How-To: Write a Motion for Clarification

"Defendant’s motions perplex the Court for procedural and substantive reasons. Let’s take procedure first. Defendant’s motion for clarification cites no legal standard for the Court to apply. That is likely because neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules contemplate such a motion. At most, Defendant’s motion references (in a footnote) an unpublished Middle District of Florida case, in which the court construed a motion for clarification as a motion for reconsideration and applied the legal standard for that type of motion."

"At least two circuits have held that Rule 60(a), which allows for correction “from oversight or omission,” may be used “to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision,” which is basically the question at issue here. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Sartin v. McNair L. Firm PA, 756 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2014). Under this authority, Rule 60 may be used “for clarification and explanation... even in the absence of ambiguity, if necessary for enforcement.” Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1080. The Court is persuaded by these cases and will apply the standards used for Rule 60(a) to Plaintiffs’ motion.

Rule 60(a) may be used “for the purpose of reflecting accurately a decision that the court actually made.” Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 129 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1995)). "A district court is not permitted, however, to clarify a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) to reflect a new and subsequent intent because it perceives its original judgment to be incorrect.” Id. (quoting Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1992)). Rather, the clarification must “more clearly reflect [the court’s] contemporaneous intent.” Burton, 975 F.2d at 694."

"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain no specific provision allowing for a “motion for clarification.” See United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 164, 168 (D.D.C. 2011). Nevertheless, “these motions are generally recognized and allowed by federal courts.” Barnes v. District of Columbia, 289 F.R.D. 1, 13 n.6 (D.D.C. 2012). While some courts have analyzed motions for clarification under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), these rules are not always suited to the task because a motion for clarification merely asks a Court “to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague,” not to “alter or amend” a judgment. Philip Morris USA Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d at 168 (citation omitted)."

"Truist has counsel, and the Court expects them to know the Rules. While parties are free to seek clarification of orders or judgments, they cannot rely on the Court to tell counsel how to litigate."

"As the Court explained in its previous order, (Doc. 26), the Court may not provide legal advice. But Mr. Shed is free to consult the Middle District’s resources for pro se litigants. See Litigants Without Lawyers, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers (last visited August 31, 2022)"

• use this how-to guide (free)
• (see Rule 59 Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 57 Fed. R. Crim. P.)

• Contact TBD for more free samples

• Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, et al.