Federal Judicial Center National, Case-Based Civil … · 1 Executive Summary This report presents preliminary findings from a survey of attorneys in recently closed civil cases which

FederalJudicialCenterNational,Case-BasedCivilRulesSurvey

PreliminaryReporttotheJudicialConferenceAdvisoryCommitteeonCivilRules

EmeryG.LeeIII&ThomasE.Willging

FederalJudicialCenterOctober2009

ThisFederalJudicialCenterpublicationwasundertakeninfurtheranceoftheCenter’sstatutorymissiontoconductandstimulateresearchanddevelopmentfortheimprovementofjudicialadministration.WhiletheCenterregardsthecontentasresponsibleandvaluable,itdoesnotreflectpolicyorrecommendationsoftheBoardoftheFederalJudicialCenter.

iii

TableofContentsExecutiveSummary,1

I.Introduction,5

II.DiscoveryActivityintheClosedCases,7

III.ElectronicDiscoveryActivityintheClosedCases,15

IV.Attorneys’EvaluationofDiscoveryintheClosedCases,27

V.AttorneyEstimatesofCostsintheClosedCases,35

VI.ReformProposals,45

VII.TheFederalRules,57

AppendixA:Methods,77

AppendixB:AttorneyCharacteristics,79

AppendixC:SurveyInstrument,83

AppendixD:AttorneyComments,109

1

ExecutiveSummaryThisreportpresentspreliminaryfindingsfromasurveyofattorneysinrecentlyclosedcivilcaseswhichtheFederalJudicialCenterconductedinMayandJuneof2009.Nearlyhalfoftheattorneysinvitedtoparticipateresponded.Thereportcoversdiscoveryactivitiesandcasemanagementintheclosedcases;electronicdiscoveryactivityintheclosedcases;attorneyevaluationsofdiscoveryintheclosedcases;thecostsoflitigationanddiscovery;andattorneyattitudestowardspecificreformproposalsand,moregenerally,theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.

DiscoveryactivityandcasemanagementThepartiesconferredtoplandiscoveryinmorethan80percentofcasesinwhichrespondentsreportedatleastonetypeofdiscoveryoutof12typesqueried.Mostcommonlyreportedwereinterrogatoriesandrequestsforproductionofdocuments,followedbyinitialdisclosuresandinformalexchangesofdocuments.Themediannumberoftypesofdiscoverypercasewas5. Thecourtadoptedadiscoveryplaninmorethan70percentofrespondents’cases.Themostcommoncasemanagementactivitiesreportedbyrespondentswereconferringtoplandiscoveryandlimitingthetimeforcompletionofdiscovery.Themediantimeimposedforcompletionofdiscoverywas6months. Courtsruledonatleastonesummaryjudgmentmotioninmorethanaquarterofrespondents’cases.Rule12(b)(6)motionswereruledoninmorethan10percent.

ElectronicdiscoveryIssuesrelatedtoelectronicallystoredinformation(ESI)werediscussedbythepartiesinmorethan30percentofthediscoveryplanningconferences.Themostcommonissuesdiscussedweretheparties’routinepracticesregardingretentionofESIandtheformatofproductionofESI.Approximately50percentofpartieseventuallyproducingESIinstitutedalitigation“freeze.” RespondentsreportedarequestforproductionofESIinbetween30and40percentofcaseswithanydiscovery.IntheESIcases,plaintiffstendedtoberequestingpartiesanddefendantstendedtobeproducingparties,butmorethan40percentofplaintiffattorneysandmorethan50percentofdefendantattorneysreportedrepresentingbothaproducingandrequestingpartyintheclosedcases. ProblemsrelatingtoESIoccurredinaboutaquarterofthecaseswitharequestforproductionofESI.ThemostcommonproblemwasadisputethatcouldnotberesolvedwithoutcourtactionovertheburdenofproductionofESI. ThemostcommonusesofESIproducedindiscoveryintheclosedcaseswereinpreparinganddeposingwitnesses,ininterviewingclientsorclients’employees,andinevaluatingcasesforsettlement.TheESIwasreportedlynotusedinapproximately1in5cases.

2 FJCCivilRulesSurvey,PreliminaryReporttotheCommittee

AttorneyevaluationofdiscoveryintheclosedcasesMorethan60percentofrespondents(and2outof3defendantattorneys)reportedthatthedisclosureanddiscoveryintheclosedcasesgeneratedthe“rightamount”ofinformation.Morethanhalfreportedthatthecostsofdiscoverywerethe“rightamount”inproportiontotheirclient’sstakesintheclosedcases. Amajorityofrespondentsreportedthatthepartieswereabletoreducethecostandburdenofdiscoverybycooperating.Amajorityalsoreportedthatthecostsofdiscoveryhad“noeffect”onthelikelihoodofsettlementintheclosedcases.

CostsoflitigationFortheclosedcasesincludedinthesample,themediancost,includingattorneyfees,was$15,000forplaintiffsand$20,000fordefendants.Forplaintiffs,reportedcostsrangedfrom$1,600atthe10thpercentileto$280,000atthe95thpercentile;fordefendants,therangewasfrom$5,000atthe10thpercentileto$300,000atthe95thpercentile.Mediancostswerehigherincaseswithelectronicdiscovery(especiallyiftheclientwasbothaproducingandrequestingparty)andincaseswithmorereportedtypesofdiscovery. Themedianestimateofthepercentageoflitigationcostsincurredindiscoverywas20percentforplaintiffsand27percentfordefendants.Electronicdiscoverycostsaccountedfor5percentofthecostsofdiscovery,atthemedian,inplaintiffattorneys’caseswithdiscoveryofESI,and10percent,atthemedian,indefendantattorneys’caseswithdiscoveryofESI. Themedianestimateofthestakesinthelitigationforplaintiffswas$160,000;estimatesrangedfromlessthan$15,000atthe10thpercentiletoalmost$4millionatthe95thpercentile.Themedianestimateofthestakesfordefendantattorneyswas$200,000;estimatesrangedfrom$15,000atthe10thpercentileto$5millionatthe95thpercentile. Reportedexpendituresfordiscovery,includingattorneyfees,amountedto,atthemedian,1.6percentofthereportedstakesforplaintiffattorneysand3.3percentofthereportedstakesfordefendantattorneys.

ReformproposalsWhenaskedatwhatpointinlitigationthecentralissuesarenarrowedandframedforresolutioninthetypicalcase,respondentsmostcommonlyidentified“afterfactdiscovery.”Intheclosedcaseitself,overhalfoftherespondentsreportedthatthecentralissueswerenarrowedandframedforresolutionafterinitialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments.Forplaintiffattorneys,themostcommonresponseintheclosedcasewasattheinitialcomplaint. Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantstendedtofavorraisingpleadingstandards,andthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffstendedtodisfavorraisingpleadingstandards.Respondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyweredividedontheissue. Respondentsweresomewhatopentothegeneralideaoftestingsimplifiedprocedures,withallparties’consent,inalimitednumberofdistricts.

FJCCivilRulesSurvey,PreliminaryReporttotheCommittee 3

TheRulesingeneralRespondentswereaskedseveralquestionsabouttheoperationoftheRulesandpotentialchangestotheRules.Whenrespondentswereaskedtocomparethecostsoflitigationanddiscoveryinthefederalandstatecourts,theresponsesweremixed;anarrowpluralitytendedtodisagreethatlitigationanddiscoveryaremoreexpensiveinthefederalcourtsthaninthestatecourts. WhenaskedwhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitelectronicdiscoveryspecifically,respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffstendedtodisagreeandthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantstendedtoagree.Ontheotherhand,thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallywereopposedtolimitingdiscoveryingeneralbutdividedaboutevenlyonthespecificquestionoflimitingelectronicdiscovery. AmajorityofrespondentsinallthreegroupssupportedrevisingtheRulestoenforcediscoveryobligationsmoreeffectively. Morethantwo-thirdsofrespondentsagreedwiththestatementthat“theproceduresemployedinthefederalcourtsaregenerallyfair,”andamajoritydisagreedwiththestatementthat“discoveryisabusedinalmosteverycaseinfederalcourt.” Respondentsseemedrelativelysatisfiedwithcurrentlevelsofjudicialcasemanagementinthefederalcourts.

5

I.Introduction1Inlate2008,theHonorableMarkR.Kravitz,chairoftheJudicialConference’sAdvisoryCommitteeonCivilRules(“theCommittee”),requestedthattheFederalJudicialCenter(“theCenter”)conductresearchtosupporttheCommittee’splannedMay2010conferenceoncivillitigationatDukeUniversityLawSchool.JudgeKravitz’srequestindicatedthattheCommittee’s“priorityistoexaminethecostsofdiscoveryandtoidentifysuccessesandproblemsrelatedtoelectronicdiscoveryundertherevisedrules.”2JudgeKravitzappointedDistrictJudgeJohnKoeltltochairaplanningcommitteeforthe2010conference.InresponsetotheCommittee’srequestandinconsultationwithJudgesKravitzandKoeltlandtheCommittee’sreporters,ProfessorsEdwardCooperandRichardMarcus,theCenterdesignedandadministeredanational,case-basedsurveyofattorneys.Thesurveywasdesignedtoparallel,inseveralkeyrespects,onepreviouslyconductedfortheCommittee.3 Thisreportpresentspreliminaryfindingsfromthesurvey.Alargesampleofattorneyslistedascounselinfederalcivilcasesterminatedinthelastquarterof2008wereinvitedtoparticipate;mostofthesurveyquestionsfocusedonrespondents’experiencesintherecentlyterminatedcases.ThesurveywasadministeredinMayandJuneof2009.Nearlyhalfoftheattorneysinvitedtoparticipateresponded(approximately47percent). ThesamplingproceduresandtheattorneysinthesamplearedescribedindetailinAppendicesAandBofthisreport.ThesurveyinstrumentisreproducedinAppendixC.Hundredsofattorneysofferedwrittencommentsregardingfederalpracticeandthesurvey;AppendixDofthisreportreproducesthoserespondents’comments,whichwereeditedonlytoprotecttheconfidentialityofrespondents. SectionIIreportsfindingsonthefrequencyofvariousactivitiesrelatedtodiscoveryingeneral,fromtheplanningstagethroughthetypesofdiscoverypermittedundertheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure(“theRules”).Italsoreportsfindingsonthecasemanagementactivitiesofjudicialofficersinrespondents’cases,includingthesettingoftimelimitsforthecompletionofdiscoveryandrulingondiscovery-relatedmotions.SectionIIIreportsfindingsonelectronicdiscoveryactivitiesinrespondents’cases,includingthefrequencyofrequestsfordiscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformation(ESI)inthosecases.SectionIVreportsfindingsonrespondents’overallevaluationsofdiscoveryintheclosedcases,includinganyeffectdiscoverymayhavehadonchoiceofforum,settlement,andthefairnessofthecaseoutcome.

1WeacknowledgethevaluableassistanceofanumberofCenterstaffmembersinvariousstagesofpreparingandconductingthesurveyanddraftingthisreport:JaredBataillon,JoeCecil,GeorgeCort,CarolynDubay,JamesEaglin,MeghanDunn,ChristinaFuentes,JillGloekler,DonnaStienstra,andMargaretWilliams.SeveralmembersoftheCommitteealsocommentedonthesurveyinstrument.KenWithersoftheSedonaConferenceprovidedusefulcommentsontheinstrumentingeneralandespeciallyontheelectronicdiscoveryquestions.

2LetterfromHonorableMarkR.KravitztoHonorableBarbaraJ.Rothstein,CenterDirector,datedDecember4,2008.3ThomasE.Willging,JohnShapard,DonnaStienstra,andDeanMiletich,DiscoveryandDisclosurePractice,Problems,andProposalsforChange:ACase-basedNationalSurveyofCounselinClosedFederalCivilCases(FederalJudicialCenter,1997)(hereinafterDiscoveryandDisclosure).


SectionVreportsfindingsonthecostsoftheclosedcasesasestimatedbyrespondents.Costsarethenanalyzedinrelationtotheamountatstakeinthelitigation—includingnonmonetarycosts—andattorneyopinionsontherelationshipbetweencostsandthestakesofthelitigation.SectionsVIandVIIreportfindingsonrespondents’opinionsonvarioustopicswithrespecttofederalpracticeandtheoperationoftheRules,ingeneral,includingproposalstoadoptfactpleadingand/orsimplifiedproceduresincertainkindsofcases. Thisreportispreliminary.Itdoesnotincludemultivariateanalysisofcosts,nordoesitcomeclosetoexhaustingthepotentialofthedatacollectedtoshedlightonagreatrangeoftopics.Asreaderswillsee,inmanywaysthereportraisesasmanyquestionsasitanswers.Itisintended,moreorless,asaframeworkfordiscussionfortheOctobermeetingoftheCommitteeandforparticipantsinthe2010conference.Thefollow-upreporttotheCommitteeinMarch2010willseektoaddressquestionsraisedinthecourseofthatdiscussion.

7

II.DiscoveryActivityintheClosedCasesQuestion1ofthesurveyaskedrespondentswhetherthepartiesintheclosedcaseconferredtoplanfordiscovery.Ifonlyrespondentsreportingdiscoveryeventsareincluded,asshowninFigure1,82.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand82.6percentofdefendantattorneysreportedaconferencetoplandiscovery;13.3and12.9percent,respectively,reportednoconference;and4.2and4.5percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer(“Ican’tsay”).4

4Restrictingtheanalysistothosereportingoneormoretypesofdiscovery,therewere2,371totalrespondents(unweighted),ofwhich1,183wereattorneysrepresentingaplaintiffintheclosedcase(“plaintiffattorney”)and1,188wereattorneysrepresentingadefendantintheclosedcase(“defendantattorney”).Thedesignationof“plaintiffattorney”and“defendantattorney”usedinthisreportisbasedonhowtheattorneywasdesignatedinthecourts’CaseManagement/ElectronicCaseFiles(CM/ECF)system.Inthequestionsthatfollow,thenumberofrespondentsvariesslightly,givennon-responses.TheweightingofcasesisdiscussedinAppendixA,infra.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No Ican'tsay

Percentage

Figure1:Responsesto"Afterthefilingofthecomplaintandbeforethefirstpretrialconference,didyouoranyattorneyforyourclientconferwithopposingcounsel—bytelephone,correspondence,orin-person—toplanfordiscoveryinthenamedcase?"

Plaintiffattorneys Defendantattorneys


Inquestion9,thesurveyaskedrespondentswhetherthefollowingtypesofdiscoveryoccurredintheclosedcase(intheorderpresentedinthefigure):initialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments;informalexchangeofdocuments;informalexchangeofothermaterials;interrogatories;requestforproductionofdocuments;disclosureofexpertreports;depositionofexperts;depositionofnon-experts;requestsforadmission;physicalormentalexamination;inspectionofproperty,computerequipmentormedia,ordesignatedobject;andthird-partysubpoena.Whenquestionsusedtheterm“documents,”theyspecifiedthatitincludedelectronicallystoreddocuments.Figure2displaysthepercentageofplaintiffanddefendantattorneysrespondingthataparticulartypeofdiscoveryoccurredintheclosedcase.Fully86.3percentofallrespondents—89.3percentofplaintiffattorneysand83.6percentofdefendantattorneys—reportedatleastoneofthetypesofdiscoveryintheclosedcase.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Initialdisclosure

Informaldocuments

Informalother

Interrogatories

Requestproduction

Disclosureexperts

Depositionexpert

Depositionnon-expert

Requestadmission

Examination

Inspection

Subpoena

Percentage

Figure2:Percentageofrespondents'casesinwhicheachtypeofdiscoverywasreported



Initialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments.AsshowninFigure2,initialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments(includingelectronicallystoreddocuments)wasreportedbymorethantwo-thirdsofrespondents.Fully67.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand71.6percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattherewasinitialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments;27.8and23.3percent,respectively,reportedthattherewasnotinitialdisclosure,and5.0and5.1percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Informalexchangeofdocuments.Informalexchangeofdocumentswasreportedbyamajorityofrespondents,asshowninFigure2.Fully58.6percentofplaintiffattorneysand56.4percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattherehadbeeninformalexchangeofdocuments;37.8and38.4percent,respectively,reportednoinformalexchangeofdocuments,and3.6and5.2percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Amongthoseindicatingthattherewasnoinformalexchangeofdocuments,27.3percentofplaintiffattorneysand21.8percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattheydiscussedmakinganinformalexchangewiththeotherside,eventhoughnosuchexchangeoccurred.However,mostattorneysincaseswithoutaninformalexchangedidnotdiscussmakingone—67.2and73.2percent,respectively;5.5and4.9percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Informalexchangeofothermaterials.Amajorityofplaintiffattorneyrespondentsandslightlylessthanamajorityofdefendantattorneyrespondentsreportedinformalexchangeofothermaterials—52.3and46.8percent,respectively.Fully43.2and46.9percentofrespondents,respectively,reportednoinformalexchangeofothermaterials,and4.6and6.4percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Interrogatories.AsshowninFigure2,aboutthree-quartersofrespondentsreportedinterrogatoriesintheclosedcase,73.5percentofplaintiffattorneysand76.2percentofdefendantattorneys;24.8and21.8percent,respectively,reportednointerrogatoriesand1.8and2.1percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Requestforproductionofdocuments.Aboutthree-quartersofrespondentsreportedarequestforproductionofdocuments,includingelectronicallystoreddocuments,74.3percentofplaintiffattorneysand76.7percentofdefendantattorneys;22.9and21.1percent,respectively,reportednosuchrequests,and2.8and2.2percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Disclosureofexpertreports.Slightlylessthanone-thirdofallrespondentsreporteddisclosureofexpertreports,33.8percentofplaintiffattorneysand28.8percentofdefendantattorneys;64.7and68.9percent,respectively,reportednodisclosureofexpertreports,and1.5and2.3percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Respondentswerealsoaskedhowmanyexpertsbothsidesintheclosedcaseidentified.Thefollowingfiguresarelimitedtorespondentsreportingdisclosureofatleastoneexpertwitnessbyoneparty.Asreportedbyplaintiffattorneys(n=444),themeannumberofexpertsdisclosedbyplaintiffswas2.2,andthemedianwas2;themeannumberidentifiedbythedefendants,asreportedbyplaintiffattorneys,was1.7,andthemedianwas1.Asreportedbydefendantattorneys(n=406),themeannumberreportedbydefendantswas2.0;themedianwas1;defendantattorneysreportedameanof2.2expertsdisclosedbyplaintiffs,andamedianof2. Depositionofexperts.Fewerthan1respondentin7reportedanydepositionofanexpertintheclosedcase,14.2percentofplaintiffattorneysand13.3percentofdefendant


attorneys;84.8and85.5percent,respectively,reportednoexpertdepositions,and0.9and1.2percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Respondentswerealsoaskedhowmanyexpertseachsidedeposedandhowmanyofthesedepositionslastedmorethan7hours.Thefollowingfiguresarelimitedtorespondentsreportingatleastoneexpertdepositionbyatleastoneside.Themeannumberofexpertdepositionsbyplaintiffsreportedbyplaintiffattorneys(n=238)was1.4,(median=1);plaintiffattorneysreportedameanof1.7expertdepositionsbydefendants(median=1).Themediannumberofdepositionspercaselastingmorethan7hoursreportedbyplaintiffattorneyswas0(zero),andthemeanwas0.2.Themeannumberofexpertdepositionstakenbydefendantsreportedbydefendantattorneys(n=235)was2.1,(median=1).Themeannumberofexpertdepositionstakenbyplaintiffsreportedbydefendantswas1.2,andthemedianwas1.Themediannumberofexpertdepositionslastingmorethan7hourspercasewas0(zero),andthemeanwas0.3. Depositionofnon-experts.Amajorityofplaintiffattorneys(54.8percent)anddefendantattorneys(54.3percent)reportedoneormoredepositionsofnon-expertsintheclosedcase;44.6and44.7percent,respectively,reportednonon-expertdepositions,and0.6and1.0percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Respondentswerealsoaskedhowmanynon-expertseachsidedeposedandhowmanyofthesedepositionslastedmorethan7hours.Thefollowingfiguresarelimitedtorespondentsreportingatleastonenon-expertdepositionbyatleastoneside.Themeannumberofnon-expertdepositionstakenbyplaintiffsreportedbyplaintiffattorneys(n=724)was3.8,andthemedianwas3;themeannumberofnon-expertdepositionstakenbydefendantsreportedbyplaintiffattorneyswas2.8,andthemedianwas2.Themediannumberofnon-expertdepositionspercasereportedbyplaintiffattorneysaslastingmorethan7hourswas0(zero),andthemeannumberwas0.8.Themeannumberofnon-expertdepositionstakenbydefendantsreportedbydefendantattorneys(n=730)was2.6,andthemedianwas2.Themeannumberofnon-expertdepositionstakenbyplaintiffsreportedbydefendantattorneyswas3.1,andthemedianwas2.Themediannumberofnon-expertdepositionspercasereportedbydefendantattorneysaslastingmorethan7hourswas0(zero),andthemeannumberwas0.3. Requestsforadmission.Morethanone-quarterofrespondentsreportedrequestsforadmissionsintheclosedcase,29.7percentofplaintiffattorneysand25.7percentofdefendantattorneys;64.9and67.4percent,respectively,reportednorequestsforadmission,and5.4and6.9percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Respondentswerealsoaskedhowmanysuchrequestseachsidepropoundedtotheother.Thefollowingfiguresarelimitedtocaseswithatleastonerequestpropoundedbyatleastoneside.Plaintiffattorneys(n=344)reportedameannumberofrequestsforadmissionpropoundedbyplaintiffsof22percase,andamedianof15,andameannumberofrequestspropoundedbydefendantsof20.8,andamedianof0(zero).Defendantattorneys(n=296)reportedameannumberofrequestspropoundedbydefendantsof13.2percase,andamedianof9,andameannumberofrequestspropoundedbyplaintiffsof21.9percase,andamedianof4. Physicalormentalexamination.Fewerthan1in10respondentsreportedaphysicalormentalexaminationintheclosedcase,8.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand7.2percentofdefendantattorneys;90.6and91.7percent,respectively,reportednosuchexamination,and1.0and1.1percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer.


