Florida rewrote its core discovery rule, and the changes are not cosmetic. Effective January 1, 2025, Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure now requires every party in a non-exempt civil case to make initial disclosures within 60 days of service — before anyone may serve a single interrogatory — replaces the old “relevant to the subject matter” standard with federal-style proportionality, and imposes a continuing duty to supplement. A further amendment took effect June 19, 2025. We have updated our Rule 1.280 reference page to the current text, current through The Florida Bar’s April 1, 2026 publication. Here is what the new rule means in practice.
Change No. 1: Discovery now begins with a duty, not a request
Under new subdivision (a), a party must, without waiting to be asked, provide four categories of information within 60 days after service of the complaint or joinder: the name and contact information of each individual likely to have discoverable information the party may use, along with the subjects of that information; a copy or description by category and location of the documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things it may use; a computation of each category of damages claimed with the supporting documents (computations are not required for noneconomic damages, but the categories must be identified and supported); and a copy of any insurance policy or agreement that may satisfy all or part of a judgment.
Two provisions give the deadline teeth. Subdivision (f)(1) bars a party from seeking discovery from any source until its own initial disclosures have been served, absent a stipulation or court order. And subdivision (a)(4) lists the excuses that do not work: that you have not finished investigating, that the other side’s disclosures were deficient, or that the other side has not disclosed at all. A party that objects to one item is still required to disclose everything else on time. The actions and claims listed in Rule 1.200(a) are exempt unless the court orders otherwise.
Change No. 2: Proportionality replaces “relevant to the subject matter”
For fifty years the Florida standard was anything not privileged that was relevant to the subject matter and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Subdivision (c)(1) now tracks Federal Rule 26(b)(1) almost word for word: discovery must be relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to information and their resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden outweighs the likely benefit. The 2024 Committee Note directs that the provision be construed in accordance with the federal proportionality standard, which means two decades of federal case law on proportionality is now persuasive in Florida trial courts.
The practical effect cuts both ways. The 45-request boilerplate production demand is easier to resist. But “overbroad and unduly burdensome,” standing alone, is no longer an objection; it is an invitation to do the analysis the rule now requires. New subdivision (k) closes the loop: every disclosure, request, response, and objection must be signed, and the signature certifies that the request or objection is not unreasonable or unduly burdensome given the needs of the case. Violations without substantial justification carry a mandatory sanction, including fees.
Change No. 3: A continuing duty to supplement
The old rule said a response that was complete when made carried no duty to supplement. That sentence is gone. Subdivision (g) now requires a party to supplement or correct its initial disclosures and its responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission in a timely manner whenever it learns the disclosure or response is materially incomplete or incorrect, unless the corrective information has already been made known to the other parties. The witness discovered in month eight has to be disclosed in month eight. Florida’s long-standing Binger test for excluding undisclosed witnesses now has a rule behind it, and trial courts have been quick to use it.
Three more additions worth knowing
Subdivision (i) codifies the apex doctrine: a current or former high-level government or corporate officer may obtain an order preventing a deposition by filing an affidavit disclaiming unique personal knowledge, shifting the burden to the requesting party to show exhausted, inadequate other discovery. Subdivision (j) requires written discovery responses to restate each request in full, as numbered, before the answer or objection — no more “see general objections.” And subdivision (h) continues the rule that discovery is not filed with the court absent good cause, now with express sanction authority.
Practice points
- Calendar day 60 from service, not from the answer. Initial disclosures are due whether or not a motion to dismiss is pending, unless the court sets a different date.
- Do not skip the insurance disclosure. It is the item clients most want to withhold and the rule most clearly requires.
- Serve your disclosures before your first request. Discovery served before your own disclosures is objectionable under (f)(1).
- Draft objections with the proportionality factors in view. Judges are asking for them, and your signature under (k) certifies them.
- Revisit disclosures when the theory of the case changes. The duty to supplement runs to trial.
Served With a Complaint? Your Discovery Clock Started the Same Day.
Under the current Rule 1.280 you have 60 days from service to make initial disclosures — and you cannot ask the other side for anything until you do. Cox Law, PLLC handles discovery strategy, proportionality objections, protective orders, and motions to compel for individuals and businesses in Florida courts statewide.
Call (813) 685-8600 or email WebQuestion@coxlawplc.com.
Read the rule: the full current text of Rule 1.280, General Provisions Governing Discovery, with Committee Notes, current through The Florida Bar’s April 1, 2026 publication. Related: Rule 1.380, Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions and Rule 1.202, Conferral Prior to Filing Motions.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Rules are amended frequently; verify the current text before relying on it.

