A recent empirical study of civil case management in U.S. federal district courts offers interesting insights into the use of information in civil litigation, and the relationship of certain kinds of information processing to litigation costs and delay.
Earlier in 2009 The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS) issued its report entitled Civil Case Processing in the Federal District Courts: A 21st Century Analysis (2009). The report discusses results of an empirical study, covering more than 7600 cases, of civil case management in 8 U.S. federal district courts from October 2005 through September 2006. The methodology included statistical analysis of data taken from court dockets, and interviews with representatives of the courts studied.
Of the factors identified in the study, that appear to contribute to speedier civil case processing in federal courts, the following may be of particular interest to legal informatics researchers:
- schedules featuring shorter durations for all stages of litigation;
- refraining from deviating from those schedules;
- fostering, among counsel, expectations of expedited proceedings;
- collecting and disseminating metadata about case management to facilitate transparency and accountability.
Here are the findings of the report:
- “Finding #1: Cases in which: (1) a trial date is set early, (2) discovery issues are raised and resolved within the set discovery period, and (3) dispositive motions are filed as early as possible tend to be resolved more quickly than cases where these things do not occur. (emphasis added)
- “Finding #2: About one-third of civil cases take more than a year to resolve.
- “Finding #3: Rule 16 scheduling conferences are held in less than half of all civil cases. (emphasis added)
- “Finding #4: The time it takes a judge to rule on motions on disputed discovery, motions to dismiss, and motions for summary judgment varies significantly across courts.
- “Finding #5: Motions to dismiss were frequently filed and granted, even before the Twombly decision. (emphasis added)
- “Finding #6: Holding a hearing is associated with faster times to ruling for motions on disputed discovery, although the evidence is less clear with respect to dispositive motions.
- “Finding #7: Many cases settle shortly after a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is denied.
- “Finding #8: About 90% of all motions to extend deadlines are granted in every court, but in courts with faster average overall times, many fewer motions to extend deadlines are filed. (emphasis added)
- “Finding #9: External reporting of case management data does appear to encourage courts to rule more rapidly on certain motions than might otherwise be the case. (emphasis added)
- “Finding #10: An attitude of efficiency, especially when embraced by both the bench and bar, can contribute to lower disposition times.” (emphasis added)
The report also offers several recommendations for expediting case processing. Here are the recommendations for courts:
- “1. Setting firm dates early in the pretrial process for the close of discovery, the filing of dispositive motions, and trial, and maintaining those dates except in rare and truly unusual circumstances;
- “2. Ruling expeditiously on motions, even when the motions are denied;
- “3. Limiting the number of extensions sought by the parties during any phase of the case;
- “4. Working to foster a local legal culture that accepts efficient case processing as the norm, and enforcing that culture through active judicial case management (emphasis added); and
- “5. Tracking the status of cases and motions through internal statistical reporting, and disseminating the results internally and externally as appropriate.” (emphasis added)
The report also offers recommendations to lawyers:
- “1. Agreeing to realistic deadlines early in the case and not seeking a deviation from those deadlines except under rare and truly unusual circumstances;
- “2. Commencing discovery early in the discovery period, so that any discovery disputes may be presented to the court and resolved well before the discovery deadline;
- “3. Filing dispositive motions as early as possible in the case; and
- “4. Working within the bar generally, and with opposing counsel specifically, to foster expectations of efficient case processing.” (emphasis added)
Tags: Case management, Transparency in legal information systems, Transparency in court information systems, Transparency in judicial information systems, Legal case management systems, Discovery, Civil procedure, Legal case management, Empirical studies of legal information behavior, Civil litigation, Civil case management, Delay in litigation, Delay in court proceedings, Expediting court proceedings, Efficiency in court proceedings, Litigation information management, Information management in court proceedings, Information management in litigation, Empirical studies of civil litigation, Empirical studies of case management, Empirical studies of litigation, Pleading standards, External reporting of case management data, Effects of external reporting of case management data, Expectations as a factor in case management, User expectations in case management, Information behavior in litigation, Information behavior in civil litigation, Information behavior in case management, Information behavior in civil case management