Inspectionofproperty,computerequipmentormedia,ordesignatedobjects.Fully15.9percentofplaintiffattorneysand15.6percentofdefendantattorneysreportedaninspectionofproperty,includingcomputerequipment,intheclosedcase;82.9and83.4percent,respectively,reportednoinspection,and1.1and1.0percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Third-partysubpoena.Morethan1in3respondentsreportedathird-partysubpoenaintheclosedcase,33.8percentofplaintiffattorneysand35.5percentofdefendantattorneys;62.9and59.7percent,respectively,reportednosubpoena,and3.3and4.8percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer. Respondentswerealsoaskedhowmanythird-partysubpoenaswereissuedbyeachside.Thefollowingfiguresarelimitedtorespondentsreportingatleastonethird-partysubpoenabyonesideintheclosedcase.Plaintiffattorneys(n=437)reportedameannumberofsubpoenasissuedbyplaintiffsof3.3percase,andamedianof1;plaintiffattorneysreportedameannumberofsubpoenasissuedbydefendantsof3.9percase,andamedianof1.Defendantattorneys(n=468)reportedameannumberofsubpoenasissuedbydefendantsof3.8percase,andamedianof3;defendantattorneysreportedameannumberofsubpoenasissuedbyplaintiffsof1.1,andamedianof0(zero). Inordertomeasure(inafairlyroughfashion)thevolumeofdiscoveryineachclosedcase,wecalculatedasimpleadditiveindex.Forexample,acaseinwhichtherespondentreportedonlyaninformalexchangeofdocumentswouldreceiveascoreof1,acasewithaninformalexchangeofdocumentsandaninformalexchangeofothermaterialswouldreceiveascoreof2,andsoon.Themaximumscoreis12,forthefewcasesinwhicheverytypeofdiscoveryaskedaboutinthesurvey(andasdisplayedinFigure2)wasreportedtohaveoccurred.Incaseswithatleastonereporteddiscoverytype,themeannumberofdiscoverytypesforplaintiffattorneys(n=1,184)anddefendantattorneys(n=1,193)was5.1perclosedcase,andthemedianforbothgroupswas5typesofdiscoverypercase. Respondentswereaskedinquestion50toestimate,ingeneral,whatpercentageoftheirpracticeisspentindiscovery-relatedactivities.Notsurprisingly,respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendants,ingeneral,reportedthatagreaterpercentageoftheirtimewasconsumedbydiscovery-relatedactivitiesthandidthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsorthosereportingthattheyrepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsgaveamedianresponseof40percentoftheirpracticespentindiscovery-relatedactivities,andameanof42.7percent.The10thpercentileresponsewas10percent,andthe95thpercentilewas85percent(n=759).Respondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyintheirpracticereportedamedianof30percent,andameanof36.4percent.The10thpercentilewas10percent,andthe95thpercentilewas75percent(n=548).Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsreportedamedianof50percentoftheirpracticetimespentindiscovery-relatedactivities,andameanof47.7percent.The10thpercentileforthisgroupwas20percent,andthe95thpercentilewas85percent(n=1,002). Question6askedrespondentswhetherthecourtadoptedadiscoveryplanintheclosedcase.AsshowninFigure3,aboutthree-quartersofrespondentsinclosedcaseswithatleastonetypeofdiscoveryreportedthatthecourthadadoptedadiscoveryplan.Fully72.6percentofplaintiffattorneysand75.6percentofdefendantattorneysreportingsomediscoveryactivityinthecaseindicatedthatthecourtadoptedaplan;22.4and18.5percent,


respectively,reportedthatthecourtdidnotadoptaplan;and5.0and5.9percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer.

Respondentswereasked,inquestion20,whetherajudicialofficer(includingaspecialmasterorotherneutral)performedvariousactionsthathavebeengroupedundertheheading“casemanagement.”AsshowninFigure4,oneofthemostcommonresponses,reportedby45.2percentofplaintiffattorneysand44.6percentofdefendantattorneys,wastolimitthetimeforcompletionofdiscovery.5Plaintiffattorneys(n=466)anddefendantattorneys(n=483)reportedthesamemedian(6months)andmean(7.3months)timelimitations.

5Incaseswithoneormorereporteddiscoveryevents(weighted);n=2,379,with1,193plaintiffattorneysand1,184defendantattorneysresponding.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No Ican'tsay

Percentage

Figure3:Responsesto"Didthecourtadoptadiscoveryplan?"



Theothermostcommonresponsewasthejudicialofficerheldaconference(bytelephone,correspondence,orin-person)toconsideraplanfordiscovery.Fully44.2percentofdefendantattorneysand44.8percentofplaintiffattorneysreportedthatajudicialofficerheldsuchaconference.Nootheractionwasreportedbymorethan20percentofrespondents.Thedistrictjudgeintheclosedcasereferredadiscoveryissuetoamagistratejudgein14.3percentofplaintiffattorneys’casesandin16.0percentofdefendantattorneys’cases.Fewcasessawtheappointmentofaneutraltooverseediscoverymatters;thiswasreportedby1.2percentofplaintiffattorneysand1.9percentofdefendantattorneys. Thecourtgrantedmotionstocompeldiscoveryin9.4percentofplaintiffattorneys’casesandin10.3percentofdefendantattorneys’cases,anddeniedmotionstocompelin4.0and5.6percent,respectively.Thecourtgrantedaprotectiveorderin9.1percentofplaintiffattorneys’casesandin8.8percentofdefendantattorneys’cases,anddeniedamotionforaprotectiveorderin3.0and3.3percent,respectively.Thecourtalsoruledonanotherdiscovery-relatedmotionin8.6and11.5percentofcases,respectively.Adiscoveryconference,otherthantoplanfordiscovery,washeldin13and13.2percentofcases,respectively.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Conf.plandiscovery

Conf.other

discovery

Limittime

discovery

Appointneutraldiscovery

Referdiscovery

M.J.

Grantprotectiveorder

Denyprotectiveorder

Grantmtntocompel

Denymtntocompel

Ruleothermtn

Imposesanctions

Percentage

Figure4:Judicialcasemanagementofdiscoveryreportedintheclosedcases



Sanctionsrelatedtodiscoverywerereportedin2.3percentoftheplaintiffattorneys’casesand2.2percentofthedefendantattorneys’cases. Respondentswerealsoaskedwhetherthecourtruledonvarioustypesofmotions.TheresponsesaresummarizedinTable1.RulingsonRule56summaryjudgmentmotionswerereportedbymorethanaquarterofrespondents—by25.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand27.7percentofdefendantattorneys.6RulingsonRule12(b)(6)motionstodismissforfailuretostateaclaimwerereportedby11.0and13.2percent,respectively.RulingsonotherRule12(b)motionstodismisswerereportedby7.5and7.8percent,respectively.RulingsonRule12(c)and12(e)motionswererelativelyuncommon.

Table1:Rulingsonmotions,caseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery

TypeofMotion

Plaintiffattorneys(%)

Defendantattorneys(%)

Rule12(b)(6)

11.0 13.2

OtherRule12(b)

7.5 7.8

Rule12(c)

1.6 1.7

Rule12(e)

1.2 1.1

Rule56

25.1 27.7

Can’tsay

7.7 7.3

N 1,176 1,193

6Rulingsonsummaryjudgmentmotionsweremuchmorecommoninthecasesterminatedbytrial(67.1percentofallrespondentsinsuchcases)andinthelong-pendingcases(62.5percent)thanincasesselectedatrandom(23.8percent).SeeAppendixAformoreinformationonthesecases.

15

III.ElectronicDiscoveryActivityintheClosedCasesRespondentswereasked,inquestion2,whethertheconferencetoplandiscoveryincludeddiscussionofESI.About1in3respondentsreportedthattheconferenceincludeddiscussionofESI,34.8percentofplaintiffattorneysand33.0percentofdefendantattorneys.7MorethanhalfofallrespondentsreportedthattheconferencetoplanfordiscoverydidnotincludediscussionofESI—57.6percentofplaintiffattorneysand57.4percentofdefendantattorneys;7.6and9.6percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure5.

7Incasesinwhichaconferencetoplandiscoverywasreported,therewere1,926totalrespondents,composedof959attorneysrepresentingplaintiffsintheclosedcaseand967attorneysrepresentingdefendantsintheclosedcase.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No Ican'tsay

Percentage

Figure5:Responsesto"Didtheconferencetoplanfordiscoveryincludediscussionof[ESI]?"



Onlyabout1respondentin5reportedthatthediscoveryplanadoptedbythecourtincludedprovisionsrelatedtoESI—20.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand22.5percentofdefendantattorneys(question7). InclosedcasesinwhichtheconferencetoplanfordiscoveryincludeddiscussionofESI,respondentswereaskedtoidentifywhichofaseriesofpotentialissueswerediscussed(questions3and4).Question3focusedonissuesrelatedtothecollectionofESI.Thedistributionofresponsestoquestion3issummarizedinTable2.

Table2:ReportedissuesrelatedtocollectionofESI,incaseswhereESIissueswerediscussedatdiscoveryconference

Issue



Parties’practicesre:retentionofESI

46.5 55.5

Scope,method,durationofpreservingESI

36.1 37.5

Potentialcostorburdenofcollecting,reviewing,andproducingESI

34.4 36.0

RestrictingscopeoraltogetheravoidingdiscoveryofESI

32.8 41.9

WhetherESIstoredorinformat“notreasonablyaccessible”

22.0 15.6

Methodsofsearchingbytopic

17.1 18.7

Methodsofsearchingbycustodian

19.3 18.5

PossibilityofphaseddiscoveryofESI

12.0 10.3

Possibilityofsampling

3.8 6.0

Cullingtechniques

8.5 11.2

Dynamicdatabaseissues

2.5 4.2

Voicemail,etc.

6.8 6.3

N 316 312


Forbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneys,themostcommonreportedissuerelatedtocollectionwastheparties’practiceswithrespecttoretentionofESI,reportedby46.5percentofplaintiffattorneysand55.5percentofdefendantattorneys.Forplaintiffattorneys,thenextmostcommontopicswerethescope,cost,method,ordurationofpreservingESI(36.1percent);thepotentialcostorburdenofcollecting,reviewing,andproducingESI(34.4percent);restrictingthescopeoravoidingaltogetherthediscoveryofESI(32.8percent);andwhetherpotentiallyresponsiveinformationwasstoredonadeviceorinaformatthatapartyconsidered“notreasonablyaccessible”(22.0percent).Fordefendantattorneys,thenextmostcommonresponseswererestrictingthescopeoravoidingaltogetherthediscoveryofESI(41.9percent);thescope,cost,method,ordurationofpreservingESI(37.5percent);andthepotentialcostorburdenofcollecting,reviewing,andproducingESI(36percent). NootherissuerelatedtocollectionofESIwasreportedtohavebeendiscussedbymorethan20percentofeitherplaintiffordefendantattorneysinclosedcasesinwhichthediscoveryconferenceincludeddiscussionofESI.Defendantattorneysreporteddiscussingwhetherpotentiallyresponsiveinformationwasstoredonadeviceorinaformatthatapartyconsidered“notreasonablyaccessible”15.6percentofthetime.Partiesreporteddiscussingmethodsofsearchingfororreducingthescopeofresponsivedocumentsbytopic,includingsearchterms—by17.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand18.7percentofdefendantattorneys—andmethodsofsearchingfororreducingthescopeofresponsivedocumentsbycustodian—in19.3and18.5percent,respectively.DiscussionofthepossibilityofphaseddiscoveryofESIwasreportedby12and10.3percent,respectively;discussionofthepossibilityofsamplingtodeterminewhetherproductionwasjustified,by3.8and6percent,respectively;anddiscussionoftheuseofcullingtechniquessuchasdaterangesorfileextensions,by8.5and11.2percent,respectively.Issuesrelatedtoinformationcontainedindynamicdatabaseswasreporteddiscussedby2.5percentofplaintiffattorneysand4.2percentofdefendantattorneys,andissuesrelatedtoInstantMessaging,Voicemail,VoiceoverIPandthelike,by6.8and6.3percent,respectively. Question4focusedonissuesrelatedtotheproductionofESI.ThedistributionofresponsesissummarizedinTable3.Themostcommonresponseforbothplaintiffattorneys(51.1percentofthosereportingthatthediscoveryconferenceincludeddiscussionofESI)anddefendantattorneys(46.1percent)wastheformatofproductionofESI(e.g.,pdf,tiff,nativeformat).Thenextmostcommonresponsesforbothgroupsweremethodsofhandlingconfidentialortradesecretinformation,confidentialcommunications,orinformationsubjecttowork-productprivilege,reportedby38.3percentofplaintiffattorneysand36.5percentofdefendantattorneys,andthemediaofproductionofESI(e.g.,paperprintouts,compactdisks,harddrives),reportedby31.9and36.7percent,respectively.Fully29.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand26.4percentofdefendantattorneysreporteddiscussingprivilegelogissues,and27.7and26.2percent,respectively,reporteddiscussingthemediaonwhichthepartiesroutinelymaintaintheirESI.


Table3:ReportedissuesrelatedtoproductionofESI,incaseswhereESIissueswerediscussedatdiscoveryconference

Issue



FormatofproductionofESI(pdf,tiff,nativeformat)

51.1 46.1

Confidential,tradesecret,privilegedcommunications

38.3 36.5

MediaofproductionofESI

31.9 36.7

Privilegelogissues

29.1 26.4

Media/howpartiesroutinelymaintainESI

27.7 26.2

Indexing/organizingresponsivedocuments

14.1 12.8

“Clawback”agreements

13.6 17.4

Productionofmetadata 11.2 13.6

Loadfiles

10.9 8.7

“Quickpeek”agreements 3.6 2.1

N 316 312 OtherissuesrelatedtoproductionofESIwerereportedlessoften:documentindexingorothermethodsoforganizingresponsiveelectronicdocuments(14.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand12.8percentofdefendantattorneys);so-called“clawback”agreements(13.6and17.4percent,respectively);theproductionofmetadata(11.2and13.6percent,respectively);theneedfor,orcontentof,accompanyingloadfiles(10.9and8.7percent,respectively);andso-called“quickpeek”agreements(3.6and2.1percent,respectively). Respondentswereasked,inquestion5,whethertheirclientintheclosedcasehadplacedalitigationholdor“freeze”ondeletionofESIinanticipationoforinresponsetothefilingofthecomplaint.Thedistributionofresponses,incaseswithoneormorereporteddiscoveryevents,isdisplayedinFigure6.Fully18.7percentofplaintiffattorneysand40.6percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattheirclientintheclosedcasehadinitiatedsuchahold;63and37percent,respectively,reportednosuchhold,and18.3and22.4percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer.Themuchhigherpercentageofdefendantattorneysreportinglitigationholdsmakessenseinlightoftheexpectation—supportedbelow—thatdefendantsaremorelikelytobeproducingpartiesthanareplaintiffs.


AsdisplayedinFigure7,requestsforproductionofESIwerereportedby36.1percentofrespondents—38.9percentofplaintiffattorneysand33.4percentofdefendantattorneys.Again,amajorityofrespondents—54.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand59.1percentofdefendantattorneys—reportedthatnopartyrequestedproductionofESIindiscoveryintheclosedcase.InmorethanaquarterofcaseswitharequestforproductionofESI,respondentsreportednodiscussionofESIattheconferencetoplanfordiscovery(25.5and29.8percent,respectively).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LitigationFreeze NoFreeze Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure6:Responsesto"Didyourclientplacea'litigationhold'or'freeze'ondeletionof[ESI]inanticipationoforinresponsetothefilingofthecomplaint?"



RespondentsreportingarequestforproductionofESIintheclosedcasewereaskedwhethertheirclientswereproducingparties,requestingparties,orbothproducingandrequestingparties(question11).ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure8.Asonewouldexpect,plaintiffattorneysweremorelikelytoberequestingparties(55.1percentofplaintiffattorneysreportedarequestforproductionofESI)thanproducingparties(4.0percent),althoughasizeableproportionofplaintiffattorneysreportedthat,intheclosedcase,theirclientwasbothaproducingandrequestingparty(41.0percent).Inotherwords,plaintiffattorneysreportedrequestingstatusin96percentofcasesinwhichtheyreportedarequestforESI.Defendantattorneyswerelesslikelytoberequestingparties(12.7percent)thanproducingparties(34.7percent),butincaseswithelectronicdiscoverytheymostoftenreportedbeingbothaproducingandrequestingparty(52.7percent).Somewhatsurprisingly,defendantattorneysreportedrequestingstatusin65.4percentofcasesinwhichtheyreportedarequestforESI.ThemajorityofESIcasesinthesample,then,involvedrequestsforproductionofESIfrombothsidesofthelitigation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No Ican'tsay

Percentage

Figure7:Responsesto"Didanypartyinthenamedcaserequestproductionof[ESI]?"



Producingparties,includingpartiesthatrequestedandproducedESI,weremorelikelytohaveinitiatedalitigationfreeze.ThedistributionoftheseresponsesisdisplayedinFigure9.PartiesthatbothproducedandrequestedESIreportedlitigationfreezesin52.6percentofcases,andpartiesthatproducedonlyreportedinitiatedfreezesin47.5percentofcases.Requestingonlyparties,bycontrast,initiatedlitigationfreezesinjust21.4percentofcasesandreportednosuchfreezein60.3percentofcases.Again,relativelyhighlevelsofrespondentsdeclinedtoanswerthequestion—26.1percentofproducingparties,18.3percentofrequestingparties,and15.8percentofpartiesbothproducingandrequestingESI.Inshort,theactualincidenceoflitigationfreezesmaybehigherthanshowninthefigure.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Aproducingparty Arequestingparty Bothaproducingandrequestingparty

Percentage

Figure8:Responsesto"Withrespecttoelectronicdiscovery,wasyourclientaproducingparty,arequestingparty,orbothaproducingandrequestingparty?"



RespondentswereaskedtoestimatethepercentageoftheESIcollectedonbehalfoftheirclientsthatwasreviewedforresponsivenessandprivilegepriortoproduction.Themedianresponseforbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneyswas100percent,although,themeanresponsesforplaintiffanddefendantattorneyswere63.3and64.9percent,respectively.RespondentswerethenaskedtoestimatethepercentageofESIcollectedontheirclients’behalfthatwasproducedasresponsiveandnon-privileged.Themedianresponseforplaintiffattorneyswas65.0percent,andthemeanwas53.7percent.Themedianresponsefordefendantattorneyswas50.0percent,andthemeanwas51.5percent. RespondentswereaskedtoidentifyresourcesusedincollectingandproducingESI.Thefollowingfiguresrepresenttheresponsesofproducingpartiesonly.Themostcommonresponseforbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneyswasinformationtechnology(IT)staffinternaltotheclient—30.7percentforplaintiffattorneysand54.3percentofdefendantattorneys—followedbyITstaffinternaltothelawfirm—30.2and32.2percent,respectively.Relativelyfewrespondents,15.3and14.5percent,respectively,reportedusinganITvendor(notinternaltothelawfirmortheclient).Similarly,relativelyfewrespondentsreportedusingcontractattorneystoconductresponsivenessreview—5.6and6.7percent,respectively—orprivilegereview—5.0and6.4percent,respectively.About1in7respondentsdeclinedtoanswerthisquestion.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LitigationFreeze NoFreeze Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure9:Responsesto"Didyourclientplacea'litigationhold'or'freeze'ondeletionof[ESI]inanticipationoforinresponsetothefilingofthecomplaint?"

