Stipulation: I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

Also, "The Court is not the parties' paralegal."

From Grayson v. No Labels, Inc., decided yesterday by Judge Paul Byron (M.D. Fla.):

This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. On February 2, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Compliance, stating that they submitted their proposed Stipulations of Material Facts for their respective Motions for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff never responded to Defendants' communications. Defendants then attached their proposed Stipulations of Material Facts. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Compliance and attached "their proposed redline edits to Defendants proposed Stipulations of [] Material Facts," claiming that "Defendants submitted their own versions of their proposed [S]tipulations before giving Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to include the edits shown on the attached [e]xhibits."

It seems the parties are not aware that a "stipulation" is, by definition, "[a] voluntary agreement between opposing parties concerning some relevant point." The Court is not the parties' paralegal, and it will not wade through redlined versions of Defendants' proposed Stipulations of Material Facts.

Accordingly, all of these filings are hereby STRICKEN as noncompliant with the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. The parties are DIRECTED to telephonically meet and confer and submit one Stipulation of Material Facts for each Motion for Summary Judgment on or before Friday, April 22, 2022. In addition, each Stipulation of Material Facts should delineate (1) which allegedly defamatory statements are at issue and (2) when those allegedly defamatory statements were published.