new factual assertions).

• Arguments and a related 38-entry exhibit challenging the relevance of most known

witnesses. These arguments rely on many new factual assertions not addressed in

Plaintiff’s Complaint or elsewhere.

• New arguments that misstate the relationship between this case and Plaintiff’s parallel

lawsuit against Florida State University, and that misstate a related new 20-page

transcript exhibit.

• Many misstatements of relevant law on issues not raised in prior filings, such as a

1404(a) movant’s evidentiary burden and the relevance to the 1404(a) question of a

purportedly unfriendly jury pool.

Accordingly, Mr. Winston respectfully requests that this Court grant leave to file a

reply brief of no more than 12 pages within five (5) business days following the Court’s

granting of this motion. The reply will assist this Court in determining whether to transfer

this case to the Northern District of Florida. Based on the substantial quantity—166 pages—

of the new material in Plaintiff’s filings, Mr. Winston believes that 12 pages is the minimum

number of pages needed for a concise response. If the Court grants this Motion, Mr. Winston

will commit to a 12-page limit and will endeavor to use fewer pages, if at all possible.

This motion is not made for the purpose of delay, will not prejudice the parties, and

will not affect any of the remaining deadlines in this case.


3

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Court has the discretion to allow a party to file a reply for good cause and when

additional information is needed to ensure a fair resolution. See, e.g., Montgomery Bank,

N.A. v. Alico Rd. Bus. Park, LP, 2014 WL 3828406, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2014).

Here, both of these conditions are met. Plaintiff raises new arguments and new

facts—over the course of her 166 pages of Opposition filings—based on polling data, an

expert report, various exhibits and sub-exhibits, and declarations that were not raised in her

Complaint. Mr. Winston should have an opportunity to respond to these arguments.

Moreover, a concise reply from Mr. Winston on these arguments will allow the Court to

consider all of the relevant facts and law when resolving the Motion to Transfer Venue.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Winston respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion

and allow Mr. Winston to file a reply in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue.

Local Rule 3.01(g) Certification

Counsel for Mr. Winston certifies that he has conferred in good faith with counsel for

Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff stated that he did not oppose Mr. Winston’s motion for a

reply, so long as: [1] the reply did not exceed five (5) pages; and [2] if granted, he would

request leave to file a surreply of no more than two (2) pages. Counsel for Mr. Winston

stated that 12 pages would be necessary, but that he would agree to allow Counsel for

Plaintiff any number of surreply pages. Counsel for Plaintiff did not agree.


4

DATED: May 29, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John F. MeyersJohn F. MeyersFlorida Bar No. [email protected] & THORNBURG LLP3475 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1700Atlanta, Georgia 30305-3327Telephone: 404.846.1693Facsimile: 404.264.4033

Attorney for Defendant Jameis Winston


5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the CM/ECF

Administrative Procedures of the Middle District of Florida, I hereby certify that on May 29,

2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF

system. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following CM/ECF participants by operation

of the Court’s electronic filing system:

David B. KingThomas A. ZehnderTaylor F. FordKing, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, PAPO Box 1631Orlando, FL [email protected]@[email protected]

I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic

filing by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

John CluneBaine KerrLauren E. GrothHutchinson Black and Cook, LLC921 Walnut Street, Suite 200Boulder, CO [email protected]@[email protected]

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of May, 2015.

By: /s/ John F. MeyersJohn F. Meyers


defandant's motion for leave to file a reply in support of his motion to transfer venue

Documents