ProducingParty RequestingParty BothRequestingandProducing


Respondentswereaskedwhether,priortothefilingoftheclosedcase,theclienthadimplementedanenterprisecontentmanagementsystemorotherinformationsystemdesignedtofacilitatetheidentificationandproductionofESIinlitigation.(Thisquestionwasonlyaskedofproducingparties.)Only6.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand22.4percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattheirclienthadimplementedsuchasystem.Fully74.5percentofplaintiffattorneysand39.5percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthattheclienthadnotimplementedsuchasystem;19.1and38.1percent,respectively,declinedtoanswer.

Respondentswereasked,inquestion18,aboutanumberofpossibleproblemsordisputesthatcouldariseoverelectronicdiscovery.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure10.Thepercentagesshownarethepercentagesofrespondentsinelectronicdiscoverycases.Plaintiffattorneysweremorelikelytoreportproblemsthandefendantattorneys,whichisprobablyrelatedtotheirgreaterlikelihoodofbeingarequestingparty. ThemostcommonlyreportedproblemwasadisputeovertheburdenofproductionofESIthatcouldnotberesolvedwithoutcourtaction,whichplaintiffattorneysreportedin11.7percentofESIcases;defendantattorneysreportedthisdisputein10.2percentofESI

0

5

10

15

20

Dispute/burden

Dispute/cost

Otherformatthanrequest

FormatUseability

SourceAccess

Objectionstouse

Spoliation

Inadvertentdisclosure

Percentage

Figure10:ProblemsrelatedtoproductionofESIidentifiedbyrespondents



cases.ThenextmostcommonproblemwastheproductionofESIinaformatotherthanthatrequested,whichwasreportedby11.6percentofplaintiffattorneysand7.4percentofdefendantattorneys.ThiswasfollowedbytheproductionofESIthattherequestingpartyassertedwasnotreasonablyuseable,reportedby9.4percentofplaintiffattorneysbutonly4.4percentofdefendantattorneys;requeststoobtainESIfromasourcetheproducingpartycontendedwasnotreasonablyaccessible,reportedby9.3and8.1percent,respectively;andclaimsofspoliation,reportedby7.7and5percent,respectively.Otherproblems(disputesovercost,objectionstouseofESIongroundsthatitwasnotproperlydisclosed)werelesscommon.

Asthepercentagesshowninthepreviousfiguresuggest,ESIdisputeswerenotverycommoninthesampledelectronicdiscoverycases.ThenumberofdisputesoverESIperelectronicdiscoverycaseisshowninFigure11.Theoverwhelmingmajorityofbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneys,72.4and78.3percent,respectively,reportedthatnoneofthedisputesrelatedtoESIincludedinquestion18hadoccurredintheclosedcase.In18.8and14.3percent,respectively,1-2disputeswerereported,in6.0and5.1percent,respectively,3-4disputeswerereported,andin2.9and2.2percent,respectively,morethan4disputeswerereported.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1or2 3or4 >4

Percentage

Figure11:PercentageofESIcasesreportingproblems,bynumberofproblemsreportedpercase



Finally,withrespecttoelectronicdiscovery,specifically,respondentswereaskedhowtheESIproducedwasusedintheclosedcase.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure12.

Fully17.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand18.8percentofdefendantattorneysrespondedthattheESIproducedindiscoverywasnotusedatallintheclosedcase.ThemostcommonuseofESIwasinpreparingordeposingawitness—reportedby47.6ofplaintiffattorneysand48.3percentofdefendantattorneys—followedbyfacilitatingasettlement—44.2and40.1percent,respectively—andininterviewswithclientsorclients’employees—29.9and40.9percent,respectively.Otherrelativelycommonresponsesincludeduseinanadditionaldiscoveryrequest—reportedby32.9percentofplaintiffattorneysand26.7percentofdefendantattorneys—andinamotionforsummaryjudgment—reportedby25.3and24.4percent,respectively. Respondentswereaskedinquestion51toestimate,ingeneral,whatpercentageoftheirpracticeisspentinelectronicdiscovery-relatedactivities.Giventhefindingsalreadypresentedinthissection,itisnotsurprisingthatthemedianresponseforbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneyswas5percent.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsgavealowermeanresponse,6.4percent,thaneitherthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsabout

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Amendcomplaint

Prepare/deposewitness

Interviews

Add'lrequests

MtntoCompel

SummaryJudgmentMtn

OtherMtn

Settlement

Attrial

Mtnforsanctions

Notused

Percentage

Figure12:Responsesto"Howwasthe[ESI]producedthroughdiscoveryusedinthelitigation?"



equally,9.2percent,orthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendants,9.0percent.The95thpercentileforthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffswas20percentoftheirpracticetimespentinelectronicdiscovery-relatedactivities;forthoserepresentingbothaboutequally,itwas30percent;andforthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants,itwas25percent.The10thpercentileresponsewas1percentforthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendants,0.5percentforthoserepresentingbothaboutequally,and0(zero)forthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs. Insum,apartyrequestedproductionofESIin30to40percentofthesampledcaseswithoneormorereportedtypeofdiscovery—inotherwords,inlessthanamajorityofcaseswithdiscovery.Moreover,nodisputesoverelectronicdiscoveryoccurredinalargepercentageofthosecases.Halfofattorneysintheclosedcaseswithsomediscoveryactivityreportedthattheyspendnomorethan5percentoftheiroverallpracticeinelectronicdiscovery-relatedactivities. ThenextreporttotheCommitteewillincludeinformationonthevolumeofESIproducedbypartiesintheelectronicdiscoverycases.

27

IV.Attorneys’EvaluationofDiscoveryintheClosedCasesRespondentswereaskedtoratetheinformationgeneratedbythepartiesindiscoveryintheclosedcaseona7-pointscale,with1beingtoolittle,4beingjusttherightamount,and7beingtoomuch.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure13.Bothplaintiffanddefendantattorneystendedtoanswer“justtherightamount”;56.6and66.8percent,respectively,gavethatanswer.Ascanbeseeninthefigure,plaintiffattorneys(36percent)weremorelikelytoratetheinformationgeneratedastoolittle(intherangeof1-3)thandefendantattorneys(22.4percent),anddefendantattorneys(10.9percent)wereslightlymorelikelytoratetheinformationgeneratedastoomuch(intherangeof5-7)thanplaintiffattorneys(7.5percent).

Respondentswereaskedtocomparethecostsofdiscoverywiththeirclients’stakesintheclosedcaseona7-pointscale,with1beingtoolittle,4beingjusttherightamount,and7beingtoomuch.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure14.Aswiththepreviousquestion,bothplaintiffanddefendantattorneystendedtoanswer,“justtherightamount”;58.8and56.8percent,respectively,gavethatanswer.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percentage

Figure13:Responsesto"Onascaleof1to7,with1beingtoolittle,4beingjusttherightamount,and7beingtoomuch,howmuchinformationdidthedisclosureanddiscoverygeneratedbythepartiesinthenamedcaseyield?"



Althoughmorethanhalfofrespondentsindicatedthatthecostsofdiscoverywere“justright”relativetotheirclients’stakesintheclosedcase,27.2percentofdefendantattorneysand23percentofplaintiffattorneysindicatedthatthecostsofdiscoveryweretoomuchrelativetotheirclient’sstakes(intherangeof5-7).Bycomparison,18percentofdefendantattorneysand16percentofplaintiffattorneysratedthecostcomparisonas“toolittle”(intherangeof1-3). Respondentswereaskedabatteryofquestionsabouttheeffectsofdiscoveryintheclosedcase.Thefirstsuchquestionwaswhetherthepotentialcostsofdiscoverytotheproducingpartyinfluencedtheclient’schoiceofforum.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure15.Asonemightexpect,defendantattorneystendedtoanswerthisquestionas“notapplicable”(54.1percent).Fully46.5percentofplaintiffattorneysdisagreedordisagreedstronglywiththestatement.Only7.2percentofplaintiffattorneysand6.3percentofdefendantattorneysagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement.8

8Cf.ThomasE.Willging&ShannonR.Wheatman,AnEmpiricalExaminationofAttorneys'ChoiceofForuminClassActionLitigation18&Table2(FederalJudicialCenter2005)(findingthatthefavorablenessofdiscoveryruleswasa“secondaryfactor”affectingplaintiffattorneys’choiceofforum,reportedin28percentofstatefilingsand16percentoffederalfilings).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percentage

Figure14:Responsesto"Onascaleof1to7,with1beingtoolittle,4beingjusttherightamount,and7beingtoomuch,howdidthecostsofdiscoverytoyoursideinthenamedcasecomparetoyourclient'sstakes?"



Next,respondentswereaskedwhateffectthediscoveryproducedintheclosedcasehadonthefairnessoftheoutcome.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure16.Fully44.5percentofplaintiffattorneysand38.5percentofdefendantattorneysagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement;only12.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand14percentofdefendantattorneysdisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement.However,itisinterestingthatalargepercentageofbothgroupsrefusedtoanswer.About1respondentin5(19.7and19.8percent,respectively)declinedtoanswer,andalmost1in4(23.4and27.7percent)neitheragreednordisagreed.Inotherwords,43.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand47.5percentofdefendantattorneys—apluralityofdefendantattorneysandanearpluralityofplaintiffattorneys—didnotexpressanopinionastotheeffectsofdiscoveryonthefairnessoftheclosedcase’soutcome.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

StronglyAgree Agree NeitherAgreeNorDisagree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Notapplicable

Percentage

Figure15:Responsesto"Thepotentialcostsofdiscovery,includingbutnotlimitedtoelectronicdiscovery,totheproducingpartyinfluencedmyclient'schoiceofforuminthenamedcase."



Thenexttwoquestionsaskedrespondentsabouttheparties’conductwithrespecttodiscovery.Firstrespondentswereaskedwhetherthepartieswereabletoreducethecostandburdenofdiscoverythroughcooperation.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure17.Asthefigureclearlyshows,respondentstendedtoagreeorstronglyagreewiththisstatement;63.8percentofplaintiffattorneysand61percentofdefendantattorneysagreedorstronglyagreed.Only11.3and12.3percent,respectively,disagreedorstronglydisagreed.About1respondentin4eitherdeclinedtoanswerordidnotexpressanopinion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Can'tsay/Notapplicable

Percentage

Figure16:Responsesto"Thediscoveryproduced...increasedthefairnessoftheoutcomeofthenamedcase."



Thesecondquestionontheparties’conductaskedwhetherthepartieswouldhavesavedsignificanttimeandmoneyhadtheycooperatedindiscovery.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure18.Giventheanswerstothepreviousquestion,itisnotsurprisingthatmanyrespondentsfoundthisquestion“Notapplicable”—41.7ofplaintiffattorneysand46.2percentofdefendantattorneys.Theseare,presumably,therespondentswhoindicatedthatthepartiesinfactreducedtheircostsbycooperatingindiscoveryintheclosedcase.Still,21.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand15.3percentofdefendantattorneysagreedorstronglyagreed;and13.9and14.5percent,respectively,disagreedordisagreedstrongly.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50




Percentage

Figure17:Responsesto"Thepartiesinthenamedcasewereabletoreducethecostandburdenofthenamedcasebycooperatingindiscovery."



Respondentswerenextaskedhowthecostsofdiscovery,includingelectronicdiscovery,affectedthelikelihoodofthecasesettling.Figure19showsplaintiffanddefendantattorneyresponsestothisquestioninallcasesinwhichtherewasatleastonereporteddiscoveryevent;theseresponsesincludecasesthatdidnotsettle.Byfar,thelargestresponsecategoryforbothplaintiffattorneys(49.8percent)anddefendantattorneys(52.6percent)was“noeffect.”But20.1percentofplaintiffattorneysreportedthatthecostsofdiscoveryincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement,5.3percentreportedthatthecostsgreatlyincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement,and2percentreportedthattheclosedcase“wouldnothavesettledbutforthecostofdiscovery.”Similarly,21.7percentofdefendantattorneysreportedthatdiscoverycostsincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement,5.5percentreportedthatthecostsgreatlyincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement,and2.8percentreportedthattheclosedcase“wouldnothavesettledbutforthecostsofdiscovery.”Insum,27.4percentofplaintiffattorneysand30percentofdefendantattorneysindicatedthatthecostsofdiscoveryincreased,tosomeextent,thelikelihoodofsettlementintheclosedcase.Only4.2percentand3.4percent,respectively,indicatedthatthecostsofdiscoverydecreasedorgreatlydecreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50




Percentage

Figure18:Responsesto"Thepartieswouldhavesavedasignificantamountoftimeandmoneyinthenamedcasehadtheycooperatedindiscovery."



Dothesefindingschangeifwelimittheanalysistocasesthatwerereportedassettledbyrespondents?Ifwerestrictedtheanalysistocasesreportedassettled(n=1,304),thepercentageofcasesinwhichrespondentsreportthatthecostsofdiscoveryincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlementincreasesforbothplaintiffattorneysanddefendantattorneys.Fully35.5percentofplaintiffattorneysinsettledcasesreportedthatthecostsofdiscoveryincreasedorgreatlyincreasedthelikelihoodofsettlement,orcausedthecasetosettle;thecomparablefigurefordefendantattorneyswas39.9percent.However,evenamongsettledcases,themostcommonresponseforbothplaintiffattorneys(48.2percent)anddefendantattorneys(47.3percent)isthatthecostsofdiscoveryhadnoeffectonthelikelihoodofsettlementintheclosedcase.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

GreatlyDecreased

Decreased NoEffect Increased GreatlyIncreased

ButFor Can'tsay

Percentage

Figure19:Responsesto"Whateffectonsettlementdidthecostsofdiscovery...haveinthenamedcase?"


35

V.AttorneyEstimatesofCostsintheClosedCasesRespondentswereasked,inquestion27,toestimatethetotallitigationcostsfortheirfirmsand/orclientsintheclosedcase,includingthecostsofdiscoveryandanyhourlyfeesforattorneysorparalegals.Ifthecasewashandledonacontingency-feebasis,theywereaskedtoestimatethetotallitigationcoststothefirm.Table4firstdisplaysplaintiffattorneys’costsforallrespondentsprovidingcostinformationincaseswithatleastonetypeofdiscoveryreported,thenbreaksdownthecostsintothefollowingcategories:noelectronicdiscoveryrequestintheclosedcase;anyelectronicdiscoveryrequestintheclosedcase;electronicdiscoverycasewiththeclientasaproducingpartyonly;theclientasarequestingpartyonly;theclientasbothaproducingandrequestingparty;fiveorfewertypesofdiscoveryreportedintheclosedcase;andmorethanfivetypesofdiscoveryreportedintheclosedcase.

Table4:Plaintiffattorneys’reportedcosts,caseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery

CategoryofRespondents

ReportedCosts(indollars)

N

All Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

15,0001,600

280,000

1,033

Noelectronicdiscovery Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

8,1261,00095,000

517

Anyelectronicdiscovery

Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

30,0003,000

500,000

451

Producingpartyonly Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

40,0002,500

400,000

23

Requestingpartyonly Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

20,0003,000

280,000

245

Producingandrequestingparty


65,0005,000

850,000

181

Fiveorfewertypesofdiscoveryreported


10,0001,000

150,000

489

Morethanfivetypesofdiscoveryreported


20,0002,500

500,000

544


Themediancostreportedbyallplaintiffattorneys,incaseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery,was$15,000.The10thpercentilewas$1,600,andthe95thpercentilewas$280,000.The1997studyfoundthatthecomparablefigureswere$10,000,$2,000,and$200,000,respectively.9Adjustedforinflation(2008dollars),thecomparablefigureswouldbe$13,363,$2,673,and$267,250,respectively.Althoughtwostudies,separatedbytwelveyears,donotprovideadequateinformationfromwhichtoestablishatrend,comparingthesecostestimates,themedianestimatein2009exceedstheinflation-adjusted1997estimateby12percent,andthe95thpercentileestimateexceedstheinflation-adjusted1997estimatebyabout5percent.The10thpercentileestimateislowerthanthenon-inflation-adjustedestimatefrom1997. AsshowninTable4,plaintiffattorneysreportedthatcaseswithelectronicdiscoveryrequestsweremoreexpensive,atthemedian,thancaseswithnosuchrequests.Incaseswithoutelectronicdiscoveryrequests,themedianreportedcostwas$8,126;themedianreportedcost,totheplaintiff,incaseswithelectronicdiscoveryrequestswas$30,000.Amongelectronicdiscoverycases,thehighestreportedcostsoccurredincasesinwhichtheplaintiffwasbothaproducingandrequestingparty—$65,000atthemedian.Costswerealsohigherincaseswithmorethanfivereportedtypesofdiscovery—$20,000atthemedian—thanincaseswithfiveorfewerreportedtypesofdiscovery—$10,000. Table5displaysdefendantattorneys’reportsofcosts,brokenoutinasimilarfashion.Themediancostreportedbyalldefendantattorneysincaseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery,was$20,000.The10thpercentilewas$5,000,andthe95thpercentilewas$300,000.The1997studyfoundthatthecomparablefigureswere,atthemedian,$15,000,whichwhenadjustedforinflationisabout$20,043;the10thpercentilewas$3,000,or$4,009adjustedforinflation;andthe95thpercentilewas$150,000,or$200,438adjustedforinflation.ThemedianfigureinTable5,inshort,isslightlylowerthanthe1997medianadjustedforinflation;the10thand95thpercentiles,ontheotherhand,arelargerby25and50percent,respectively. Onceagain,casesinwhichanelectronicdiscoveryrequestwasmadeweremoreexpensivethanthoseinwhichnosuchrequestwasmade—defendantattorneysreportedmediancostsof$40,000inelectronicdiscoverycases,comparedwith$15,000incaseswithoutelectronicdiscovery.Moreover,defendantattorneysreportedthehighestcostsinelectronicdiscoverycaseswhentheywererepresentingapartythatbothproducedandrequestedelectronicdiscovery—$60,000atthemedian,comparedwith$25,000atthemedianforproducingpartiesonlyand$20,000forrequestingpartiesonly.And,asinTable4,caseswithmorethanfivereporteddiscoveryeventsweremorecostlythancaseswithfiveorfewerreporteddiscoveryevents—$35,000comparedwith$15,000.

9Id.at15(Table3).


Table5:Defendantattorneys’reportedcosts,caseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery


ReportedCosts(indollars)

N


20,0005,000

300,000

945


15,0005,000

200,000

503



40,0006,214

600,000

385


25,0005,000

350,000

136


20,0004,000

150,000

51



60,00010,000991,900

197



15,0004,000

250,000

458



35,0007,500

400,000

487

Respondentswerealsoaskedtoestimatewhatpercentageofthetotallitigationcostswereincurredinrequestingand/orproducingdisclosureand/ordiscovery,includingbutnotlimitedtothediscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformation(question28).PlaintiffattorneyresponsesincaseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscoveryaresummarizedinTable6.Themedianresponseforallplaintiffattorneysprovidingsuchinformationwas20percent;the10thpercentilewas0.1percent,andthe95thpercentilewas80percent.Itshouldbenotedthatalmost10percentofplaintiffattorneyrespondentsofferinganestimateinresponsetothisquestionanswered0(zero).Thesefiguresaresubstantiallylowerthanthecomparablefiguresfromthe1997study,whichfoundthatthemedianforplaintiffattorneyswas50percent.10 ThereisnotmuchvariationinthemedianpercentageoftotallitigationcostsassociatedwithdiscoveryamongthesubgroupsshowninTable6.Incaseswithanelectronic

10Id.at15(Table4).


discoveryrequest,discoveryaccountsfor25percentoftotallitigationcosts,atthemedian,comparedwith20percentinacasewithoutarequest.Producingandrequestingpartiesreportedahighermedianpercentage(30percent)thanproducingpartiesonly(25percent)orrequestingpartiesonly(25percent),butagain,thedifferenceis5percentagepoints.Similarly,higherlevelsofdiscoveryledtoa5percentagepointhigherestimateofdiscoverycostsasashareoftotalcosts.

Table6:Plaintiffattorneys’estimateofpercentageofcostsincurredindiscovery,caseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery


Estimate(%)

N


20.00.180.0

1,031


20.00.080.0

515



25.05.080.0

458


25.010.075.0

22


25.01.090.0

247



30.05.075.0

188



20.00.080.0

480



25.03.080.0

551

DefendantattorneyresponsestothesamequestionaresummarizedinTable7.Defendantattorneysestimatedahighermedianpercentageoftotallitigationcostsassociatedwithdiscovery,27percent,thandidplaintiffattorneys,20percent.The10thpercentilefordefendantattorneyswas5percent,andthe95thpercentilewas80percent.Almost5percentofrespondentsofferingaresponseestimatedthepercentageoftotalcostsassociatedwithdiscoveryat0(zero).Onceagain,thesefiguresaresubstantiallylowerthantheestimatesinthe1997study,whichfoundthatthemedianestimatefordefendantattorneyswas50percentoftotallitigationcostsassociatedwithdiscovery.


