You are on page 1of 5

Case 6:15-cv-00696-ACC-GJK Document 26 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 548





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


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 Plaintiffs 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 Page 2 of 5 PageID 549

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
Plaintiffs Complaint or elsewhere.

New arguments that misstate the relationship between this case and Plaintiffs 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) movants 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 Courts
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 quantity166 pages
of the new material in Plaintiffs 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.

Case 6:15-cv-00696-ACC-GJK Document 26 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID 550

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
factsover the course of her 166 pages of Opposition filingsbased 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. Winstons 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.

Case 6:15-cv-00696-ACC-GJK Document 26 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID 551


May 29, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John F. Meyers

John F. Meyers
Florida Bar No. 0026566
3475 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1700
Atlanta, Georgia 30305-3327
Telephone: 404.846.1693
Facsimile: 404.264.4033
Attorney for Defendant Jameis Winston

Case 6:15-cv-00696-ACC-GJK Document 26 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID 552

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 Courts electronic filing system:
David B. King
Thomas A. Zehnder
Taylor F. Ford
King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, PA
PO Box 1631
Orlando, FL 32802-1631
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 Clune
Baine Kerr
Lauren E. Groth
Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC
921 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of May, 2015.

/s/ John F. Meyers

John F. Meyers