News & Updates

This September, IAALS and the National Judicial College will host an educational summit exclusively tailored for state court judges on all facets of the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI)—from preservation to production to eventual use at trial. The Summit will feature nationally renowned speakers and will provide both a core of basic training for judges on e-discovery and in-depth and interactive discussions on the more complex issues facing judges in state courts across the nation.

The Minnesota Supreme Court continues to implement rule changes stemming from the recommendations of its Civil Justice Reform Task Force. On May 7, 2013, the Court adopted an Order authorizing the creation of a Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track "to promote efficiency in the processing of certain civil cases," reduce costs, and provide a quick and reduced-cost process for obtaining a jury trial when civil actions cannot be resolved by judicial decision or by settlement.

On March 7, 2013, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal entered an Administrative Order recognizing the successful ad hoc use of a Fast Track jury trial process in South Carolina and implementing the voluntary process statewide. The Court also adopted Rules and Procedures for the Fast Track jury trial process, which apply in the absence of agreement of counsel otherwise.

IAALS has played an important role in empowering jurisdictions to experiment with pilot projects and rules changes. Today, we are making information about these programs more accessible to all by launching Action on the Ground, an interactive map that gives users rich information about programs around the country—at a glance.

In November, the Texas Supreme Court issued long-awaited rules for expedited actions, proposing a mandatory expedited process for cases of $100,000 or less. The Texas Supreme Court has since issued revised final rules, which became effective March 1, 2013. Despite considerable public commentary on the mandatory nature of the rules, the Expedited Actions process under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 remains mandatory for cases of $100,000 or less.

The Iowa Supreme Court is moving forward with implementation of a Business Specialty Court Pilot Project and will begin receiving cases on May 1, 2013. The Business Specialty Court Pilot Project grows out of the recommendations of Iowa’s Supreme Court Task Force for Civil Justice Reform. Among the recommendations was the establishment of a business court pilot project, one judge/one case and date certain for trial, adoption of the Federal Rules’ initial disclosure regime, and a two-tiered differentiated case management pilot project.

IAALS’ new publication, A Roadmap for Review: Guide for Appraisal and Improvement of Caseflow Management in Civil Cases in U.S. District Courts, provides the tools for any interested federal judge to make a quick, initial assessment of the status of his or her civil case docket to measure how it compares to his or her colleagues as well as to courts across the nation. If further analysis and appraisal are deemed appropriate or desirable, this Guide provides the user with the tools to do so and recommendations for better practices.

The District of Nevada adopted a Short Trial Program on March 11, 2013. The Short Trial Rules include the express purpose of expediting "civil trials (both bench trials and jury trials) through procedures designed to control the length of the trial, including, without limitation, restrictions on discovery, the use of smaller juries, and time limits for presentation of evidence."

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado announced proposed amendments to its Local Rules on March 7, 2013, which may foretell of pilot programs or other special projects in the District of Colorado's future. The proposed amendments are few, but include sections on "Pilot Programs or Special Projects," which may be "authorized by the court following reasonable public notice and opportunity for public comment."

On Monday, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon directed that local rule amendments that had previously been proposed and submitted for public comment take effect March 1, 2013. The amendments include adoption of two pilot projects that are being implemented around the country to focus and streamline discovery. The District of Oregon’s adoption of both projects reflects its commitment to finding solutions to unnecessary cost and delay in the litigation process.

The National Center for State Courts has developed a new model for estimating civil litigation costs, known as the Civil Litigation Cost Model. The model is based on the amount of time lawyers expend on various litigation tasks and their billing rates, which together provide a snapshot of “typical” costs, by task, for a number of case categories. By reflecting how costs are incurred throughout the litigation process, and the variability of costs from case to case, the model provides insight into the effect of such costs on a litigant’s access to the civil justice system.

Despite the fact that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) went into effect in 1983, the first judicial opinion enforcing this provision was issued just last month. In Branhaven LLC v. Beeftek, Inc., both Plaintiff corporation and Plaintiff’s attorneys under Rule 26(g), ordering them to pay the fees and costs incurred by defense counsel as a result of Plaintiff’s “large, disorganized and last minute document production.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure and General Rules of Practice that are aimed at “facilitating more cost effective and efficient civil case processing.” The amendments, which take effect July 1, 2013, adopt many of the recommendations of the Civil Justice Reform Task Force.

In E-Discovery: The Views from the Trenches, the National Law Journal surveyed litigators and vendors to get their perspectives on the top developments in e-discovery over the past year. A top response—predictive coding. But proportionality made a showing as well.

Today, numerous pilot projects are in various stages of consideration and implementation around the country, with proportionality in discovery a key theme among projects. In his recent article “Proportionality: The key to reducing corporation e-discovery costs,” Philip Favro recognizes this common theme and notes that “several circuit and district courts have recently championed proportionality as a benchmark for decreasing e-discovery costs.”

The Delaware Court of Chancery has amended its Rules regarding discovery, effective January 1, 2013, to "account for modern discovery demands" and to bring the Court’s rules in line with "current practice." The Court has also expanded its Guidelines To Help Practitioners In The Court of Chancery to include guidelines regarding discovery.

The Western District of Washington has amended its Local Civil Rules, which include their express purpose of promoting “the just, efficient, speedy, and economical determination of every action and proceeding.” Local Rule 26(f) states that the proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) “must be applied in every case when parties formulate a discovery plan and promulgate discovery requests.”

Alabama has passed legislation, SB 47 (Act 2012-492), which requires the Alabama Supreme Court to adopt expedited trial procedures for cases in circuit court where the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000. In contrast, Louisiana also passed legislation, HCR 81, which requests the Louisiana State Law Institute study jury trial procedures and make recommendations for an expedited or summary jury trial program.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire entered an order last week amending the Superior Court Proportional Discovery/Automatic Disclosure Pilot Project Rules to implement the PAD Pilot Rules in all counties beginning March 1, 2013.

Approximately one year ago, on November 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York implemented a Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases. The Board of Judges has now extended the pilot project for an additional eighteen months, to expire September 30, 2014.