Table7:Defendantattorneys’estimateofpercentageofcostsincurredindiscovery,caseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery


Estimate(%)

N


27.05.080.0

989


25.03.080.0

532



32.510.080.0

397


40.010.080.0

140


40.07.075.0

53



30.010.080.0

204



25.02.075.0

483



35.010.080.0

506

Aswiththeplaintiffattorneys’estimates,electronicdiscoveryinacaseincreasedthemedianestimateofthepercentageoftotalcostsassociatedwithdiscovery,butnotsubstantially.Forcaseswithoutareportedelectronicdiscoveryrequest,themedianestimatewas25percentoftotalcostsincurredindiscovery;forcaseswithsucharequest,themedianestimatewas32.5percent.Producingandrequestingpartiesprovidedalowermedianestimate(30percent)thanproducingonlyorrequestingonlypartiesdid(40percent).Caseswithmoretypesofdiscoveryproducedhigherestimatesofthepercentageoftotalcostsassociatedwithdiscovery,35percentcomparedwith25percent.


Todeterminewhetherdiscoverycostsingeneralareexcessive,fromtherespondent’spointofview,respondentswereasked,inQuestion78,tospecify,inthetypicalcaseinfederalcourt,theproperratioofthecostsofdiscoverytototallitigationcosts.Themedianresponseforplaintiffattorneyswas33percent,andthemedianresponsefordefendantattorneyswas40percent.Surprisingly,themedianestimatesofdiscoverycoststototallitigationcostsprovidedbysurveyrespondentswerelowerthanthemedianresponsestothenormativequestion. Respondentsreportinganelectronicdiscoveryrequestintheclosedcasewereaskedtoestimatethepercentageofdiscoverycoststhatwereincurredinproducingorrequestingelectronicdiscovery.Table8summarizesthisinformationforbothplaintiffattorneysanddefendantattorneys.Themedianestimateofelectronicdiscoverycostsasapercentageofdiscoverycostsincaseswithanelectronicdiscoveryrequestwas5percentforplaintiffattorneysand10percentfordefendantattorneys.Inotherwords,inhalfofthecaseswithanelectronicdiscoveryrequest(andforwhichrespondentsprovidedanestimate),electronicdiscoverycostsaccountedforjust5percentofplaintiffattorneys’discoverycostsand10percentofdefendantattorneys’discoverycosts.In5percentofthecases,theelectronicdiscoverycostsexceeded72.6percentofplaintiffattorneys’discoverycostsand75percentofdefendantattorneys’discoverycosts. Themediansforthebreak-outgroupsinTable8areremarkablysimilar.Plaintiffattorneysprovidedahigherestimatewhentheyrepresentedapartythatwasbothaproducingandrequestingparty(10percent),ascomparedwithaproducingonlyparty(5percent)orarequestingonlyparty(5percent).Defendantattorneysrepresentingaproducingonlypartyoraproducingandrequestingpartyprovidedverysimilarestimatesofelectronicdiscoverycostsasashareoftotaldiscoverycosts,10percentatthemedian;requestingpartiesreportedamedianof4percent.


Table8:Attorneys’estimatesofpercentageofdiscoverycostsincurredinelectronicdiscovery;electronicdiscoverycasesonly

CategoryofRespondent Estimate(%)

N

Plaintiffattorneys Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

5.0 0.0 72.6

450

Defendantattorneys Median10thpercentile95thpercentile

10.0 1.0 75.0

398

PlaintiffattorneysProducingpartyonly


5.0 0.0 95.0

22

PlaintiffattorneysRequestingpartyonly


5.0 0.0 50.0

243

PlaintiffattorneysProducingandrequestingparty


10.0 0.5 75.0

183

DefendantattorneysProducingpartyonly


10.0 1.0 75.0

141

DefendantattorneysRequestingpartyonly


4.0 0.0 37.5

52

DefendantattorneysProducingandrequestingparty


10.0 1.0 80.0

204

Tocomparethesecostmeasureswiththeamountatstakeintheunderlyinglitigation,respondentswereaskedtoestimatethebestandworst“likely”outcomes,fromthepointofviewoftheirclients.Thequestionwasdraftedtoparallelasimilarquestionaskedinthe1997study.Ameasureofstakeswasthencalculatedasthespreadbetweenthebestoutcometheclientmighthopefor(largestgainorsmallestloss)andtheworstoutcomethattheclientmightlegitimatelyfear(largestlossorsmallestgain).Table9summarizesestimatedstakesinplaintiffattorneys’anddefendantattorneys’closedcases.


Table9:Attorneys’estimatesofthestakes;caseswithoneormorereporteddiscoverytypes

CategoryofRespondent Estimatedstakes(indollars)

N


160,00014,590

3,983,000

923


200,00015,000

5,000,000

916

Themedianestimateofstakesforplaintiffattorneyswas$160,000,the10thpercentilewas$14,590,andthe95thpercentilewasalmost$4million.Inthe1997study,thecomparablefigureswere$125,000,or$167,031in2008dollars;$2,100,orabout$2,800in2008dollars;and$3million,whichwouldbemorethan$4millionin2008dollars.11Plaintiffsattorneys’estimatesofthestakesarerelativelyclose,atthemedianandthe95thpercentile,totheinflation-adjustedestimates.Atthe10thpercentile,thecurrentestimateismuchlargerthanthecomparable1997estimate. Themedianestimateofstakesfordefendantattorneyswas$200,000,the10thpercentilewas$15,000,andthe95thpercentilewas$5million.Thecomparablefiguresfromthe1997studywere$200,000,or$267,250in2008dollars;$10,000,or$13,362in2008dollars;and$5million,whichwouldbemorethan$7millionin2008dollars.Thecurrentestimatesaresubstantiallyloweratthemedianandthe95thpercentilethantheinflation-adjusted1997estimates;the10thpercentileisslightlyhigherthanthe1997estimate. Discoverycostscanbeexpressedasapercentageofthestakes,asestimatedbytherespondent.The1997studyfoundthatthemedianratioofdiscoverycoststostakeswas3percent,forbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneys,andthatthe95thpercentilewas32percent,forbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneys.12AsshowninTable10,plaintiffattorneysinthepresentstudyreportedamedianratioof1.6percentincaseswithatleastonereportedtypeofdiscovery,anddefendantattorneysreportedamedianratioof3.3percent.The95thpercentilewas25.0percentforplaintiffattorneysand30.5percentfordefendantattorneys.

11Id.at16(Table5).12Id.at17(Table6).


Table10:Ratioofattorneys’estimatesofdiscoverycoststoattorneys’estimatesofthestakes;caseswithoneormorereporteddiscoverytypes

CategoryofRespondent Estimate(%)

N


1.60.025.0

829


3.30.230.5

916

Inotherwords,inhalfofcaseswithsomereporteddiscovery,plaintiffattorneysreportedthattheirclients’discoverycostsrepresentednomorethan1.6percentoftheclients’stakesinthecase,anddefendantattorneysreportedthattheirclients’discoverycostsrepresentednomorethan3.3percentoftheirclients’stakes.Inlessthan5percentofcaseswithsomereporteddiscoverycostsplaintiffattorneysreporteddiscoverycoststhatexceeded25percentoftheclient’sstakes.Thecomparablefigurefordefendantattorneyswashigher—in5percentofcases,defendantattorneysreporteddiscoverycostsexceeding30.5percentoftheclient’sstakes. Question42askedrespondentstocomparethecostsofdiscoverytotheclient’sstakesintheclosedcase,ona7-pointscale.13Scoresof5-7onthatscalerepresenteddiscoverycoststhatwereperceivedas“toomuch,”scoresof1-3were“toolittle,”andascoreof4wasdesignated“justtherightamount.”Forplaintiffattorneysresponding“justtherightamount,”themedianratioofdiscoverycoststostakeswas1.2(n=463),andfordefendantattorneysresponding“justtherightamount,”themedianratiowas2.5(n=415).Themedianratiosforrespondentsanswering“toolittle”werelower,forthemostpart,andthemedianratiosforrespondentsanswering“toomuch”werehigher.Fordefendantattorneys,themedianratioforrespondersanswering5outof7(n=124)was5.7percent;for6outof7(n=10.9),10.9percent;andfor7outof7(n=40),7.0percent.Forplaintiffattorneys,themedianratioforrespondersanswering5outof7(n=101)was4.2percent;for6outof7(n=52),5.2percent;andfor7outof7(n=47),3.4percent. Finally,respondentswereaskedtowhatextenttheirclientwasconcernedaboutnonmonetaryreliefintheclosedcaseoraboutpossibleconsequencessuchasfuturelitigationbasedonsimilarclaims,legalprecedent,orharmtoreputation,amongotherthings.TheresponsesaresummarizedinTable11,whichpresentsthemediancost,stakes,andratioofdiscoverycoststostakesforeachcategoryofrespondent.

13SeeFigure14andaccompanyingtext,supra.


Table11:Respondentsresponsesontheimportanceofnonmonetaryrelieforadverseconsequencesoflitigation,withmediancostsandstakes

Category

Percentage

Mediancost(indollars)

Medianstakes(indollars)

MedianRatioDiscovery:Stakes

(%)Plaintiffattorneys Dominantconcern

11.0

40,000 150,000 2.3

Someconcern 22.4

20,000 270,000 1.4

Little/noconcern

59.3

10,000 150,000 1.5

Defendantattorneys

Dominantconcern

16.4

33,360 170,000 4.8

Someconcern 35.9

25,000 221,000 3.0

Little/noconcern

43.1

20,000 175,000 3.0

AsTable11shows,defendantattorneysweremorelikelytoreportthatnonmonetaryreliefand/oradverseconsequenceswereofdominantorsomeconcerntotheclient(52.3percent)thanwereplaintiffattorneys(33.4percent).Almost6in10plaintiffattorneysreportedthatnonmonetaryreliefand/oradverseconsequencesofthelitigationwereoflittleornoconcern(59.3percent).Forbothplaintiffattorneysanddefendantattorneys,thehighestmedianlitigationcostswerereportedbyrespondentsmostconcernedwithnonmonetaryreliefand/oradverseconsequences,andthelowestmedianlitigationcostswerereportedbythoseleastconcerned.Thosereportingthatsuchconcernsweredominantalsoreportedthehighestratioofdiscoverycoststostakes—discoverycostsequaled2.3percentofstakesatthemedianforplaintiffattorneysinthiscategoryand4.8percentofstakesatthemedianfordefendantattorneys.Themedianstakesfollowedadifferentpattern,withthehighestmedianstakesforbothplaintiffattorneysanddefendantattorneysreportedforcasesinwhichtheclientwassomewhatconcernedwithnonmonetaryreliefand/oradverseconsequences.

45

VI.ReformProposalsRespondentswereaskedaseriesofquestionsontworelativelycommonreformproposals—factpleadingandsimplifiedprocedures. Question56askedrespondentsatwhatpoint,ifany,thedisputedissuescentraltothedisputeinthenamedcasewereadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution.ThedistributionofresponsesforcasesinwhichtherewasatleastonereportedtypeofdiscoveryisdisplayedinFigure20.

Themostcommonresponseforplaintiffattorneyswastheinitialcomplaint,whichwastheresponseof34percentofthisgroup.Thenextmostcommonresponseforplaintiffattorneyswasafterfactdiscovery,at17.6percent.Afterfactdiscoverywasthemostcommonresponsefordefendantattorneys,at22.1percent.Mostsurprising,however,isthattheinitialcomplaintwasthenextmostcommonresponseamongdefendantattorneys,at20.4percent.Summaryjudgment(8.1and11.1percent,respectively)andafterinitialdisclosures(8.5and7.6percent,respectively)werealsorelativelycommonresponses.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Init.compl.

Answer

R.12mtn

Amendedcompl.

R.26(f)conf.

Earlypretrialconf.

Afterinitialdiscl.

Afterfactdisc.

Aftercontentiondisc.

Summaryjudgment

Post-disc.pretrialconf.

Trial

Multiple

Atnopoint

Can'tsay

Percentage

Figure20:Responsesto"Inthenamedcase,atwhatpoint,ifany,inthecasedoyouthinkthatthedisputedissuescentraltothecasewereadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution?"



Respondentswerethenasked(inquestion57)atwhatpointinthetypicalcase,basedontheirexperiencesinfederalcourt,arethedisputedissuescentraltothecaseadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure21.

Theresponsesforthetypicalcasevaryagreatdealfromthosefortheclosedcases.Theinitialcomplaintwasofferedbyonly10.1percentofplaintiffattorneysand3.9percentofdefendantattorneys—asopposedto34and22.1percent,respectively,inthepreviousfigure.Themostcommonresponse,forbothgroups,wasafterfactdiscovery,at30.1and35percent,respectively,followedbysummaryjudgment,at14.6and20.3percent,respectively. Figure22combinestheinformationfromtheprevioustwofigures,displayingthecumulativepercentagesofresponsesforplaintiffanddefendantattorneysfortheclosedandtypicalcase.Eachlinecanbeunderstoodasthesumofresponses(aspercentagesofallresponsesforthatgroup)tothatpointonthehorizontalaxis.Thisfigureillustratesatwhatpointtheissuescentraltoresolvingthecaseshavebeenadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Init.compl.

Answer

R.12mtn

Amendedcompl.

R.26(f)conf.

Earlypretrialconf.

Afterinitialdiscl.

Afterfactdisc.


Summaryjudgment


Trial

Multiple

Atnopoint

Can'tsay

Percentage

Figure21:Responsesto"Inyourexperienceinfederalcourt,atwhatpoint,ifany,inthetypicalcasedoyouthinkthatthedisputedissuescentraltothecaseareadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution?"



Asshowninthepreviousfigures,respondentsreportedthattheissuescentraltotheresolutionoftheclosedcase(“namedcase”inthesurvey)wereadequatelyframedandnarrowedmuchearlierthaninthetypicalcaseinfederalcourt.Thisfigurealsomakesclearthatplaintiffattorneystendtoperceivethatthecentralissuesareadequatelyframedandnarrowedearlierincasesthandodefendantattorneys.Forexample,bythetimeofinitialdisclosureofnon-expertdocuments,morethan60percentofplaintiffattorneysintheclosedcaseshadreportedthattheissueshadbeenadequatelyframedandnarrowed,comparedwithabouthalfofdefendantattorneys.Asimilargapexistsbetweenthetwolinesintheresponsesforthetypicalcase.

Inboththeclosedandtypicalcases,thelinesforplaintiffsanddefendantsconvergeonlylateinthecase—aroundsummaryjudgment.Bythattime,forboththeclosedandtypicalcase,85percentofrespondentsreportthatthecentralissuesareadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution.Thebiggeststepincreaseineachline,however,occursafterfactdiscovery.Asforthe10percentofcasesthatarenotincludedinthefigure,thesecasesarethoseforwhichrespondentsdeclinedtoanswerorchose“atnopoint”or“multiplepoints”asresponses.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Init.compl.

Answer

R.12mtn

Amendedcompl.

R.26(f)conf.

Earlypretrialconf.

Afterinitialdiscl.

Afterfactdisc.


Summaryjudgment


Trial

Cumulative

Percentage

Figure22:Responsesto"[A]twhatpoint,ifany...doyouthinkthatthedisputedissuescentraltothecasewereadequatelynarrowedandframedforresolution?"(Cumulativepercentageofresponses)

Plaintiffattorneys--Closedcase Defendantattorneys--ClosedcasePlaintiffattorneys--Typicalcase Defendantattorneys--Typicalcase


Question58thenaskedrespondentswhetherthedisputedissueswouldbeidentifiedatanearlierpointinmostcasesifplaintiffswererequiredtopleadmorethan“ashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief.”ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure23.

Asonewouldexpect,plaintiffattorneystendedtodisagree(25.9percent)andstronglydisagree(33percent),whiledefendantattorneystendedtoagree(38.6percent)andstronglyagree(29.1percent). Giventhedivergenceofopinionsonthisquestion,itmaybeusefultoclassifyrespondentsaccordingtowhether,intheiroverallpractice,theyprimarilyrepresentplaintiffs,primarilyrepresentdefendants,orrepresentbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,insteadofaccordingtotheirroleintheclosedcaseincludedinthesample.ThisdistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure24.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure23:Responsesto"Thedisputedissueswouldbeidentifiedatanearlierpointinmostcaseswereplaintiffsrequiredtopleadmorethan'ashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief.'"



Respondentswhorepresentprimarilyplaintiffsdisagreed(26.2percent)andstronglydisagreed(44.8percent)withthestatement;respondentswhorepresentprimarilydefendantsagreed(38.9percent)andstronglyagreed(33percent).Butthemostinterestinggroupiscomposedofattorneyswhoreportedthattheyrepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.Thisgroupofattorneysagreed(34.4percent)orstronglyagreed(11.2percent)withthestatement45.6percentofthetimeanddisagreed(24percent)orstronglydisagreed(12.1percent)withthestatement36.1percentofthetime.Amongattorneyswhorepresentbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,inshort,thepluralityagreesthatdisputedissueswouldbeidentifiedearlierwithfactpleading. Respondentswerethenaskedwhethertheaddedburdensforplaintiffswouldoutweighanybenefits,evenifraisingthepleadingstandardswouldhelptoidentifyandframedisputedissuesatanearlierstageinlitigation.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure25.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure24:Responsesto"Thedisputedissueswouldbeidentifiedatanearlierpointinmostcaseswereplaintiffsrequiredtopleadmorethan'ashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief.'"

PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Asinthepreviousfigure,plaintiffanddefendantattorneysexpressedverydifferentopinionsregardingthepotentialburdensoffactpleadingonplaintiffs.Plaintiffattorneystendedtoagree(28.9percent)orstronglyagree(31.1percent),whiledefendantattorneystendedtodisagree(33.4percent)orstronglydisagree(24.2percent). Again,itmaybeusefultoexaminetheopinionsofattorneyswhoreportedthattheyrepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure26.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreed(28.8percent)orstronglyagreed(39.5percent)withthestatement68.3percentofthetime.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsdisagreed(34.1percent)orstronglydisagreed(27.7percent)withthestatement61.8percentofthetime.Respondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreed(32.7percent)orstronglyagreed(14.8percent)withthestatement47.5percentofthetimeanddisagreed(21.5percent)orstronglydisagreed(10percent)withthestatement31.5percentofthetime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure25:Responsesto"Evenifraisingthepleadingstandardswouldhelptoidentifyandframedisputedissuesatanearlierstageinlitigation,theaddedburdensforplaintiffswouldoutweighanybenefits."



Inshort,whilerespondentswhorepresentbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallytendtoagreethatraisingpleadingstandardswouldhelptoframedisputedissuesearlierinlitigation,theyalsotendtoagreethattheaddedburdenstoplaintiffswouldoutweighanybenefits. Respondentswerethenaskedaseriesofquestionsaboutsimplifiedprocedures.Thefirstsuchquestion,question60,askedrespondentswhethertheRules’systemofnoticepleadingandexpansivediscoverydisproportionatelyincreasesthecostsoflitigatinginfederalcourtinrelationtothesystem’sbenefits.Fortherestofthesimplifiedproceduresquestions,thereportwillcontinuetoseparateattorneysintothreegroupsinsteadoftwo.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure27.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure26:Responsesto"Evenifraisingthepleadingstandardswouldhelptoidentifyandframedisputedissuesatanearlierstageinlitigation,theaddedburdensforplaintiffswouldoutweighanybenefits."



Thisquestionelicitedmostlynegativereactionsfromrespondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,relativelypositivereactionsfromrespondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendants,anddecidedlymixedreactionsfromrespondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsdisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement60.7percentofthetime,andagreedorstronglyagreedjust19.5percent.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement46.9percentofthetime,anddisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement32.6percentofthetime.Respondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement37.2percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement40.7percentofthetime. Respondentswerenextaskedwhetherheightenedpleadingstandardsandrestrictionsondiscoverywoulddiscouragelitigantsfromfilingcasesinfederalcourt.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure28.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure27:Responsesto"TheFederalRules'systemofnoticepleadingandexpansivediscoverydisproportionatelyincreasesthecostsoflitigatinginfederalcourtinrelationtothesystem'sbenefits."



Thisquestionelicitedagreementfromplaintiffattorneysand,toalesserextent,fromtheothertwogroups,aswell.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement60.9percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreed20.8percentofthetime.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement40.4percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement35.1percentofthetime;thisgroupofrespondentsincluded27.9percentwhoexpressednoopinion.Respondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement49.6percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement29.1percentofthetime. Thenextquestionsaskedaboutpotential“pilot”programsinthefederalcourts.Question62askedwhetherthefederalcourtsshouldtestsimplifiedprocedures,withallparties’consent,inafewselectdistrictstodeterminewhethersuchanideaisfeasible.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure29.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure28:Responsesto"Heightenedpleadingstandardsandrestrictionsondiscoverywoulddiscouragelitigantsfromfilingcasesinfederalcourt."



