Case Law Update

Issue: Whether a trial court has the authority, in light of the amended Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200), to enforce case-management deadlines by excluding a party’s late-disclosed witness without conducting a prejudice analysis under the Binger rule.

Holding: The Sixth DCA made a deliberate shift toward strict enforcement of case-management orders:

• Trial courts have broad discretion to enforce case-management deadlines, including striking or excluding late-disclosed witnesses or experts;
• A court does NOT have to conduct a Binger prejudice analysis before excluding the witness;
• The court can exclude testimony based solely on violation of a pretrial/case-management order.

The court rejected the long-standing Binger rule that “you must find prejudice before excluding a witness,” and reframed Binger v. King Pest Control as addressing the admission of undisclosed witnesses, not exclusion, with its “prejudice factors” treated as nonbinding dicta in the exclusion context.

Relevant Facts & Procedural History

Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)

Decided by the Florida Supreme Court. Plaintiffs in Binger v. King Pest Control failed to disclose an expert witness prior to trial as required by pretrial order.

The Binger Rule: “The trial judge cannot enforce the pretrial order and exclude the undisclosed testimony without first finding that the opposing party was prejudiced by the failure to disclose. Thus, if an undisclosed witness or undisclosed testimony is offered in the middle of a trial or other evidentiary proceeding, the trial judge must interrupt the proceeding to make a prejudice determination.” Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1606 (2026) (discussing Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)).

Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1606 (2026)

Decided by the Florida Sixth DCA in 2026. The defendant in a negligence action repeatedly failed to disclose expert witnesses by court-ordered deadlines and only provided expert reports 2–3 weeks before trial due to counsel’s admitted office mismanagement. The trial court properly exercised its authority to strike the experts without conducting a prejudice analysis, even though the late disclosure left the defendant’s comparative negligence defense without expert support.

The decision in Crecelius v. Rizzitano affirms that trial courts possess the authority to enforce case management deadlines, including the exclusion of late-disclosed witnesses, and that this authority is reinforced by recent amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that the power to set deadlines inherently includes the power to enforce them, as otherwise, deadlines would lack meaningful effect.

The court relied on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200, which, at the time of the proceedings, authorized trial courts to schedule and enforce deadlines for the disclosure of expert witnesses and their opinions during case management conferences. The amended version of Rule 1.200, effective January 1, 2025, further strengthens this authority by explicitly requiring trial courts to issue case management orders that specify deadlines for the completion of expert discovery and other pretrial matters. These deadlines must be “strictly enforced unless changed by court order.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200. Specifically, subsection (e)(1) of Rule 1.200 reiterates this requirement, underscoring that deadlines in case management orders are binding unless formally modified.

In Crecelius, the trial court excluded the defendant’s expert witnesses for failing to meet the disclosure deadline set in the case management order. The appellate court upheld this decision, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the trial court should have considered the prejudice to the opposing party or the possibility of curing the late disclosure. The court clarified that the trial court was not required to conduct a prejudice analysis before enforcing the case management order, as the rules explicitly allow for strict enforcement of deadlines.

The recent amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure further align with this approach. These amendments emphasize active case management and adherence to deadlines established early in the litigation process. For instance, Rule 1.200(d)(3) mandates that case management orders indicate that deadlines will be strictly enforced, and Rule 1.200(e)(1) provides that parties must seek court approval to modify deadlines, ensuring that the integrity of the case management process is maintained.

Crecelius v. the Binger Rule

The decision in Crecelius also highlights a potential tension with the precedent set in Binger v. King Pest Control, which required courts to consider prejudice when deciding whether to allow undisclosed witnesses to testify. However, the court in Crecelius distinguished Binger, noting that it addressed the admission of undisclosed witnesses rather than the exclusion of late-disclosed witnesses under a case management order. The court concluded that the trial court’s authority to enforce deadlines under the rules supersedes any requirement to conduct a prejudice analysis in this context.

In conclusion, Crecelius v. Rizzitano underscores the trial court’s authority to enforce case management deadlines strictly, as supported by both existing and amended procedural rules. The decision reflects a broader shift in Florida’s civil procedure toward active case management and strict adherence to deadlines to promote the efficient resolution of cases.

Practical Implications for Attorneys

For personal injury litigation in Florida, the case:

• Addresses that deadlines in case management orders are real, enforceable commands;
• Exclusion is a proper sanction for noncompliance;
• Trial judges are not required to pause trial to hold a mini-hearing on prejudice;
• The burden shifts toward compliance, not cure.

This case law update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The application of the authorities discussed depends on the specific facts of each case. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar. This is attorney advertising.