It is possible to litigate a case for years without ever stepping into a courtroom. Therefore, never assume there is going to be a hearing. Answer motions in writing and file them before they are due.
Even if you know there will be a hearing, you are pro se and it is always in your best interest to respond in writing. Then you get a SECOND chance to persuade the court during the hearing. It is highly unlikely you will be able to make an oral presentation as thoroughly as you can make a written presentation. Besides that, you want the judge to see your argument before the hearing, just as she is seeing the d’s arguments.
>>And why didn't the judge just grant or deny the motion?
She intends to. She is giving you a second chance to defend against it. The D goes to the court and says, “Hey, this complaint is bogus because A, B, and C. The court then waits for you to either prove that D’s arguments are invalid, or immediately correct your deficiencies. If you can’t or won’t do either, as long as there was merit to d’s motion, it will be granted.
You defaulted on this motion and if you were not pro se, she probably would have granted the motion against you already.
>>I deliberately did not respond so that the judge could decide what exactly, if anything, was lacking, and after a month of waiting all I get is an order to respond.
The court will not (cannot) tell you what to do. The d’s motion should spell out what is missing from your complaint. It is your job to find out whether there is merit to d’s motion and if so correct the problem if possible.
>>with memorandums of law and citations - which would only be needed if I was arguing the motion.
D has apparently raised questions of law that would preclude your claims. In other words, he is saying that even if everything in your complaint is true, you have no legal grounds for recovery. He is asking you to tell him exactly what law your complaint is based upon. If you can’t do that…you have no complaint.
>>I think I will just file the response and TRY to clarify some things, but note that other items will be provided during discovery.
Like I said, the court is not looking for evidence. The court is looking for probable cause to drag this d into court. WHAT makes you think you have a legal claim against him?
>>Clarifying was my first instinct, but it's not so much clarity that they're looking for as explicit detail and proof. There is more than enough information in the complaint to frame a response to the allegations, as the rules of civil procedure
Sure, if you sue me for giving you a mean look at the office, I can certainly respond to that allegation. But I would not do so, because there is no law against me giving you a mean look. I would ask you to kindly tell me what law you believe I broke and exactly how you think I broke it. Then you might correct your complaint and inform me that pursuant to Florida Statute blah blah blah, since I was cleaning a hand gun while giving you the mean look, and since I also did x, y, and z, that made you feel threatened, you are suing me for making Terroristic Threats against you. NOW, I (and my lawyer) know what I have to defend against so when I answer your complaint I know the relevant facts that I need to address.
>>I can clarify my statements, but isn't the discovery process where the supporting documents (such as surveys) come in?
You didn’t say they wanted documents, you said they wanted LAW. That is the only thing they should be asking for at this point.