Thisquestiontendedtoelicitagreement,althoughmorethanaquarterofrespondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsexpresseddisagreement.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement49.3percentofthetime;respondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed63.9percentofthetime;andrespondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed65.9percentofthetime.About1in5respondentsexpressednoopinion. Respondentswerenextasked,ifsuchsimplifiedprocedureshadbeenanavailableoptionaspartofsuchatestprogramatthetimetheclosedcasewasfiled,wouldtheyhaverecommendedthattheirclientschoosethemovertheexistingRules.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure30.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure29:Responsesto"Thefederalcourtsshouldtestsimplifiedprocedures,withallparties'consent,inafewselectdistrictstodeterminewhethersuchanideaisfeasible."



Asthefigureillustrates,themostcommonresponseforallthreegroupsofrespondentswas“probably,dependingoncircumstances.”Fully27.5percentofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,32.7percentofthoserepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,and38.3percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsresponded“probably.”Anadditional11.8to13.1percentofeachgroupresponded“definitely.”Respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsexpressedthemostskepticismabouttheidea,responding“probablynot”23.6percentofthetimeand“definitelywouldnothave”18.9percentofthetime.Itshouldbenotedthatfrom17.9to23.3percentofeachgrouprespondedthattheydidnothaveenoughinformationtoanswerthequestion. ThefinalquestioninSectionVaskedwhetherrespondentswouldrecommendsimplifiedprocedures,ifavailable,generallytotheirclients.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure31.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Definitelywouldhave

Probably Probablynot Definitelywouldnothave

Notenoughinformation

Percentage

Figure30:Responsesto"Ifsuchsimplifiedprocedureshadbeenanavailableoptionaspartofsuchatestprogramatthetimethenamedcasewasfiled,wouldyouhaverecommendedthatyourclientchoosethemovertheexistingRules?"



Again,themostcommonresponsewas“probably,dependingoncircumstances,”whichgarnered34.8,40.5,and45.4percent,respectively,oftheresponsesofthethreegroups.Inshort,respondentsseemedsomewhatmorewillingtoconsiderparticipatinginatestprogramingeneralthanintheclosedcasesincludedinthesample.Thepercentageofrespondentsanswering“definitelywould,”however,declinesslightly,comparedwiththepercentagefortheclosedcase.Onceagain,thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsweremorelikelytorespond“definitelywouldnot,”andfrom17.2to24.1percentofrespondentsindicatedthattheydidnothaveenoughinformationtoanswerthequestion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Definitelywouldhave

Probably Probablynot Definitelywouldnothave

Notenoughinformation

Percentage

Figure31:Responsesto"Ifsuchsimplifiedprocedureswereanavailableoptionaspartofsuchatestprogramatthetimethenamedcasewasfiled,wouldyougenerallyrecommendtoclientsthattheychoosethemovertheexistingRules?"


57

VII.TheFederalRulesSectionVIofthesurveyaskedrespondentsaseriesofquestionsabouttheRulesbasedontheirexperiencesingeneral.Inthissection,reportedresponsesarenotweighted;thereisnoreasontoexpectthatthedispositionordurationofasinglecaseisrelatedtoattorneyattitudesabouttheFederalRules,ingeneral.Forthissection,respondentsarebrokenintothreegroups:thosewhorepresentprimarilyplaintiffs;thosewhoindicatedthattheyrepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally;andthosewhoprimarilyrepresentdefendants.Theanalysisincludesallrespondents,includingthosenotreportinganydiscoveryintheclosedcase. Respondentswerefirstasked(inquestion65)whetherlitigationinthefederalcourtsismoreexpensivethanlitigationinthestatecourtsinwhichtheyprimarilypractice.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure32.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure32:Responsesto"LitigationinthefederalcourtsismoreexpensivethanlitigationinthestatecourtsinwhichIprimarilypractice."



Nogroupofattorneysagreedordisagreedwiththestatementamajorityofthetime.Thosewhoprimarilyrepresentplaintiffsandthosewhoprimarilyrepresentdefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed41.0and41.8percentofthetime,respectively,andagreedorstronglyagreed38.2and34.6percentofthetime,respectively.Inshort,thesetwogroupswerefairlyevenlydividedbetweenagreeinganddisagreeing,withthelatteroptiontakingaslightedge.Incontrast,thosewhorepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyweremorelikelytoagreeorstronglyagree(44.0percentofthetime)thantodisagreeorstronglydisagree(31.4percentofthetime). Question66askedrespondentstocomparediscoverycostsinthefederalcourtswithdiscoveryinthestatecourtsinwhichtheyprimarilypractice.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure33.

Thisquestiontendedtoelicitmixedreactionsfromrespondents,withneitheragreementnordisagreementrepresentingamajorityviewforanygroupofrespondents.Forallthreegroupsofrespondents,themodalresponsewasdisagreement.Intermsofagreement,29.1percentofrespondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement,34.1percentofrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsand

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure33:Responsesto"DiscoveryinthefederalcourtsismoreexpensivethandiscoveryinthestatecourtsinwhichIprimarilypractice."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


defendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed,and28.1percentofrespondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed.Intermsofdisagreement,44.4percentofrespondentsprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed,36.5percentofrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallydisagreedorstronglydisagreed,and45.1percentofrespondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed.From20to25percentofrespondentsineachgroupneitheragreednordisagreedwiththestatement. Question67askedrespondentswhetherdiscoveryinthefederalcourtsleadstomorereliableandpredictablecaseoutcomesthanincourtswithmorerestricteddiscovery.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure34.

Thisquestiondrewalargenumberofneutralresponses.Almost1in4(24.5percent)ofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsneitheragreednordisagreed;34percentofthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyneitheragreednordisagreed;and29.9percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsneitheragreednordisagreed.Inaddition,from5to10percentofeachgroupdeclinedtoanswer.Thislevelofneutralitytothestatementmayreflectalackofexperiencein“courtswithmorerestricteddiscovery”thaninfederalcourts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure34:"Discoveryinthefederalcourtsleadstomorereliableandpredictablecaseoutcomesthanincourtswithmorerestricteddiscovery."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Intermsofrespondentstakingapositiononthequestion,agreementwiththestatementwasaround20percentagepointshigherineachgroupthandisagreement.Respondentswhoprimarilyrepresentplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement43.1percentofthetime,anddisagreedorstronglydisagreed24.2percentofthetime.Respondentswhorepresentplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement38.2percentofthetime,anddisagreedorstronglydisagreed19.9percentofthetime.Andrespondentswhoprimarilyrepresentdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement39.4percentofthetime,anddisagreedorstronglydisagreed20.5percentofthetime.Thislevelofagreementmaysimplyreflectrespondents’logicalinferencethatlessrestricteddiscoverywouldgiverise“tomorereliableandpredictablecaseoutcomes,”ofcourse.Itisstillinterestingthatmorethan1respondentin5disagreedwiththestatement;theinferenceisthatabout20percentofrespondentsbelievethatmorerestricteddiscoveryisnotinconsistentwithcaseoutcomesatleastasreliableandpredictableasthoseinfederalcourt. Question68askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitdiscoveryingeneral.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure35.Unlikethepreviousquestion,thisquestiondidnotdrawalargenumberofneutralreactions.Respondentswhoprimarilyrepresentplaintiffsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed70.7percentofthetime(37.7percentstronglydisagreed);thisgroupagreedwiththestatementjust13.7percentofthetime.Somewhatsurprisingly,respondentswhoprimarilyrepresentdefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement43.9percentofthetime,andagreedorstronglyagreed33.5percentofthetime.Inotherwords,eventhosewhoprimarilyrepresentdefendantsweremorelikelytodisagreethanagreethatdiscovery“ingeneral”shouldbelimited.Amajorityofrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallydisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement(54.6percent);thisgroupagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatementaboutaquarterofthetime(25.7percent).


Question69askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitelectronicdiscovery.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure36.Theresponsestothisquestionwerehighlypolarized.AmajorityofthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreedthattheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitelectronicdiscovery—57.6percent.Amajorityofthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsdisagreed—61.2percent.Only12.6percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed,and34.8percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed.Thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallywereaboutevenlysplitonthisquestion—35.5percentofthisgroupagreedorstronglyagreedthattheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitelectronicdiscovery,39percentdisagreedorstronglydisagreed,and22.6percentneitheragreednordisagreed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure35:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitdiscoveryingeneral."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Itisinterestingthatthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsopposelimitingdiscoveryingeneral70.7percentofthetimebutopposelimitingelectronicdiscovery61.2percentofthetime;thedifferenceisalmostcertainlythelargernumberofrespondentsinthatgrouptakinganeutralornon-positionwithrespecttoelectronicdiscovery.Thisprobablyreflectsalackofexperiencewithelectronicdiscoveryissues—andthuslessofawillingnesstoexpressapositionontheissue—amongthisgroupofrespondents.Thoserepresentingprimarilydefendants,ontheotherhand,aremuchmorelikelytosupportlimitedelectronicdiscovery(57.6percent)thantosupportlimitingdiscoveryingeneral(33.5percent). Question70askedrespondentswhetherattorneyscancooperateindiscoverywhilestillbeingzealousadvocatesfortheirclients.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure37.Therewaslittledisagreementwiththisstatement,andnosubstantivedifferenceamongthegroupsofrespondents.Fully93.1percentofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,94.5percentofthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,and95.1percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure36:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtolimitelectronicdiscovery."



Question71askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtoenforcediscoveryobligationsmoreeffectively.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure38.Thisstatementelicitedagreementamongallthreegroups.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed63.7percentofthetime,thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed61.8percentofthetime,andthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed55.9percentofthetime.Disagreementwiththisstatementwasrelativelyuncommon—14percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed,and13.5percentofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed.Only9percentofthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallydisagreedorstronglydisagreed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure37:Responsesto"Attorneyscancooperateindiscoverywhilestillbeingzealousadvocatesfortheirclients."



Question72askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtorequireadditionalmandatorydisclosures.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure39.Thisstatementelicitedmajoritysupportfromattorneysprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffs;respondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsweremorelikelytodisagreethantoagree,butrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyweremorelikelytoagreethantodisagree.Respondentsprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththisstatement54.5percentofthetime;thatgroupdisagreedorstronglydisagreedonly23.5percentofthetime,andneitheragreednordisagreed20.1percentofthetime.Respondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed42.2percentofthetime,disagreedorstronglydisagreed29.8percentofthetime,andneitheragreednordisagreed26.4percentofthetime.Respondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed32.6percentofthetime,disagreedorstronglydisagreed40.5percentofthetime,andneitheragreedordisagreed24.2percentofthetime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure38:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtoenforcediscoveryobligationsmoreeffectively."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question73askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtoprovideforroutinesharingofthecostsofproducingESIwhentheburdensofproductionarenotequal.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure40.Theresponsesvariedconsiderablybygroup.Respondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreedwiththisstatement63.9percentofthetime,disagreedorstronglydisagreed12percentofthetime,andneitheragreednordisagreed20.2percentofthetime.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed29.4percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreed37percentofthetime;slightlymorethanaquarterofthisgroupneitheragreednordisagreedwiththestatement(27.4percent).Respondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed48.7percentofthetime,disagreedorstronglydisagreed20.4percent,andneitheragreednordisagreed27.7percentofthetime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure39:Responsesto"TheRuleshouldberevisedtorequireadditionalmandatorydisclosures."



Question74askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtoencouragemorejudicialcasemanagement.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure41.Thisstatementdidnotelicitmajoritysupportfromanyofthegroups.Respondentsprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed33.4percentofthetime,respondentsrepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed42.6percentofthetime,andrespondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed34.4percentofthetime.Asubstantialpercentageofeachgroupexpressednoopinioninresponsetothisstatement:28.9percentofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,30.3percentofthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,and33.7percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants.Onlythoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsweremorelikelytodisagreeordisagreestrongly(34.7percent)thantoagreeordisagreestrongly,andthenonlymarginallyso.Thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally(25.8percent)andthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants(29.9percent)werelesslikelytodisagreethantoagree.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure40:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtoprovideforroutinesharingofthecostsofproducingESIwhentheburdensofproductionarenotequal."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question75askedrespondentswhethertheRulesshouldberevisedtodiscouragejudicialcasemanagement.Thisstatementtendedtoelicitneutralornegativereactions.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure42.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsdisagreedordisagreedstrongly46.2percentofthetime,thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallydisagreedordisagreedstrongly53.3percentofthetime,andthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed48.9percentofthetime.Substantialpercentagesofeachgroupneitheragreednordisagreed:32.9percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffs,31.6percentofthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally,and37.4percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants.Asonecouldinferfromtheprecedingfigures,fewrespondentsagreedwiththisstatement.Respondentsprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed15.8percentofthetime,thoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed11.2percentofthetime,andthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsagreedorstronglydisagreed10.7percentofthetime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure41:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtoencouragemorejudicialcasemanagement."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Takingquestions74and75together,thereappearstobesomeconsensusthattheRulesshouldnotberevisedtodiscouragecasemanagementbyfederaljudgesandthat,moreover,theRulesshouldnotberevisedtoencourageadditionalcasemanagementbythosesamejudges. Question76askedwhethertheoutcomeofcasesinthefederalsystemaregenerallyfair.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure43.Amajorityofeverygroupofattorneysagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatement.However,thoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffswerelesslikelythantheothertwogroupstoagreeorstronglyagree.Thoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreed(two-thirdsofallrespondentsinthiscategoryagreed)orstronglyagreed80.3percentofthetime;thoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed53.9percentofthetime.Attorneysrepresentingbothaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed69.2percentofthetime.Fully22.5percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsdisagreedordisagreedstrongly,comparedwith8.5percentofrespondentsrepresentingbothaboutequallyand4.2percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants.Moreover,20.3percentofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,19.7percentofthoserepresentingbothaboutequally,and13.7percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsexpressednoopinion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure42:Responsesto"TheRulesshouldberevisedtodiscouragejudicialcasemanagement."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question77askedwhethertheproceduresemployedinthefederalcourtsaregenerallyfair.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure44.Allthreegroupsagreedwiththisstatementatleasttwo-thirdsofthetime;however,thoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsexpressedthehighestlevelofagreementwiththestatement.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed67.8percentofthetime,thoserepresentingbothaboutequallyagreedorstronglyagreed78.7percentofthetime,andthoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantsagreedorstronglyagreed85.5percentofthetime.Thoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffsexpressednoopinion15.6percentofthetime,comparedwith12.8percentofthoserepresentingbothaboutequallyand9percentofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure43:Responsesto"Theoutcomeofcasesinthefederalsystemaregenerallyfair."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question79askedwhetherdiscoveryisabusedinalmosteverycaseinfederalcourt.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure45.Thisstatementtendedtodrawnegativeresponses.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed54.6percentofthetime,thoserepresentingbothaboutequallydisagreedorstronglydisagreed49.8percentofthetime,andthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed60.6percentofthetime.Bycontrast,thesegroupsagreedorstronglyagreed21,22.8,and16.3percentofthetime,respectively,andexpressednoopinion19.2,24.7,and20.1percentofthetime,respectively.Thoserepresentingprimarilydefendantshadthemostnegative(andleastpositive)reactiontothestatement.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure44:Responsesto"Theproceduresemployedinthefederalcourtsaregenerallyfair."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question79askedwhetherrespondingpartiesincreasethecostandburdenofdiscoveryinfederalcourtthroughdelayandavoidancetactics.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure46.Thisquestionelicitedaninterestingsetofresponses.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffstendedtoagreeorstronglyagree—63.9percentofthetime—asdidthoserepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally—52.9percentofthetime.Fewrespondentsinthesetwogroups—17.2and20.1percent,respectively,disagreedordisagreedstrongly.Bycontrast,thoseprimarilyrepresentingdefendantstendedtodisagreeorstronglydisagree41.9percentofthetime—butthisgroupalsoagreedorstronglyagreed32.5percentofthetime.Almostaquarterofbothrespondentsprimarilyrepresentingdefendants(23.3percent)andrespondentsrepresentingbothaboutequally(24.8percent)expressednoopinion,asdid16.2percentofthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure45:Responsesto"Discoveryisabusedinalmosteverycaseinfederalcourt."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question80askedwhetherthecostoflitigatinginfederalcourt,includingthecostofdiscovery,hadcausedatleastoneclienttosettleacasethattheywouldnothavesettledbutforthatcost.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure47.Thoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsandthoserepresentingbothaboutequallytendedtoagree,agreeingorstronglyagreeing58.2and57.8percentofthetime,respectively.Respondentsinthesegroupsdisagreedorstronglydisagreed25.3and21.4percentofthetime,respectively.However,thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsagreedorstronglyagreed38.6percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreed37.6percentofthetime

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure46:Responsesto"Respondingpartiesincreasethecostandburdenofdiscoveryinfederalcourtthroughdelayandavoidancetactics."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question81askedwhetherthecostoflitigatinginfederalcourt,includingthecostofdiscovery,hadcausedatleastoneclienttoabandonaclaimthattheywouldnothaveabandonedbutforthatcost.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure48.Innoneofthethreegroupsdidthisstatementyieldamajorityofpositiveresponses.Thoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsweremorelikelytodisagreewiththisstatementthantoagree,whichissomewhatcontrarytoexpectations.Fully45.6percentofthisgroupdisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatement,comparedwith31.4percentofthegroupwhoagreedorstronglyagreed,and17.3percentwhoexpressednoopinion.Thoserepresentingprimarilydefendantswerealsomorelikelytodisagreethantoagree.Ofthatgroup,38.1percentdisagreedorstronglydisagreed,comparedwith21.5percentwhoagreedorstronglyagreedand21.1percentwhoexpressednoopinion.Arelativelylargegroupofthoserepresentingprimarilydefendants(morethan1in5)declinedtoanswer.Theonlygroupthatwasmorelikelytoagreethantodisagreewasthoserepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.Thisgroupagreedorstronglyagreed42.6percentofthetimeanddisagreedorstronglydisagreed32.5percent;theyexpressednoopinion18.5percentofthetime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure47:Responsesto"Thecostoflitigatinginfederalcourt,includingthecostofdiscovery,hascausedatleastoneofmyclientstosettleacasethattheywouldnothavesettledbutforthatcost."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


Question82,finally,askedrespondentswhetheritwouldbebetterifmorecaseswenttotrial.ThedistributionofresponsesisdisplayedinFigure49.Thisquestionelicitedalmostnodifferencesamongthegroupsofrespondents,withtheexceptionoftheintensityofagreementamongthoseprimarilyrepresentingplaintiffs(whostronglyagreed17percentofthetime).Thethreegroupsagreedorstronglyagreed32.5,30.5,and32.2percentofthetime,respectively;expressednoopinion27.1,27.8,and27.9percentofthetime,respectively;anddisagreedorstronglydisagreed38.2,39.4,and37percentofthetime,respectively.Inshort,about3in10attorneysagreethatitwouldbebetterifmorecaseswenttotrial;almost3in10havenoopinion;andalmost4in10disagree.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure48:Responsesto"Thecostoflitigatinginfederalcourt,includingthecostofdiscovery,hascausedatleastoneofmyclientstoabandonaclaimthattheywouldnothaveabandonedbutforthatcost."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Can'tSay

Percentage

Figure49:Responsesto"Itwouldbebetterifmorecaseswenttotrial."PrimarilyPlaintiffs BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually PrimarilyDefendants

