News & Updates

Why do you obey the law? Because you are afraid of the consequences if you don't? Or perhaps because it is the right thing to do? How about, because you believe that "government has the right to dictate to [you] proper behavior"? The third option—believing that government's laws and legal process have legitimacy—may be the keystone to building the most effective legal system.

At its meeting last week, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure. The approved amendments will be reviewed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and, if approved, will move to the U.S. Supreme Court for a review and vote before May 1, 2015.

In advance of this week's Standing Committee meeting on May 29 and 30, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has drafted a new Committee Note to accompany its newly revised proposed Rule 37(e). This is another step forward in the long process of adopting revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Note provides additional insight into the new rule's "reasonable steps to preserve" language.

A recent blog post, penned by former Judge Steven I. Platt, argues for implementing a short, summary, and expedited civil jury trial process in Maryland. There continues to be great interest in these programs, which generally involve a simplified pretrial process and a shortened, expedited trial, and multiple jurisdictions around the country are considering implementing them. As these programs continue to grow in popularity, we recommend several resources.

A national conversation is ongoing about the future of our civil justice system, and research is being conducted on the litigation process by a number of individuals and organizations. To help make sense of the latest research and to bring it down to a manageable size, we have created a new report that synthesizes the relevant empirical research conducted by a variety of organizations and individuals.

On June 11, 2014, IAALS and the NJC will co-host a webcast for state court judges at no cost. This webcast will enable judges to: adjudicate disputes involving ESI, including the identification, preservation, search, review, production, and admission of ESI; apply ESI terminology such as metadata and native format correctly; and use resources developed by IAALS to assist state court judges in effectively handling e-discovery.

A 93% satisfaction measure is not something you see every day. And, it is even more unusual in circumstances where people reporting such a high percentage account for both winners and losers, which is exactly why Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant focused on this measure during his 2014 Utah State of the Judiciary Address. Chief Justice Durrants's explanation for the measure can be summed up in two words: procedural fairness.

In 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania established an E-Discovery Special Masters Pilot Program with the goal of developing an approved list of special masters to assist with monitoring electronic discovery compliance, narrowing and facilitating resolution of e-discovery disputes, and providing reports and recommendations to the judge, as necessary. A recent article from Law Technology News highlights the successes of the program.

Law Week Colorado recently published an article covering IAALS’ preliminary report on the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project (CAPP). On April 7, IAALS published its first findings on the project from collected docket and survey data. The Law Week article features interviews with IAALS Executive Director and former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis and IAALS Director of Research Corina Gerety.

At the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules’ meeting last week in Portland, Oregon, the Committee voted to adopt the Duke Conference “package” of amendments, as well as a last minute revised and streamlined Rule 37(e). The Committee considered and approved for adoption the package of amendments as laid out in the Agenda Book for the meeting.

The issue of social media and juries is not a new one, but a recent study sought to identify ways courts can minimize juror-use of social media and better protect the long-standing institution of a fair and impartial jury. The study surveyed hundreds of jurors to determine whether they felt tempted to use social media during the trial and deliberation process. Based upon feedback, the authors have specific courtroom recommendations for judges.

IAALS is pleased to announce the completion of its preliminary evaluation report on the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project (CAPP), which tests a new set of pre-trial procedures for business actions in state district court. Our initial analysis reveals that the CAPP process as a whole has succeeded in achieving many of its intended effects, including a reduced time to disposition, increased court interaction, proportional discovery and costs, and a lower level of motions practice.

The Agenda Book for the upcoming meeting of the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (April 10-11, 2014) is now available online. The Agenda Book includes reports from the Duke and Discovery Subcommittees, along with the Subcommittees' current proposed rule amendments and Committee Notes, taking into account the public hearing testimony and over 2000 comments submitted during the public comment period.

Access to justice is by no means a new conversation in the United States, but it has been a frequent topic of conversation over the last few months. The issue took to the international stage last Thursday and Friday when the United Nations Human Rights Committee asked the U.S. to account for its growing civil justice gap, with two worrisome trends dominating the discussion.

In a recent article, Law Week Colorado covered IAALS' newest publication, Working Smarter, Not Harder: How Excellent Judges Manage Cases. The article features interviews with IAALS Executive Director and former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis and 4th Judicial District Judge David Prince, one of the judges who was featured in Working Smarter.

In a recent post on the long-awaited results from pilot project experimentation around the country, we shared evaluations from the New Hampshire and Boston Litigation Session pilot projects. Initial data is now available from Utah as well, where significant rule changes were implemented in 2011, including comprehensive initial disclosures, a requirement that discovery be proportional, and tiered discovery based on amount in controversy.

The Conference of Chief Justices has established a new committee that will evaluate civil justice improvement efforts around the country and develop guidelines and best practices for civil litigation, as well as case-flow management. The National Center for State Courts has also undertaken a research project to inform the committee's work. IAALS looks forward to working alongside NCSC to support the efforts of the committee.

For those who have been awaiting empirical analysis from the pilot project and rules reform experimentation that has been going on around the country, there are two new significant reports from the earliest of the projects—from New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Both reports provide helpful insights into state pilot project efforts to address the increasing burden and cost of civil pretrial discovery.

The last of three hearings on the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is being held today in Dallas, Texas, and our Executive Director, Rebecca Love Kourlis, is among those testifying. IAALS has submitted a Joint Comment with the ACTL Task Force on Discovery and Civil Justice, as well as a Report coming out of our Forum for Understanding and Comment on the Federal Rule Amendments.

IAALS, in conjunction with the ACTL, has released a new report that highlights key civil case management techniques for judges that have the potential to streamline litigation in their courtrooms. Working Smarter, Not Harder: How Excellent Judges Manage Cases documents the recommendations and key practices of nearly 30 state and federal trial court judges, who were identified as being outstanding and efficient case managers.