*1 This Court has considered, without hearing, Defendant's Motion to Strike Document No. 40-3. ECF No. 42. Defendant asks this Court to strike Exhibit 14 to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, on the grounds Plaintiff failed to timely disclose it to Defendant. The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff's claims arise out of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a); and the Florida Civil Rights Act, § 760.01, et seq., Fla. Stat. The document Defendant seeks to strike appears to be a partial[1] application for medical leave, as well as two facsimile cover sheets. ECF No. 40-3. Defendant claims Plaintiff failed to produce this document in discovery and that, prior to Plaintiff's filing it in support of her response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Defendant had never seen the document before and was unaware of its existence. Thus, Defendant claims, Plaintiff violated the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and should be sanctioned by striking the offending document.

A party must disclose, without awaiting a request, “a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). Failure to disclose the information required by Rule 26 means a party is “not allowed to use that information ... to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

A motion to strike is not the proper means to redress a Rule 26 violation, and this Court will therefore interpret ECF No. 42 as a motion for sanctions under Rule 37. See Pitts v. HP Pelzer Auto. Sys., Inc., No. CV 118-012, 2019 WL 2448821, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 2019) (doing same). The ultimate question in a Rule 37 analysis is whether the failure to disclose was harmless. In the present case, the record reflects that, although Plaintiff did not disclose the document in question during discovery, the document was faxed to Defendant on May 21, 2017. See ECF No. 40-3 at 1. Belief that another party already has the information in question is not a substantial justification for failure to disclose that information. This Court is persuaded, however, that because Defendant had been provided with this document before this litigation began, Plaintiff's failure to disclose it is harmless. Defendant also does not argue it has suffered or will suffer any harm from Plaintiff's nondisclosure. Defendant's motion, ECF No. 42, is therefore DENIED.

*2 There is one further issue: the parties' compliance (or lack thereof) with this Court's Local Rules. Before filing a motion in this Court, a party “must attempt in good faith to resolve the issue through a meaningful conference with an attorney for the adverse party.” N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B). Motions must also “include a certificate—under a separate heading—confirming that the moving party complied with the attorney-conference requirement ... and setting out the results.” N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C). Finally, all motions must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law, N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(E), and the document must include a certificate which states the number of words in the memorandum, N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(F).

Defendant's motion satisfies exactly none of these requirements. This Court's Local Rules are not suggestions, nor do they exist without reason. In the same breath as it asks this Court to sanction Plaintiff for violating procedural rules, Defendant has itself failed to comply with a different set of procedural rules. Similarly, Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion—which raises Defendant's failure to comply with this Court's Local Rules—itself does not contain the required certificate stating the number of words in her memorandum. These ironies are not lost on the undersigned. Given this Court's ruling on the merits of Defendant's motion, this Court concludes no further action is necessary at this time. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(F).

It should, however, be clear to the parties that this Court does not take lightly failures to comply with rules of procedure. As counsel for the parties learned in their first-year Civil Procedure courses, these rules exist to facilitate an orderly search for truth and the fair, efficient resolution of disputes. This Court will not tolerate a lackadaisical attitude towards these rules.

SO ORDERED on September 3, 2019.