77

AppendixA:MethodsThesamplingframeforthisstudywasconstructedinamannergenerallyconsistentwiththeapproachofthe1997study.14UsingtheIntegratedDataBase(IDB),whichtheCentergeneratesfromdataprovidedbythecourtstotheAdministrativeOffice,wecreatedadatabaseofallcivilcaseterminationsinthelastquarterof2008.Anumberofgeneralfilterswereappliedtoeliminatecasesfromthedatabaseinwhichdiscoveryanddiscovery-relatedissueswouldbeunlikelytooccur.Weexcludedanumberofnatureofsuitcodesfromthesamplingframe,includingprisonercivilrightsandhabeascases(510,530,535,540,550,555);SocialSecurityandsimilarcases(860,863,864,865);bankruptcyappeals(422,423);studentloancollectionactions(152);landcondemnation(210);forfeitureactions(625,690);andasbestosproductsliability(368).Wealsoexcludedanumberofdispositioncodesfromthesamplingframe,includinginterdistricttransfer,remand,andMDLtransfer.Similarly,fororigincodes,weomittedMDLtransfersaswellasremandsfromthecourtsofappeals,andfirstandsubsequentreopens.AsforMDLcases,ourconcernwasthatMDLswouldpresentdataqualityissues;itwasnotclearthatlawyersinMDLmembercaseswouldhaveexperiencewithpretrialdiscoveryintheoverarchingproceeding.OncethedatabaseofthesecaseswasdrawnfromtheIDBusingthefiltersdescribed,wedeletedcasesthatterminatedinlessthan60days. Thesamplingframewasthendividedintothreeparts.Wedecidedtoemployastratifiedsampletoensurethatwereceivedadequateresponsesfromtwogroupsofrespondentsthatwouldnotbeadequatelysampledinasimplerandomdraw:casesthatterminatedindistrictcourtbytrial(juryorbench)andcasesthatterminatedafterhavingbeenopenindistrictcourtfor4yearsorlonger.Anycasethateitherterminatedbytrial(therewere529suchcasesinthelastquarterof2008,oncethegeneralfiltersdescribedabovehadbeenapplied)orhadbeenpending4yearsorlongerwhenitterminated(therewere321suchcases)wasincludedinthesample. Thelargeststratuminthesample,however,istherandomstratum.Choosingasamplesizedependsonanumberofassumptions,includingone’sexpectedresponserate.ThemostrecentattorneysurveyconductedbytheCenterhadobtainedaresponserateof26percent.Giventhisdatum,wedecidedtoerronthesideofcaution.Fromthe16,810casesremaininginthesamplingframe,wetookapproximately16percentatrandom,toarriveataninitialsampleof3,550cases. Thenextstepwastoobtainattorneye-mailaddressesfromthecourts’CaseManagement/ElectronicCaseFiles(CM/ECF)system.Afterconsideringtheavailableoptions,wedecidedsimplytotakethefirstlistedattorneywithane-mailaddressfromtheplaintiffanddefendantsides.Fromoursampleof3,550cases,weobtained5,685attorneye-mailaddressesfromCM/ECF.Thatfigurerepresentsapproximately80percentoftheplaintiffanddefendantattorneys(“sides”)inthesampledcases.Themissingsidesinthesampledcasesresultedfrom(1)noattorneylistedonaside(prosepartieswereexcludedfromthesample);(2)noattorneye-maillistedonaside;or(3)attorneysnotdesignatedplaintiffordefendantinaparticularcase(e.g.,listedasrespondentsorpetitionersincertaincategoriesofcases).Moreover,inasomewhatlaboriousprocess,forattorneys 14Seeid.at57-58.


appearinginthesamplemorethanonetime(thereweremany),allbutthelowestnumberedclosedcasewereeliminatedfromthesample. Fromthatsampleof5,685uniqueattorneyswithe-mailaddresses,weobtained2,690responses—foraresponserateof47.3percent.Thiscalculationincludesinthedenominatorattorneye-mailaddressesthatwerenolongeroperative;ifsuche-mailswereexcludedfromthecalculation,theresponseratewouldbeslightlyhigher. Attorneysinthesamplewerecontactedbyane-mailmessageinvitingthemtocompletethesurveyandprovidingalinktotheon-lineversionofthesurvey.Asmallnumberofattorneysrequestedapaperversionofthesurvey(reprintedhereinasAppendixC),andasmallernumberreturned,eitherbymailorfax,thepaperversionforinput.Tworemindere-mailswerealsosenttoattorneyswhohadnotyetrespondedtothesurvey. Inmostoftheanalysisreportedherein,responseswereweightedtoaccountforthestratifiedsamplingdesign.Inshort,casesinthetrialandlong-pendingstrataofthesamplemustbegivensmallerweightsthanthecasesintherandomstrata;otherwise,thereportedresultswillgiveinordinateweighttotypesofcasesthatareoverrepresentedinthesample,comparedwiththeunderlyingpopulation.Thedesignweightswerecalculatedusingtheinverseoftheprobabilityofacase’sinclusioninthesample.Whenreportedinthetext,tables,orfootnotes,thenumberofobservationspresentedistheactualnumberofrespondentsincludedineachanalysisandnottheweightednumberofrespondents. Thisreportdoesnot,however,employanypost-stratificationweightsorweightsdesignedtoaccountfornon-responsebias.Theprimaryreasonforthisdecisionisthatwesimplydonotknowenoughabouttheattorneysintheoverallsample,letalonethepopulation,tohavetheconfidencethatweknowhowsurveyrespondentsdifferfromnon-respondents.

79

AppendixB:AttorneyCharacteristicsThisappendixprovidesinformationabouttheattorneyrespondentsandtheircases.Thefindingspresentedareunweightedandincludeallrespondentswithvalidresponses;inotherwords,thissectionisnotlimitedtorespondentsreportingdiscoveryintheclosedcase. TableB-1summarizesrespondents’practicesettings.Ascanbeseeninthetable,respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffstendtoworkinrelativelysmallprivatefirms,eitherassolepractitioners(32.8percent)orinfirmsof2-10attorneys(51.7percent).Anadditional7.7percentoftheplaintiffattorneysreportedworkinginfirmsof11-25attorneys.Inshort,92.2percentofthiscategoryofrespondentspracticesinafirmof1-25attorneys.

TableB-1:Respondents’practicesettings

PracticeSetting

PrimarilyPlaintiffs(%)

BothPlaintiffsandDefendants

(%)

PrimarilyDefendants

(%)Solepractitioner

32.8 14.0 1.9

Privatefirmof2-10attorneys

51.7 36.3 17.9


7.7 12.1 15.7


1.6 7.9 10.8


1.0 6.0 8.3


1.3 7.6 9.5


0.4 4.1 9.4

Privatefirmof>500attorneys

0.6 6.6 9.1

In-housefor-profit

0.0 0.6 1.7

Legalstaff,non-profit

1.2 0.6 0.3

Government

1.9 4.1 15.4

N 836 634 1,159


Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantswereinfrequentlysolepractitioners—just1.9percentofrespondentsinthiscategorypracticedsolo—andwerealsolesslikelytopracticeinfirmsof2-10attorneys—17.9percent—thantheothertwogroupsofrespondents.Comparedwiththeothertwocategories,respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsweremuchmorelikelytoworkinfirmsofmorethan250attorneys.Fully18.5percentofthedefendantattorneysinthesampleworkedinfirmsofmorethan250attorneys;thecomparablefiguresforrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallywas10.7percent,andforthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs,1.0percent. Mostoftherespondentspracticingasgovernmentattorneysreportedthattheyareprimarilyintheroleofthedefendant.Thisgroupaccountedfor15.4percentofrespondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendants. Themodalcategoryforrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallywasafirmof2-10attorneys.Thiswasalsothemodalcategoryforplaintiffattorneysand,itbearsemphasis,defendantattorneys.Butrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyarehardertocharacterizethantheothertwogroups.Fully14percentofthisgrouparesolepractitioners,butanalmostequalpercentage,13.6percent,workinfirmsof51-250attorneys. Themedianrespondentrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffspracticesinafirmof2-10attorneys;thesamemedianisobtainedforthoserepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequally.Themedianrespondentrepresentingprimarilydefendants,ontheotherhand,practicesinafirmof51-100attorneys. Respondentswerealsoaskedwhattheirprimaryarrangementwaswithrespecttofees.ThefindingsaresummarizedinTableB-2.Notsurprisingly,respondentsrepresentingprimarilyplaintiffstendedtoworkonacontingency-feebasis,70.9percent,andanother19.2percentworkedonanhourly-feebasis.Respondentsrepresentingprimarilydefendantsreportedworkingonanhourly-feebasis74.5percentofthetime,andassalariedemployees13.6percentofthetime—thosearethegovernmentlawyersshownintheprevioustable.Thedefendantattorneysreportedworkingonacontingency-feebasisjust3.7percentofthetime.Thoserepresentingbothplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyreportedworkingonanhourly-feebasis69percentofthetime,andonacontingency-feebasis19.1percentofthetime—whichisalmostthereverseofthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffs.

TableB-2:Primaryarrangementwithclientwithrespecttofees

Arrangement



(%)

PrimarilyDefendants

(%)Hourlyfees 19.2 69.0 74.5Salariedemployee 1.6 4.3 13.6Contingentfee 70.9 19.1 3.7Other 4.6 4.0 3.9Can’tsay 3.7 3.7 4.2N 833 629 1,158


Respondentswereaskedhowmanyyearstheyhadpracticedlaw.Therewouldbelittlereasontoexpect,exante,thatthecategorieswoulddiffersubstantiallyinthisregard,andtheydonot.Themedianandmeanforallthreegroupsarecenteredaround20-21years,withslightdifferences.Halfofrespondentstothesurveyhadpracticedfor20yearsorless;half,for20yearsormore.ThesefindingsaresummarizedinTableB-3.

TableB-3:Yearsofpractice

PrimarilyPlaintiffsMedianMean

BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsMedianMean

PrimarilyDefendantsMedianMean

Yearspracticing

20.021.3

20.521.3

20.020.4

N 827 621 1,143 TableB-4summarizesthenatureofsuit(NOS)categoriesoftheclosedcasesinthesample.ThedistributionofNOScategoriesforthoserepresentingprimarilyplaintiffsandthoserepresentingprimarilydefendantsissimilar,althoughthedefendantattorneyswereinmorecontractcases.Forbothplaintiffanddefendantattorneys,themodalNOScategorywascivilrights.

TableB-4:Respondents’casesbynatureofsuit(NOS)category

NOScategory



(%)

PrimarilyDefendants

(%)Contract

12.9 32.9 20.6

Tort 21.5 8.0 19.2

CivilRights

36.5 13.1 34.5

Consumer

4.0 4.3 3.1

Labor

12.3 8.3 8.9

IntellectualProperty

2.6 17.8 2.4

Other

10.2 15.6 11.3

N 840 635 1,163


Thedistributionofrespondentsrepresentingplaintiffsanddefendantsaboutequallyisverydifferentfromthoseoftheothertwocategories.Almost1in5oftheserespondents’closedcaseswasanintellectualpropertycase.Theseattorneyswereinmorecontractcasesandinfewercivilrightscases. Finally,TableB-5summarizesthedurationoftheclosedcasesincludedinthesample.Itshouldbekeptinmindthatthetableincludescasesincludedinthesamplebecausetheywereespeciallylong-pending,andthus,unweighted,thesefiguresdonotrepresentestimatesofpopulationparameters.Instead,theyareintendedasinformationalonly.Themediansareabout1.2years;sohalfofthecasesincludedinthesampletookatleast1.2yearstoclose.

TableB-5:Respondents’casesbyduration(indays)

PrimarilyPlaintiffsMedianMean

BothPlaintiffsandDefendantsMedianMean

PrimarilyDefendantsMedianMean

Caseduration

448.0592.2

434.0637.1

432.0576.4

N 835 630 1,137

83

AppendixC:SurveyInstrument

85

National Case-Based Survey of Counsel re Discovery, Electronic Discovery, Litigation Practices and the Costs of Civil Litigation

For the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the

Judicial Conference of the United States

Designed and administered by the Federal Judicial Center

Introduction. You have been selected to receive this survey as part of a national random sample of attorneys in federal court cases terminating in the last quarter of 2008. The Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”) designed the survey to aid the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules in its current re-examination of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Advisory Committee is particularly interested in obtaining objective information relating to discovery and pleading practices. Information about your recent experiences in the federal courts will greatly assist the Advisory Committee in deciding whether any fundamental change in the Rules is needed. Court records show that you represented a party in a recently terminated case identified in the <<insert caption, case number, and district information>> (“the named case”). The survey asks about that case. We ask that you complete the survey if you were one of the primary attorneys in the named case. If someone else was primarily responsible for the case, please forward the email containing the link to the survey to that person. The same survey is being sent to the primary attorneys for other parties in the named case. Confidentiality. We recognize that much of this information is sensitive. Findings will be reported in the aggregate so that no individual party or case will be identifiable. Any information that might permit identification of the named case, the attorneys, or the parties will be treated as confidential. Returning the survey. Please mail or FAX the completed survey to the Emery Lee, Federal Judicial Center, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 (FAX: 202-502-4199). Results. Results of the survey will be published and available at www.fjc.gov. Questions. If you have questions about the survey, please contact Emery Lee, [email protected], (202) 502-4078, or Tom Willging, [email protected], (202) 502-4049.


I. Discovery Activity in the Named Case 1. After the filing of the complaint and before the first pretrial conference, did you or any attorney for your client confer with opposing counsel—by telephone, correspondence, or in-person—to plan for discovery in the named case?

�1 Yes �2 No --------------------àGo to Question 5 �3 I can’t say -----------àGo to Question 5

2. If Yes, did the conference to plan for discovery include discussion of electronically stored information?

�1 Yes �2 No --------------------àGo to Question 5 �3 I can’t say -----------àGo to Question 5

3. If Yes, did the discussion of discovery of electronically stored information include any of the following topics related to collection (Check all that apply):

�1 Restricting the scope or avoiding altogether the discovery of electronically stored information �2 The scope, cost, method, or duration of preserving electronically stored information �3 The parties’ practices with respect to retention of electronically stored information �4 The potential cost or burden of collecting, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information �5 The possibility of phased discovery of electronically stored information �6 Whether potentially responsive information was stored on a device or in a format that a party considered “not reasonably accessible” �7 The possibility of sampling electronically stored information from a particular source to determine if production was justified �8 Issues relating to information contained in dynamic data bases �9 Issues relating to Instant Messaging, Voicemail, VoiceoverIP and the like �10 Use of culling techniques such as date ranges or file extensions �11 Methods of searching for or reducing the scope of responsive documents by topic, including but not limited to the use of keyword search terms or deduplication for electronic documents �12 Methods of searching for or reducing the scope of responsive documents by custodian or location regarding electronically stored information


4. Did the discussion of discovery of electronically stored information include any of the following topics related to production (Check all that apply):

�1 Format of production of electronically stored information (pdf, tiff, native format) �2 The need for, or content of, accompanying load files (files used to import code or images into a database) �3 Media on which the parties routinely maintain electronically stored information �4 Media of production of electronically stored information (e.g., paper printouts, compact disks, hard drives) �5 Document indexing or other method of organizing responsive electronic documents �6 The production of metadata (metadata is information regarding the history or management of an electronic file usually not apparent to a reader viewing a hard copy or screen image) �7 Methods of handling confidential or trade secret information, privileged communications, or information subject to work-product privilege �8 Privilege log issues �9 An agreement to permit a producing party to “claw back” or retract privileged material inadvertently produced �10 An agreement to permit a requesting party to take a “quick peek” at documents prior to privilege review without the producing party’s waiver of privilege

5. Did your client place a “litigation hold” or “freeze” on deletion of electronically stored information in anticipation of or in response to the filing of the complaint in the named case?

�1 Yes �2 No �3 I can’t say

6. Did the court adopt a discovery plan?

�1 Yes �2 No ------------------ àGo to Question 8 �3 I can’t say -----------àGo to Question 8

7. If Yes, did the discovery plan include provisions related to electronically stored information?



8. Before discovery began, did the parties agree how they would address the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials through discovery?


9. What types of discovery occurred in the named case? Where indicated, please provide additional information. Check all that apply

Type of discovery Additional information

□ 1

Initial disclosure of non-expert documents, including but not limited to electronically stored documents

□ 2

Informal exchange of documents, including but not limited to electronically stored documents

If not used in the named case, did you discuss making an informal exchange with counsel for the other side? __ Yes __ No __ I Can’t say

□ 3

Informal exchange of other materials

□ 4

Interrogatories

□ 5

Request for production of documents, including but not limited to electronically stored documents

□ 6

Disclosure of expert reports

How many expert witnesses did each side identify? Your side: ______________ The opposing side: ____________


□ 7

Depositions of experts

How many experts did each side depose? Your side: ______________ The opposing side: ____________ How many expert depositions lasted more than seven hours? ___

□ 8

Depositions of non-experts

How many non-experts did each side depose? Your side: ______________ The opposing side: ___________ How many non-expert depositions lasted more than seven hours? ____

□ 9

Requests for admission

How many requests were propounded? Your side: ________________ The opposing side: __________

□ 10

Physical or mental examination

□ 11

Inspection of property, computer equipment or media, or designated objects

□ 12

Third-party subpoena

How many third-party subpoenas were issued? Your side: _______________ The opposing side: ___________

10. Did any party in the named case request production of electronically stored information?

�1 Yes �2 No ----------------------àGo to Question 20 �3 I can’t say -------------à Go to Question 20

11. If yes, with respect to electronically stored information, was your client

�1 A producing party �2 A requesting party ----------------------àGo to Question 18 �3 Both a producing and requesting party


12. Please estimate, if possible, the percentage of the electronically stored information collected on behalf of your client (including by the client itself as well as any law firm(s)) that was reviewed for responsiveness and privilege:

_____________ %

13. Please estimate, if possible, the percentage of the electronically stored information collected on behalf of your client (including by the client itself as well as any law firm(s)) that was produced as responsive and non-privileged: _____________ % The next set of questions asks about the amount of electronically stored information produced to the requesting party. The amount of information may be estimated using bytes OR by using counts of the media of production (e.g., number of compact disks, number of hardcopy pages). 14. Please estimate, if possible, the amount of electronically stored information produced by your client in the named case in bytes. (Check one)

�1 Number of Terabytes (equivalent to about 500 million pages) ____________ 2 Number of Gigabytes (equivalent to about 500,000 pages) ____________ 3 Number of Megabytes (equivalent to about 500 pages)____________ 4 I can’t say

In answering the next question, please do not double count media. For example, if 1,000 hardcopy pages were produced in 5 boxes, please provide the number of hardcopy pages only. 15. Please estimate the amount of electronically stored information produced as

�1 Compact disks _______ �2 Hard drives or computers _________ �3 Hard copy pages _________ �4 Boxes of hard copy pages _________ �5 I can’t say


16. What resources were used on behalf of your client (including by the client itself as well as any law firm(s)) in collecting and producing electronically stored information? (Check all that apply)

�1 Information technology vendor (not internal to the law firm or to client) �2 Information technology staff internal to the law firm �3 Information technology staff internal to the client �4 Contract attorneys for responsiveness review �5 Contract attorneys for privilege review �6 Other (please specify) ________________________________________ �7 I can’t say

17. Prior to the filing of the named case, had your client implemented an enterprise content management system or other information system designed to facilitate the identification and production of electronically stored information in litigation?


18. Did any of the following occur in the named case as a consequence of the requested or produced discovery of electronically stored information? (Check all that apply) �1 Dispute over burden of production of electronically stored information that the parties could

not resolve without court action �2 Dispute over cost of production of electronically stored information that the parties could

not resolve without court action �3 Production of accessible electronically stored information in a format other than

that requested �4 Production of electronically stored information in a format requesting party asserted was not

reasonably useable �5 A request to obtain electronically stored information from a source (e.g., backup tapes) the

producing party contended was not reasonably accessible due to burden or cost �6 One or more objections to a party’s use or anticipated use of electronically stored information

on the grounds that it was not properly disclosed �7 One or more claims of spoliation of electronically stored information �8 Inadvertent disclosure through production of electronically stored information claimed to be

privileged


19. How was the electronically stored information produced through discovery used in the litigation? Please check all that apply:

�1 In amending the complaint �2 In preparing or deposing a witness �3 In interviews with client representatives or non-parties �4 In a request for additional discovery �5 In a motion to compel discovery �6 In a summary judgment motion �7 In other pretrial motions �8 In facilitating a settlement of the named case �9 At trial �10 In a motion for sanctions �11 Not used in the case

20. Did a judicial officer, including a special master or other neutral, do any of the following in the named case with respect to discovery in general, including electronic discovery? (Check all that apply)

�1 Hold a conference (by telephone, correspondence, or in-person) to consider a plan involving discovery �2 Hold a conference (by telephone, correspondence, or in-person) to address discovery issues not addressed in a discovery plan �3 Limit the time for completion of discovery-----àIf so, how many months? _______ �4 Appoint a neutral to oversee discovery issues �5 Refer any discovery issue to a magistrate judge �6 Grant a motion for protective order limiting discovery �7 Deny a motion for protective order limiting discovery �8 Grant a motion to compel discovery �9 Deny a motion to compel discovery �10 Rule on any other discovery motion �11 Impose sanctions related to discovery

21. Did the court rule on any of the following motions? (Check all that apply)

�1 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim �2 Other Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss �3 Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings �4 Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement �5 Rule 56 motion for summary judgment �6 I can’t say


The Effects of Discovery in the Named Case

22. The potential costs of discovery, including but not limited to electronic discovery, to the producing party influenced my client’s choice of forum in the named case.

Strongly Agree

□ 1

Agree

□ 2

Neither Agree nor Disagree

□ 3

Disagree

□ 4

Strongly Disagree

□ 5

Can’t Say/ Not Applicable

□ 6

23. The discovery produced, including but not limited to electronically stored information, increased the fairness of the outcome of the named case.

