JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By Edward A. Infante
United States Magistrate Judge

1. TRANSITION FROM THE PASSIVE JUDICIAL ROLE TO ACTIVE CASE MANAGER

During the past twenty-five years, the civil caseload in the federal trial courts in the United States of America has increased dramatically with case filings rising to triple the number that existed in the early 1970s. Moreover, civil cases have become more complex and protracted with multiple parties, numerous factual issues, voluminous documents, and complicated legal issues. The explosive growth in civil litigation is due in part to population growth, the enactment of new federal statutes creating more rights and remedies, the expansion of commerce and business opportunities, a greater public reliance on the courts to find solutions to a variety of societal problems, and a large increase in the number of attorneys.

Although more judges and courtrooms have been added, the modest increase in judicial resources has not kept pace with the massive expansion of litigation. The result has been court congestion, increased costs, and excessive delay in the resolution of civil cases. Widespread concern among all segments of the legal community as well as the public led to the search for solutions designed to eliminate unnecessary expense and delay in civil litigation.

In the federal courts, the prevailing response was twofold: (1) the creation and expansion of less costly alternative dispute methods such as mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement conferences; and (2) active judicial case management of each civil case.

Traditionally, the role of trial judges had been viewed primarily as presiding over trials, hearing and evaluating evidence, finding facts, applying the appropriate legal standards, making judgments, and dispensing justice. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, most judges assumed a passive role allowing the lawyers to control the progress and pace of the litigation.

Over the past two decades, the trial judge has emerged from a passive pretrial role to an active case manager in an effort to conduct the business of the courts with greater judicial efficiency. This transition has occurred contemporaneously with rule changes and legislation. Utilizing its rulemaking authority, the federal judiciary amended the Federal Rules of Procedure in 1983 to expressly provide for early judicial intervention in civil cases and authorizing judges to require attorneys and litigants to attend pretrial conferences and enter case management and scheduling orders setting time limits for the progression of the case including a firm trial date. (See Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

In addition, the United States Congress enacted the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requiring each United States District Court to develop and implement a “civil justice expense and delay reduction plan.” The legislation instructed each court to formulate a case management program providing for “early and ongoing control of the pretrial process through involvement of a judicial officer” whose responsibilities include “assessing and planning the progress of a case” and “setting early, firm, trial dates.”

The practice of judicial case management has spread to most state courts. Today, trial judges throughout the United States are actively managing civil cases from filing through disposition with a purpose of achieving the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” (Rule 1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)

2. ELEMENTS OF JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT

The basic concept behind case management is for early judicial involvement in identifying the principal factual and legal issues in dispute between the parties, and working with them and their attorneys to plan for and manage the conduct of future proceedings to achieve the earliest and most cost effective resolution of the dispute. The current process of case management in the federal courts requires that upon the filing of a lawsuit, an initial Case Management Conference is scheduled within 120 days before the assigned judge.

In preparation for the conference, the attorneys for the parties are required to meet to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the prospects for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. They are required by rule: (1) to exchange specified information relevant to the claims and defenses, such as the names of witnesses, documentary evidence, and computations of damages; (2) to develop a discovery plan for further exchange of evidence; (3) discuss alternative dispute methods (other than trial) which may be useful in resolving the case; and (4) discuss dates for all future proceedings including trial.

After the meeting of counsel, they are required to file a Case Management report prior to the Case Management Conference. (A sample Form Report is attached as Exhibit B.) At the Case Management Conference, the trial judge imposes deadlines that limit the time in which the parties can: (a) amend the pleadings and add other parties; (b) provide disclosures required by the rules; (c) complete discovery; and (d) file pretrial motions. A date for a final pretrial conference and a date for the trial will also be set as part of a comprehensive scheduling order.

One of the goals of the case management process is to structure pretrial proceedings of a particular case in a manner that promotes the early exchange of information on key issues, so that the parties will be in a better position to evaluate their claims and defenses and achieve an early settlement of the lawsuit. In those cases where an early settlement is not possible, the court can employ other management techniques designed to eliminate frivolous issues and streamline the case so that it may proceed to trial efficiently, solely on genuine issues of material fact.

The utilization of case management tools are tailored to meet the needs of the individual case depending upon its simplicity or complexity. Among the case management techniques being utilized by U.S. federal trial courts are the following:

• Assigning the case at the outset to a court-sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, such as Mediation or Arbitration.

• Ordering the disclosure or discovery of information on particular factual issues.

• Inviting the parties to file written motions with a view to eliminating or narrowing the disputed issues of fact to be tried.

• Imposing quantitative limits on discovery or on the number of witnesses to save costs.

• Determining the order in which the factual or legal issues will be presented at trial.

• Requesting the parties to stipulate or agree to certain issues that appear undisputed, and to the admission of documentary evidence.

• Consolidating several cases which involve common issues into one case for pretrial discovery and trial.

• Scheduling multiple periodic case management conferences to monitor the pretrial process and discuss settlement.

To enable courts to enforce its case management orders, the Federal Rules (Rule 16) empower judges to prescribe sanctions or penalties for failing to comply with disclosure or discovery obligations, failing to appear at pretrial conferences, or failure to participate in good faith in case management. Sanctions may include: (i) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters; (ii) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof; and (iii) an order requiring the offending party to pay reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the offending behavior.

3. CONCLUSION

The practice of active judicial case management in combination with the utilization of alternative dispute resolution programs has substantially reduced excessive litigation costs and undue delay in the resolution of civil cases in the federal trial courts in the United States. Ninety-five percent (95%) of civil cases are resolved without trial. While some cases are disposed of by dismissal or summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Procedure, most of the cases are resolved by settlement. Effective case management tailored to each particular case enables the parties to evaluate their positions sooner and less expensively. The average time from filing to disposition in most federal district courts has been reduced to seven (7) months. Without active judicial case management, the courts would be hampered in achieving the just, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of civil disputes.