ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Objection to Magistrate Judge Smith's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 136). Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion and the time within to do so has expired.

The Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in question was entered on March 25, 2016 (Doc. 127). On April 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their 53 page objection ("Objection") to the R&R (Doc. 131). The Objection is due to be stricken because it violates M.D. FLA. 3.01(b) which provides that "[e]ach party opposing a motion or application shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or application a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages." Plaintiffs could have, but failed to seek leave of Court before filing their over-length Objection.

April 8, 2016 was the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Objection. They never sought leave of Court to extend the deadline, and they have not explained why they did not comply with the deadline. In the past, the Court has excused the failure by Plaintiffs in this and related cases to comply with deadlines. See Case No. 6:14-cv-6001-Orl-31TBS docket entry 173; Case No. 6:14-cv-6003-Orl-31TBS docket entry 123; Case No. 6:14-cv-6008-Orl-31TBS docket entry 116. In this instance, Plaintiffs have failed to show excusable neglect and therefore, the Objection is also due to be stricken for being untimely.

Now, after due consideration, the motion to strike is GRANTED and the Objection is STRICKEN.

DONE and ORDERED.