Strongly Agree

□ 1

Agree

□ 2


□ 3

Disagree

□ 4

Strongly Disagree

□ 5


□ 6

24. The parties in the named case were able to reduce the cost and burden of the named case by cooperating in discovery.

Strongly Agree

□ 1

Agree

□ 2


□ 3

Disagree

□ 4

Strongly Disagree

□ 5


□ 6

25. The parties would have saved a significant amount of time and money in the named case had they cooperated in discovery.

Strongly Agree

□ 1

Agree

□ 2


□ 3

Disagree

□ 4

Strongly Disagree

□ 5


□ 6 26. What effect on settlement did the costs of discovery, including but not limited to electronic discovery, have in the named case? �1 The costs of discovery greatly decreased the likelihood of settlement. �2 The costs of discovery decreased the likelihood of settlement. �3 The costs of discovery had no effect on the likelihood of settlement. �4 The costs of discovery increased the likelihood of settlement. �5 The costs of discovery greatly increased the likelihood of settlement. �6 The named case would not have settled but for the costs of discovery. �7 I can’t say


II. Litigation costs 27. Please estimate, if possible, the total litigation costs for your firm and your client in the named case, including the costs of discovery and any hourly fees for attorneys or paralegals. If the case was handled on a contingency fee basis, please estimate the total litigation costs to your firm.

$ __________________________ 28. Approximately what percentage of the total litigation costs in the named case was incurred in requesting and/or producing disclosure and/or discovery, not limited to the discovery of electronically stored information?

_________ % 29. Of the costs of discovery in the named case, approximately what percentage was incurred in requesting and/or producing disclosure and/or discovery of electronically stored information, if any?

_________ %

30. Of the costs of discovery in the named case, approximately what percentage was incurred in preparing for and taking depositions? _________ % The next two pairs of questions attempt to measure how much was at stake for your client in the named case, aside from the costs of the litigation itself. If possible, please estimate and include the monetary value of any nonmonetary relief at stake. 31. If the named case had ended in the worst likely outcome, given the law and the facts, how would your client have stood at the end of the case with respect to damages, monetary relief, and quantifiable nonmonetary relief. (Check one)

�1 My client would have lost money in the worst likely outcome. �2 My client still would have gained money, even in the worst likely outcome. �3 In the worst likely outcome, my client would have neither gained nor lost money. �4 I can’t say

31a. Please estimate, in dollars, the gain or loss your client would have experienced in the worst likely outcome.

$______________


32. If the named case had ended in the best likely outcome, given the law and the facts, how would your client have stood at the end of the case with respect to damages, monetary relief, and quantifiable nonmonetary relief. (Check one)

�1 My client would have still lost money, even in the best likely outcome. �2 My client would have gained money in the best likely outcome. �3 In the best likely outcome, my client would have neither gained nor lost money. �4 I can’t say

32a. Please estimate, in dollars, the gain or loss your client would have experienced in the best likely outcome.

$ ____________ 33. To what extent were you concerned in the named case about nonmonetary relief or about possible consequences to your client, beyond the relief sought, such as future litigation based on similar claims, legal precedent, harm to reputation, or a desire to maintain a business relationship with a party? (Check one)

�1 Such consequences were of dominant concern �2 Such consequences were of some concern �3 Such consequences were of little or no concern �4 I can’t say

34. Which of the following best describes your client? (Check one)

�1 Natural person (individual) �2 Multinational corporation �3 For-profit entity of national scope �4 For-profit entity of regional scope �5 For-profit entity of local scope �6 Non-profit entity of national scope �7 Non-profit entity of regional scope �8 Non-profit entity of local scope �9 Private educational institution �10 Agency of the federal government �11 Agency of a state or local government


35. Which of the following best describes the opposing party? (Check one)

�1 Natural person (individual) �2 Multinational corporation �3 For-profit entity of national scope �4 For-profit entity of regional scope �5 For-profit entity of local scope �6 Non-profit entity of national scope �7 Non-profit entity of regional scope �8 Non-profit entity of local scope �9 Private educational institution �10 Agency of the federal government �11 Agency of a state or local government

III. Case Characteristics 36. Did the plaintiff in the named case make class action allegations at any point?

�1 Yes �2 No �3 I don’t know

37. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being not complex at all, 4 being average complexity, and 7 being extremely complex, how complex were the factual issues in the named case? (Circle one) Not complex at all

1

2

3

Average Complexity

4

5

6

Extremely complex

7 38. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being not contentious at all, 4 being average contentiousness, and 7 being extremely contentious, how contentious was the relationship between the parties in the named case? (Circle one) Not contentious at all

1

2

3

Average Contentiousness

4

5

6

Extremely contentious

7


39. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being not contentious at all, 4 being average contentiousness, and 7 being extremely contentious, how contentious was the relationship between the attorneys in the named case? (Circle one)

Not contentious at all

1

2

3

Average Contentiousness

4

5

6

Extremely contentious

7 40. Before the filing of the complaint in the named case, had you ever (check all that apply):

�1 Met in person any of the opposing attorneys �2 Opposed in another case any of the opposing attorneys �3 Opposed in another case the opposing party

41. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being too little, 4 being just the right amount, and 7 being too much, how much information did the disclosure and discovery generated by the parties in the named case yield? (Circle one) Too little

1

2

3

Just the right amount

4

5

6

Too much

7 42. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being too little, 4 being just the right amount, and 7 being too much, how did the costs of discovery to your side in the named case compare to your client’s stakes? (Circle one) Too little

1

2

3

Just the right amount

4

5

6

Too much

7


43. How was the named case ultimately resolved in district court? (Check one)

�1 Dismissed on Rule 12 motion �2 Summary judgment �3 Settled by the parties �4 Voluntarily dismissed without settlement �5 Tried to jury verdict �6 Resolved by bench trial �7 Otherà Please specify: ____________________________

IV. Your Practice 44. What was your primary arrangement with your client regarding attorney fees in the named case? (Check one)

�1 Hourly fees �2 Salaried employee of client (including government) �3 Contingent fee (percentage of recovery or amount saved) �4 Other arrangement not based on hours or case outcome �5 I can’t say

45. Was there a statutory provision for recovery of attorney fees applicable to any claim in the named case? (Check one)

�1 Yes �2 No �3 I don’t know

46. Which of the following best describes your law practice setting? (Check one)

�1 Sole practitioner �2 Private firm of 2-10 attorneys �3 Private firm of 11-25 attorneys �4 Private firm of 26-50 attorneys �5 Private firm of 51-100 attorneys �6 Private firm of 101-250 attorneys �7 Private firm of 251-500 attorneys �8 Private firm of more than 500 attorneys �9 Legal staff of a for-profit entity �10 Legal staff of a non-profit entity �11 Government

47. How many years have you practiced law? ________________ years


48. Please estimate the percentage of your work time during the past five years spent on civil litigation in the federal courts. If less than five years of practice, estimate the percentage of your work time during your years of practice dedicated to civil litigation in the federal courts.

_______________ % 49. Please estimate: how many trials (in state and federal court) have you participated in as an attorney, including the named case (if applicable)? _______________ trials 50. Please estimate: what percentage of your practice is spent in discovery-related activities? _______________ % 51. Please estimate: what percentage of your practice is spent specifically on electronic discovery? ______________ % 52. Do you primarily represent plaintiffs, defendants, or both? (Check one)

�1 Primarily plaintiffs �2 Both plaintiffs and defendants about equally �3 Primarily defendants

53. In the named case, did you represent a (Check one)

�1 Plaintiff �2 Defendant �3 Other àPlease specify: ___________________________

54. Have any of your clients tried to reduce the costs of discovery, including but not limited to electronic discovery, by doing discovery-related work themselves or by contracting for discovery-related services?



55. Have any of your clients tried to reduce the costs of electronic discovery by implementing information management programs designed for that purpose?


V. Reform Proposals Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 provides access to the court if a plaintiff presents “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Some critics of Rule 8’s notice pleading standard argue that the issues central to the resolution of most cases are not identified in the initial complaint and answer, but must be identified through subsequent motions practice and discovery. 56. In the named case, at what point, if any, in the case do you think that the disputed issues central to the case were adequately narrowed and framed for resolution? (Check one)

�1 The initial complaint �2 The answer �3 Rule 12 motion �4 Amended complaint �5 Rule 26(f) conference �6 Early pretrial conference �7 After initial disclosures �8 After fact discovery �9 After contention discovery �10 At summary judgment �11 Post-discovery pretrial conference �12 At trial �13 At multiple points �14 At no point �15 I can’t say


57. In your experience in federal court, at what point, if any, in the typical case do you think that the disputed issues central to the case are adequately narrowed and framed for resolution? (Check one)

�1 The initial complaint �2 The answer �3 Rule 12 motion �4 Amended complaint �5 Rule 26(f) conference �6 Early pretrial conference �7 After initial disclosures �8 After fact discovery �9 After contention discovery �10 At summary judgment �11 Post-discovery pretrial conference �12 At trial �13 At multiple points �14 At no point �15 I can’t say

58. The disputed issues would be identified at an earlier point in most cases if plaintiffs were required to plead more than “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 59. Even if raising the pleading standards would help to identify and frame disputed issues at an earlier stage in litigation, the added burdens for plaintiffs would outweigh any benefits. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6


One proposal is to develop simplified procedures for the federal courts. These simplified procedures would require more detailed pleading and enhanced disclosure obligations, at the beginning of a case. They would also restrict discovery opportunities beyond the initial disclosures. Additional provisions would reduce motions practice and require an early, firm trial date. The principal argument for these simplified procedures is that the current system puts too much emphasis on discovery. 60. The Federal Rules’ system of notice pleading and expansive discovery disproportionately increases the cost of litigating in federal court in relation to the system’s benefits. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 61. Heightened pleading standards and restrictions on discovery would discourage litigants from filing cases in federal court. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 62. The federal courts should test simplified procedures, with all parties’ consent, in a few select districts to determine whether such an idea is feasible. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 63. If such simplified procedures had been an available option as part of such a test program at the time the named case was filed, would you have recommended that your client choose them over the existing Rules? (Check one)

�1 Definitely would have recommended �2 Probably, depending on circumstances �3 Probably not, depending on circumstances �4 Definitely would not have recommended �5 Not enough information to answer the question


64. If such simplified procedures were an available option as part of such a test program, would you generally recommend to clients that they choose them over the existing Rules?

�1 Definitely would recommend �2 Probably, depending on circumstances �3 Probably not, depending on circumstances �4 Definitely would not recommend �5 Not enough information to answer the question

VI. The Federal Rules For the questions in this section, do not limit your responses to your experiences in the named case, but please base your responses on your experiences in your federal cases and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). 65. Litigation in the federal courts is more expensive than litigation in the state courts in which I primarily practice. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 66. Discovery in the federal courts is more expensive than discovery in the state courts in which I primarily practice. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 67. Discovery in federal courts leads to more reliable and predictable case outcomes than in courts with more restricted discovery. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6


68. The Rules should be revised to limit discovery in general. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 69. The Rules should be revised to limit electronic discovery. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 70. Attorneys can cooperate in discovery while still being zealous advocates for their clients. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 71. The Rules should be revised to enforce discovery obligations more effectively. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 72. The Rules should be revised to require additional mandatory disclosures. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 73. The Rules should be revised to provide for routine sharing of the costs of producing electronically stored information when the burdens of production are not equal. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6


74. The Rules should be revised to encourage more judicial case management. (Check one)

Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 75. The Rules should be revised to discourage judicial case management. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 76. The outcomes of cases in the federal system are generally fair. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 77. The procedures employed in the federal system are generally fair. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 78. In the typical case in federal court, the cost of discovery should be no more than the following percentage of the total litigation costs of any party: _____________% 79. Discovery is abused in almost every case in federal court. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6


80. Responding parties increase the cost and burden of discovery in federal court through delay and avoidance tactics. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 81. The cost of litigating in federal court, including the cost of discovery, has caused at least one of my clients to settle a case that they would not have settled but for those costs. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 82. The cost of litigating in federal court, including the cost of discovery, has caused at least one of my clients to abandon a claim that they would not have abandoned but for those costs. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6 83. It would be better if more cases went to trial. (Check one) Strongly Agree

�1

Agree

�2


�3

Disagree

�4

Strongly Disagree

�5

Can’t Say

�6


84. Please enter any comments you may have on the subjects addressed in this survey in the box below: Thank you! Please mail or FAX the completed survey to Emery Lee, Federal Judicial Center, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 (FAX: 202-502-4199). If you have any questions, please contact Emery Lee at [email protected] or 202-502-4078, or Tom Willging at [email protected] or 202-502-4049.

109

AppendixD:AttorneyCommentsTableofContents Introduction 111 RespondentsRepresentingPrimarilyPlaintiffs 111 DiscoveryAbuse/AttorneyConduct 111 DiscoveryCosts 115 DiscoveryProcess 117 ElectronicDiscovery 122 FederalCourtPractice 123 JudicialManagement 127 Rules 130 SummaryJudgment 132 Rule12andTwombly 134 CivilRights/EmploymentLaw 138 Miscellaneous 139 SurveyComments 141 RespondentsRepresentingPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually 143 DiscoveryAbuse/AttorneyConduct 143 DiscoveryCosts 145 DiscoveryProcess 146 ElectronicDiscovery 149 FederalCourtPractice 150 JudicialManagement 152 Rules 153 SummaryJudgment 155 Rule12andTwombly 155 CivilRights/EmploymentLaw 158 Miscellaneous 158 SurveyComments 159 RespondentsRepresentingPrimarilyPlaintiffs 161 DiscoveryAbuse/AttorneyConduct 161 DiscoveryCosts 164 DiscoveryProcess 166 ElectronicDiscovery 169 FederalCourtPractice 173 JudicialManagement 177 Rules 179 SummaryJudgment 180 Rule12andTwombly 180 CivilRights/EmploymentLaw 183 Miscellaneous 184 SurveyComments 186

111

Introduction Attheendofthequestionnaire,respondentswerepromptedto“enteranycommentsyoumayhaveonthesubjectsaddressedinthesurveyintheboxbelow.”Thefollowingarethecommentsentered,arrangedbythethreecategoriesofrespondentsusedthroughoutthereportandbythedominantsubjectmatterofeachcomment.Manycomments,ofcourse,touchedonmultiplesubjectsbuttoavoidrepetitionwereplacedinonesection.Inafewcomments,specificinformationthatmightidentifytherespondenthasbeendeleted.

RespondentsRepresentingPrimarilyPlaintiffs

DiscoveryAbuse/AttorneyConduct

Myoverwhelmingexperienceasaplaintiff’sattorneywhohaslitigateddozensofcasesintheFederalsystemisthatDefendantsroutinelygamediscoveryandpre-trialpractice.

Afterpracticingfor22years,I’velearnedthatlawyerscangetalongandcooperateandstillbeadvocatesfortheirclients.MostlawyersIdealwithunderstandwhatisdiscoverableandwhatisnot.

Inmyexperience,thevastmajorityofopposingcounselhavebeencooperativeandprofessionalinmanagingdiscovery,whichhasresultedindecreaseddiscoverycostsforallparties.

Insurancecompanieshaveanadvantageovertheaverageinsuredwhenitcomestodiscovery.Theyabusediscoverybyspendinganinordinateamountoftimeandmoneytoharassandoverburdenplaintiffs.

Theinsurancecompany’stacticsinthiscaseantagonizedthejuryandturneda$150,000-$200,000case($125,000actualfireloss)intoa$1.2milliondollarcase(withoutpunitivedamages.)Thosetacticsincludedcombatingdiscoveryabuses.

Thereshouldbealimitondocumentproductionrequestsjustlikethelimitoninterrogatories.Largelawfirmsareregularlyabusingthefactthatthereisnolimitandmaypropoundridiculousnumbersofproductionrequeststhatmaytakeaninordinateamountoftime.

CourtsshouldputmoreresourcesandemphasisonADRprograms,whichmostpartiesdisregardwhencourt-sponsored.Judgesshouldsanctionlawyerswhoplaytoomanygamesindiscovery.Thecourtsshouldrecognizethatingeneraldefendantsincivilcaseshaveaccesstomostinformationtheyneed,whileplaintiffshaveaccesstonearlynothing.Summaryjudgmentisgrantedalmostasamatterofforminemploymentdiscriminationcases--only5%ofplaintiffsprevail.


Defendants’abuseofmotionpracticeisthesinglelargestcontributortothedelayinreachingaresolutionofacivilcaseinfederalcourt.

Defendantsarethepartiesthatobstructdiscoveryandmakeitmorecomplex.If26(a)(1)disclosurewasmandatorytoincludedocumentsandESIaswell,itwouldmaketheprocesseasierandlessexpensive.

Discoveryabuseisthemoststressfulandtimeconsumingproblemwithfederallitigation.ThefederaljudgeswithwhomIregularlyinteractaretooslowtoreacttodiscoveryabuse,placetoomuchburdenontherequestingpartytotryto"amicably"obtainresponsivediscoverybeforeallowingthecourttobecomeinvolvedindiscoverydisputesandfailtosanctionnon-producingpartiesregardlessoftheunreasonablenessofthenon-producingparties’discoveryresponsesandexcuses.

Discoveryisitsownanimal.Thepracticeofassigningamagistratejudgetooverseediscoveryisagoodoneandshouldbeencouraged.Cases(likemineinthisinstance)inwhichnomagistrateisassignedtendtobethesourceofabusebecausethefederaljudgesdonothavethetimeorcommitmenttopayattentiontothediscoveryissuesandoftenendupmakingdecisionsbasedonthesoundbitesinbriefsratherthanonsubstantivebases.

Discoveryofrecordsin[medicalmalpractice]casesand[personalinjury]casesshouldbeeasyandthereshouldnotbealottofightover.Withmanydefenseattorneysthereiscooperation.Unfortunatelywithafeweverythingisafight.

Docketcontrolordersthatrequireaplaintifftopropoundasettlementdemandtothedefendantearlyinthepretrialperiod;however,therequirementisacompletewasteoftimeiftheorderdoesnotrequirethedefendanttotenderareasonableresponseconsistentwithareasonableassessmentoflitigationrisk,subjecttojudicialsanctions.Underourcurrentsystem,thedefendantsalwaysreplytoearlysettlementoffersbyrejectingtheplaintiff’soffer(nomatterhowsmall)statingthatadditionaldiscoveryisneededbeforearesponsetotheoffercanbemade.Solongastherearenoconsequencestoadefendantforconductingextensivediscoveryattemptingtosupportameritlessdefense,solelytodelaytheresolution,litigationinfederalcourtwillcontinuetobeveryexpensiveandprotracted.

FederalCourtsaregenerallyamuchbetterplaceformyclientsthanStateCourts.TherulesofcivilitymaketheFederalsystemabetterforum.

Forsmallfirmpractitionersrepresentingindividuals,federalcourtisgenerallyaburden.Largedefensefirmsrepresentinglargecorporationsroutinelyremovecasesthatcanbetriedinstatecourtinordertoincreasetheburdenonplaintiffs.Strictandsometimesunyieldingschedulingordersmakesomecasesnearlyunmanageableforsmallorsolopractitionersthatdonothaveanarmyofassociatesorlargestaff.Imakeeveryefforttokeepmycasesoutoffederalcourt.

Iapplaudyoureffortstoreformthefederallitigationprocess.Thevastmajorityofmyfederalcasesarecomplexproductliabilitycases.Insuchcases,theresolutionisgreatly


influencedbythejudgeandhis/herwillingnesstoappropriatelyaddressdiscoveryabusebythecorporatedefendants.Simplyput,unlessthecourtwillpunishtherecalcitrantdefendantfordiscoveryabuse,thereislittleincentivetocomplywithdiscoveryrequestsandrevealinformationthatcanforceearlyresolution.Itseemsthatfewerandfewerfederalcourtsarewillingtodoso.Thus,casesarenowfarmoreexpensiveandtimeconsumingthannecessary.

Iappreciatetheopportunitytoparticipateinthissurvey.Inthecaseinquestion,Ihadopposingcounselwhoignorednearlyallcommunicationsfromme,whodidnotrespondtodiscoveryrequests,whoignoredlettersrequestingresponsestodiscovery,andwhoatthepretrialdeniedreceiptoftheforegoing.Nevertheless,theystipulatedtoentryofajudgmentinfavorofmyclientatthepretrial.

Ibelievethatbecausedefendantsattorneysgenerallyarepaidbythehour,theyabusethediscoverysystembyholdingdepositionsofwitnessesthathavelittleornothingtoaddtoacase.Ihaveflownacrosscountrytoattendadepositionofanon-partywitnesswhomaneastcoastplaintifftestifiedheplayedgolfwithwhentheplaintiffusedtoliveontheW.Coast.Whyshouldacourtpermitthat?Thatisjustanexample....Defendant’sattorneysshouldbeencouragedtobillonacontingencyasdoplaintiff’sattys.Maybethatwillhelpthesystemtoo.

