News & Updates

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."

In a recent blog post, Lance Soskin argued that "litigation is a multi-billion dollar industry that favors the wealthy," leaves everyone else significantly disadvantaged, and that the answer lies in the better use of alternative dispute resolution. I take a different approach. While mediation and arbitration certainly have their place, we cannot and should not abandon the system itself. What we need is a justice system that is more accessible, efficient, and accountable.

In its Winter 2013 edition, The Arkansas Lawyer makes the case for a more efficient option for trial by jury in civil cases, and does so by introducing and reprinting an excerpt from A Return to Trials: Implementing Effective Short, Summary, and Expedited Civil Action Programs. The article highlights the diminishing civil jury trial and its impacts on Arkansas and the rest of country, and calls for action to protect this fundamental right.

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.

The Civil Rules Advisory Committee has proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address proportionality, preservation, and spoliation problems associated with today's swiftly evolving technology. Robert D. Owen outlines the events leading to the current amendments (including IAALS’ and the ACTL Task Force on Discovery’s 2009 Final Report), the extensive work of the Committee over the last several years, and the specific rule changes under consideration.

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.

Two Colorado attorneys discuss the utility of Colorado’s simplified civil procedure rule (C.R.C.P. 16.1) in the Point/Counterpoint section of The Colorado Lawyer’s February edition. One of the authors mentions IAALS’ comprehensive study of Rule 16.1, although our report had not yet been released at the time of the article deadline.

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.

The National Center for State Courts and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government recently published a paper, "Keeping Courts Funded: Recommendations on How Courts Can Avoid the Budget Axe", which offers a perspective on how state courts can more effectively argue for sufficient funding by approaching the budgetary process proactively, effectively, and humbly.

When state courts are strained or crippled by budget cuts—and it’s all too familiar a scenario around the country—how can we make the strongest case possible for adequate funding? At the National Center for State Courts and at Justice at Stake, we’ve compiled "Funding Justice: Strategies and Messages for Restoring Court Funding." It offers a comprehensive blueprint for legal groups and civic leaders to champion effectively the needs of America’s courts.

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.

The Sedona Conference® has updated its Resources for the Judiciary, a reference manual for judges that is “intended to assemble and promote a variety of proven judicial management tools to help parties develop and execute appropriate, cost-effective, cooperative discovery plans; avoid unnecessary discovery disputes; and resolve discovery disputes that may arise in a fair and expeditious manner.”

Meaningful access to justice is the most important issue confronting state courts across this country. There can be little doubt that we now have a state justice system in America that is slowly eroding while at the same time becoming increasingly too expensive for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. These developments, left unchecked, will have real consequences that will go to the very core of the American promise. They should concern us all.

Two recent events have us reflecting on the reasons why it is important to collect and share data. At IAALS, we have concluded our final study of Colorado’s Simplified Procedure (Rule 16.1), which was enacted in 2004. In Texas, the Supreme Court has newly adopted a Rule for Expedited Actions (Rule 169). Both rules intend to provide a shorter, less expensive process for smaller cases. They also have aspects similar to various short, summary, and expedited civil action programs in place around the country.