Anyone remember venerable, beloved Local Rule 16.1B(1)?
We sure do:
At the outset, the Undersigned recognizes that, at present, there is no rule labeled as Local Rule 16.1B(1) in the Southern District of Florida. While there is other text in paragraph 4 to provide ample fodder for conjecture as to what was actually and privately intended by reference to that rule, the Undersigned is not in a position to project any specific meaning to that text. Accordingly, the Court will not enter the thorny thicket of hazarding a guess as to what Judge Martinez had in mind when he mentioned in paragraph 4 that now‐non‐existent subsection of the Local Rules.First off -- can anyone guess who wrote those two paragraphs?
Both parties ask the Undersigned to adopt their interpretation of the April 1, 2015 Order, urging that their take alone provides the true intent underlying paragraph 4. But the Undersigned is not prepared, at least not on this record, to discern Judge Martinez’s true intent by reaching inferences from other language in the Order or from the overall circumstances. If the parties wanted to obtain Judge Martinez’s actual intent about the succinct reference to a non‐existent local rule, then they could have sought clarification. They did not, and the Undersigned is not prepared to engage in speculative guessing games.
Second -- "at least not on this record" -- time for an evidentiary hearing?
(Please say yes!)