Ifeelorderingmediationoraninitialassessmenttoearlyoninthecaseisnothelpful.Thepartiescouldnotsettlethecaseontheirownandthusneededtofilesuit.Thereshouldbesomeminimaldiscoveryallowedbeforethepartiesareorderedtomediate.Theninformationisavailablewhichshouldencouragereasonablesettlement.Ialsofeeltherearenopenaltiesfordiscoveryabusessuchasspeakingobjectionsandinstructingclientsnottoanswer.ThereshouldbeclearrulesonthesetypesofissueswithsanctionswhichwouldsavetheresourcesofthepartiesandoftheCourts.

Ihaveactivelypracticed[for]51years.IspentagreatdealoftimeinFederalCourtsinmostofthecoastalcitiesoftheU.S.doingmaritimeandJonesActlitigationandproductliabilitycases.Casesmovedexpeditiouslywhenbothcounselandtheirclientsbehavedproperly,courteouslyandhonoredtherules.Ibelievetighterandmoreseveresanctionsareneededtorequirelitigants,especiallycorporateparties.ClassactionlitigationRulesshouldbeseparatelydevelopedwithreallytoughsanctionsifpartieswithholdorplaygames.

Ihaverecently,inthepasttwoyears,beensodisgustedatthefailureoftheUSgovernment,whentheyareadefendant,tofollowtherulesofdiscovery.Ihaverepeatedlyrequestedelectronicdiscovery.

Iprimarilysuepartiesrepresentedbylargelawfirmspaidbythehourinemploymentcases.Thedefenseattorneyshavezeroincentivetobeefficientwithdiscoveryandthusdragthingsout.Theyareoftenrewardedfortheirtacticsb/cmanyplaintiff’sattorneysdon’thavethetime/moneytoforcetheissue.Myfirmdoes,butitisstillveryirritating.Thecourtstendtobackupthebigfirmlawyers.Maybethereisanassumptionthatthey


knowwhattheyaredoing.Butmyexperiencehasbeenthatitisallabouttheirlegalfees-nottheirclient’sbestinterest.Inaddition-thedefendantshaveintheirpossessionalltheimportantdocuments.IoftenwonderhowmuchIamnotgettingthatIwillneverknowexisted.

Ingeneralmanylawyersfailtocomplywiththerulerequiringinitialdisclosures.Whenapartydoescomply,theinitialdisclosuresarebarelysufficientcomparedtowhatisobtainedbasedonthewrittendiscoveryrequests.Ifanyruleshouldbechangeditisthatdocumentsshouldbeproducedwiththeinitialdisclosures,notsimplylisted.Somelawyerswillagreetoproduce,butmostwillnot.Finally,inmyexperience,waitinguntilaftertheschedulingconferencetobeallowedtopropounddiscoverydelaysdiscoveryfourtosixweeks.

Ithasbeenmyexperiencethatdelay,unwillingnesstopenalizepartiesforfailingtofollowtherules,andshortenedtimeperiodshavemadeitmuchmoredifficultforpeoplewhobringcasestohaveafairshotatresolvingclaims.

Manydefendantsplayunnecessarygamesinrespondingtodiscoveryrequests.Theyespeciallyabusethemeet-and-conferprocessbywithholdingdocumentsuntiltheyabsolutelyhavetoproducethemtoavoidamotiontocompel.

MuchofthetimeandenergyIexpendinthepursuitofdiscoveryfrominsurancecompanydefendants(ininsurancecoveragematters)istargetedatmaterialsthatshouldproperlyhavebeenproducedaspartoftheinitialdisclosures.Inmyexperience,corporatedefendantsgenerally(andinsurersinparticular)donottakeseriouslytheirobligationtomakemeaningfulinitialdisclosures.Moreover,nooneispolicingthisaspectoffederalpractice.

Spuriousandexcessiveobjectionsarethebiggestproblemwithfederalcourtdiscovery.Judgesshoulddealharshlywithpageafterpageofblanket,generalandstockobjections.Objectionsshouldbesetasideiftheydonothavespecificmerittothediscoveryrequestinquestionandcourtsshoulddoeverythingpossibletodiscouragethispractice.

Thecurrentruleswouldbeimprovedgreatlyofthefederalcourtswoulddiscouragetheabusebycounselthroughunnecessaryobjectionsandstalling(especiallyinproductionofdocumentselectronicorpaper).Therewasaperiodoftimewhencounselwereprofessionalsandco-operatedwitheachotherwhilestillbeingadvocatesfortheirclients.Forseveralyearsnow,thelargerfirmshaveuseddiscoveryasameanstoinflatelitigationcoststherebyboggingdownnotonlythelitigantsbutalsotheCourts.Nomatterwhatchangesaremade,untilthisgamesmanshipisstoppedandareturntotheprofessionalismthatfederalcourtwasknownforhappensnorulechangeswillbeeffective.

Thedefensecounselneedstoaddressthecaseandnotfocusonthegenerationofbillablehours.Mostcasescanbesettledearlyon.Itwasbestwhenthecourttookanactiverollinsettlingcasesearlyonwithouthugeamountsoftimeandcostsexpensed


Thefirst17yearsofmypracticewasindefenseandnowIamprimarilyaplaintiff’sattorney.Wealthydefendantsandinsurersthroughdelayandabusivediscoverytechniquesundulyincreasethecostoflitigating.

Thepoorhavenorecords;therichdo,butcandelayanddelay,hidingbehindcommercialprivilege.It’snotthecostalone,it’sthedelaythatdestroysmyclients.

Toomanyrespondentsattempttoevadetheirdiscoveryresponsibilitiesthroughbadfaithpractices

Whendefenseandindemnityclaimsexistforadefendant,thatdefendantshouldberequiredtoclaimearlieronthatclaim,becausetardinessofthoseclaimsslowsdownplaintiff’slitigation,byinducingcontinuationoftrialsduetonewcomerattorneys’conflictswiththeoriginaltrialdate.Iwishtherewereaparticularizedruleorsetofrulestohandlesummarily,earlyon,thesescenarios.Somedefenseattorneysintentionally,dilatorily,abusethecurrentrules,inthissituation.

MypracticeislimitedtoFELAlitigationandmostrailroadlawyersgenerallygetalongwell;therearenotmanyelectronicdatadisputes.

Until2005,mypracticewas50/50plaintiffanddefense.Now,sinceHurricaneKatrina,thepracticehasbeenprimarilyplaintifforiented.Muchcanbedonetoavoiduniformdiscoveryabusesbydefendants.

DiscoveryCosts

Ihaveprimarilyasection1983practiceagainstalargemunicipality,andfindthatdelay,lackofresponsivenesstonecessarydiscovery,andfailureofthecourtstoadequatelyenforcediscoveryobligationsisthegreatestcauseofincreasedcostsoflitigation.

Litigationcostswouldbesubstantiallyreducedifpartieswereforcedtodiscusssettlementearlyandoften.

MoretimelydecisionsbytheCourtonmotionstodismissandforsummaryjudgmentwouldhaveagreaterimpactonreducingcosts,anddefiningtheissuestoreducediscoveryburdensthanmostoftheissuesaddressedinthissurvey.

Thebiggestexpenseincivilcasesisexperts.Requiringreportsbyexpertsandthenproducingthemfordepositioncausestheclienttoincurmorethandoubletheexpense.Electronicdiscoveryisnottheproblemwithexpenses.Detailedexpertreportsaretheproblembecausethenyouareforcedtopayfortheirtimeindeposition.ThatiswhyItrynottofileanythinginFederalCourt.ThatandtheGodcomplexoftheFederalBench.

Thecurrentrestrictionsondiscovery(e.g.,numberofdepositions,7hrdepositions)areskewedinfavorofdefendants.ThecostoflitigationinfederalcourtisNOTundulyincreasedbydiscovery.


Thesinglebestwaytoreducelitigationexpenseisbysettinganearlytrialdateandearlydiscoverycutoffdate.

42USC1983litigationwithpolicedefendantsisentirelytooexpensiveforbothsides.SeeMercyv.SuffolkCounty,93F.R.D.520,524(E.D.N.Y.1982)(AppendixtoOrderremodelDiscoveryOrder)ProtectiveOrdersareroutinelysoughtwithoutgoodcause.Discoverydecisionsarelargelylefttothewhimofindividualjudges.SeeSullivanv.Glock,Inc.,175F.R.D.497,505(D.Md.1997)--asat"Alice’sRestaurant,"onecanfindwhatonewants”byresearchingthelawofdiscoveryinthefederalsystem.

Anychangestothefederalrulesshouldtakeintoaccountthatmostcorporatedefendantshavevastlymoreresourcesthanindividualplaintiffs.Afairsystemshouldmakesurethatdisparityofresourcesdoesnotdepriveeitherpartyofjustice.

“Costsofdiscovery”istoobroadatermencompassingtoomanyvariablestoaddressbysimplesurvey.

EarlyADRandsettlementconferencesinmyexperiencearethemosteffectivejudicialtoolstoreducediscoveryandlitigationcosts,andleadtothemostsatisfactoryoutcomeofacasefromthepointofviewoftheclient.

Expertdepositionsareveryexpensive.Whenyouhavetopayforthedefendant’sexpertdepositionandyourownexpertfortrial,itcangetveryexpensive.Iwaswonderingifthefederalcourtseverconsideredsometypeoffeescheduleforexpertdepositions.Ontheplusside,thejudgesandmagistratesareveryprepared.IlikehavingasettimeforconferencessoIdon’thavetositaroundincourt.Ilikephoneconferences;theysavealotoftime.

Federalcourthasbecomeveryexpensiveforrelativelysmallfederalclaimswhichcannotbefiledinalternativeforumse.g.civilrightsandemploymentclaims.

FederalcourtismoreexpensivethantheStateCourtsinwhichIpractice.Thereismoreuselesshearings,motionsetcandlesspracticalcasemanagement.

Generally,thediscoveryprocedureandcostsarebetterintheFederalCourtthantheStateCourt.However,thefederalproceduremaystillbestreamlinedbymoreenforcementandcasemanagementofdiscovery/productionobligationstoavoidunnecessarydiscoverydisputesandmotionsthatincreasesthecostoflitigation.Additionally,initialmandatorydisclosuresshouldbeexpandedandenforced.Initialconferencesshouldbeexpandedtonarrowfactsindisputesandthosenotindispute(basedoninitialdisclosures),sothatanysubsequentdiscovery,includingdepositions,shouldbelimitedtofactsindispute.

Icurrentlyrepresentlow-incomeclientsinspecialeducationcaseswherediscoveryistypicallylimited.Itisparticularlydifficultforlow-incomeclientstopursuemeritoriouscasesinFedCt.duetoconcernsrecostsofdiscoveryandrequirementsforin-person(insteadoftelephonic)statusconferences.


IwouldliketoencouragealldistrictstoinstitutemandatoryADRproceedingsatatimeinthecaseprocesswhereitcanbemosteffectivebeforethecostsofdiscoveryandmotionpracticemaymakeitverydifficulttosettle.

Inmyexperience,controllingdiscoverycostsmeanscontrollingthenumberofdepositionsanddepositionexhibits.Thedefensebardoesnotfullycomplywith26(a)(1);nordotheyevergiveastraightanswertoaninterrogatory.Plaintiffsarethereforerequiredtodeposemorepeople,whichdrivesupdiscoverycosts.Enforcingdiscoveryrulesshouldbeeasierandfaster.Allthefederalmagistratesaretoobusytoenforcethediscoveryrules.Ithinkthetrialjudgeshouldappointalocalattorneyasaspecialmastertoresolvediscoverydisputes,muchthesamewaylocalattorneysactasmediators.

Mandatoryexpertwitnessreportsareexpensive,burdensome.

Moremandatoryinitialdisclosureswouldhelpreducediscoverycosts.

Thecostlimitsforexpertwitnessesshould[be]removedandactualcostsawardedtotheprevailingparty.

TheRulesregardingsubpartsforInterrogatoriesareridiculous.MorediscoverycouldbeaccomplishedinwritteninterrogatoriesiftheDefenseBardidn’tconsidereverysemi-colonandcommainasingleinterrogatoryasapartofthe"includedsubparts"thatcountsagainstthetotalof25.Thisleadstobusinessespayingincreasedcosts,costscreatedbytheirownlawyers,fordiscoverythatresultsinamotiontocompelthatiscompletelyunnecessary.Rule26needsmoreliberalityinallowingfortheobtainingofinformation,notless.

U.S.MagistrateJudgesinmyexperiencearethesinglemajorfactorinkeepingdiscoverydisputesandcostsdown.SouthernDistrictofCA.MagistrateJudgesareveryexperiencedinmanagingdiscoverydisputesandtheyhaveexcellentmediationskills.Thehumanfactorismuchmoreimportantthanthecontentofthediscoveryrules.

Thereasondiscoverywassoexpensiveinmycaseisthattheplaintiffemployedthe"nameeveryconceivabledefendant"strategy.

DiscoveryProcess

Fromtheplaintiff’sprospectiveexpansivediscoveryisnotneeded.Ifaplaintiffneedsdiscoverytomakehis/hercasethecontingentnatureoftheagreementmilitatesagainstbringingthematterinthefirstinstance.Thus,discoveryisoftentimescompletelyunnecessaryfromthepointofviewoftheplaintiff’sprimafaciecase.

IntheDavidvs.GoliathcasesthediscoverypracticesofGoliathvirtuallyalwayscreateaninherentdisadvantagetoDavid.Mandatorycomprehensivedisclosureatacertainperiodinthelitigationprocesswillmakealllitigantsawareoftheirrequirement.


Limitingdiscoveryisnottheanswer.DefendantsoftentimesdonottakeRule26disclosureobligationseriously.Wespendtoomuchtimetryingtogetcompletediscoveryresponses,delayingourabilitytoeffectivelyproceedindiscovery.

Onechangethatwouldmakeadifferenceinturnsofcostsistorequirethepartyconductingdepositionstoprovideatleastelectroniccopiesatnocosttoopposingparties.

Inmyopinion,theproblemwiththeFederaljusticesystemisnotrelatedtodiscoveryrulesorprocedures--eventhoughtheyaretooonerous.

Accesstothecourts,includingtheabilitytohaveafullandfairtrialoftheissues,isimportant.Limitingdiscoveryhamperstheparties’abilitytohaveafullandfairtrialoftheissues.

Allowdiscoverytostartatthetimetheanswerisserved.Itwillspeedupcases.AllowaPlaintifftoproceedbyjuryasofrightintheeventofdefaultofaparty.Thatwilldiscourageintentionaldefaultswhichareontherise.

Anyeffortstolimitparties’powersofdiscoverywouldbeutterlymisguided,andwouldseverelylimitparties’accesstothetruth.Moreover,anyeffortto‘allocate’discoverycostsbetweenthepartiescouldcrippleindividualpeople’sabilitytobringcases,andwouldunfairlytiltthescalesofjusticeinfavoroflargecorporations.

Consideringaveragesizeandlevelofresourcesofplaintiffvs.defensefirms,itwouldbemorefairtohavedefensecounselcarryrelativelymoreoftheburdenofpaperwork,especiallytheobligationtodraftthejointpretrialorder.

Discoveryisanimportantpartofthelitigationprocessandshouldnotbelimitedinanyway.

Discoveryneedstobemoreuniformwithregardtoscheduling.Insimilarcases,onejudgewillallow90daysoffactdiscoveryandanotherjudgewillallow9months.Thisisunfairtolitigantswithasubstantiallitigationcaseload,suchasmyself.

Discoveryshouldbeginwithin30daysofserviceoftheComplaint.WaitingaroundfortheRule26fconferencemerelyallowstheevidencetogrowstaleanddelaypromptresolutionofthematter.

Eachefforttofacilitatediscoveryonlyseemstomakemattersmorecomplicated.Theprocesshasbecomecumbersomeformostcases.Simplifythediscoveryprocessformostcasestoreducethecostandburden.

Eliminateinterrogatoriesasamatterofright!!!Requirecourtorderforinterrogatories.

Eliminatinginitialdisclosuresforforfeiturecaseswasaverygoodideaandreducedtheriskofcompromisingon-goingcriminalinvestigations.


Fundamentally,thepresentmechanismsconcerningdiscoveryrepresentafairbalancethatenablescasestoproceedtowardsadjudicationsthatpromotejustice.Theworstinjusticesarethoseinwhichrelevantmaterialsarenotproducedandonlybecomediscoveredlater.Thosearetheinstanceswhichbringthelegalsystemintodisrepute.Mostnotably,Ibelieve(andnoquestionappearedtoaddressthis)thatthefederalcourts,inrecentyears,havebecomesignificantlybetterinmovingdiscoveryalongexpeditiouslyandreasonably.Ashasoftenbeenthecase,Ifeelthevariousproposedrulechangesoflatearebehind,byatleastafewyears,thecurveoflearningandpractice.

Generally,Ibelievethatlawyersarenotgivenenoughtimetoconductdiscoveryonfederalcases,especiallycivilrightscases,andtruthinlendingcases.ThecaseItriedinwhichthissurveyquestionedmeonwasastraightforwardaccidentcaseagainstthePostOffice.Ihavefoundonothercases,especiallycivilrightsones,thattheMagistratesarenotgivingenoughtimefordiscovery.Instatecourt,wegetatleast450daysofdiscoveryforsuchcases,andcanextendwithconsentforanother60.Thefederalcourtsshouldgiveasimilaramountoftime,insteadofpushingcasestoofast.Ifbothsidesagreetoaslowerandmoretimetodoproperdiscovery,Ithinkjusticeisbetterserved.

Iamaplaintiff’ssidesolohandlingcommerciallitigation;butIworkedformanyyearsasalarge-firmlitigator.I’veseenbothsidesofdiscoveryabuses,andhaveaprettysolidunderstandingoftheissues.Forme,thebiggestissueisdisproportionateresources(bothlegalandeconomic)whenIbringmeritoriousclaimsagainstlargemulti-nationalentities.Thephrase"dump-truckdiscovery"and"tidal-wavelitigation"areapplicabletome.Therulesprovideforcost-shiftinginlightofperceiveddiscoveryabuses,but(atleastinD.Mass)arealmostneverenforcedexceptinegregiouscases.Morerobustenforcementofexistingcost-shiftingprovisionswouldbewelcome.Fromapersonalperspective,arecognitionoftheparties’relativefinancialresourceswouldbeappreciated,particularlywhendealingwithdiscoverydelays.

Ibelieveinfacilitationandwehavebeenverysuccessfulatresolvingdisputesinthisfashion.

IstronglydisagreethatRule8preventsissuescentraltoresolutionfrombeingidentified.Inmyexperience,DefendantsrefusetoresolvecasesuntiltheyhavetakenthePlaintiff’sdepositionandforcedthePlaintifftotakeoneorseveraldepositions.

IthinkallFederalCourtsshouldoperatewiththe"automatic"discoveryordersandproceduresthatwehaveinstalledintheEasternDistrictofTexas.

IthinktheJudgesareoverburdened.Thoughdiscoveryprocesscouldsurelybestreamlinedsomewhat,motionpracticeseemstobemoreofadelay.Onthewholehowever,Iamconstantlysurprisedhowwell,intheend,thesystemworks.

Inmyconsumerprotectionpractice,thedefendantshavevirtuallyalloftheinformationrequiredtoprovetheclaimwhileplaintiffhasverylittlediscovery.Limitingdiscovery


wouldallowdefendantsinsuchcasestowinbydefault.Limitingdiscoveryonlymakessensewhenyouhavetwoequalpartieswithequalinformationaboutaparticularclaim.

Inmyexperience,firmtrialanddiscoverycutoffdates,coupledwithenforcementofdiscoveryrulespushescasestosettlement.Strongerenforcementofdepositionsgoingforwardwouldhelpsettledisputesmoreefficiently.Mostnotably,burdensomerulesregardingmotionstocompel(i.e.,thelocalrulesofC.D.Cal.)makeenforcingdiscoverymoreonerousforall(includingtheCourt)butdonothavetheintendedresultofencouragingcooperation.Iftheprocesstogettheactualinformationneededweresimplerandquicker,partieswouldbemorefrankattheoutsetofthecasesanddisputeswouldresolvemuchquicker.

ItwouldhavebeenhelpfulfortheJudgetotakeanactiveroleinrequiringandensuringcooperationindiscoveryandrequiringthefederalagencyinvolvedtopreserveandproducedocumentsandbeartheonusofprovidingathoroughexplanationofhowandwhereelectronicdocumentsweremaintainedandshouldbereproduced.AvoidanceandlackofresponsibilityorcoordinationbetweentheUSAttyandthefederalagencycounselresultedindestructionorlossofdocumentswhichdidnotmeetanintentionalstandard,butwasnonethelessharmfultotheplaintiff’scase,andislikelytocontinuebecauseitservesdefensestrategy.

MypracticedealsmostlywithadministrativelawcasessoIdonotdealwithdiscoveryveryoften.Butdiscoverycostswouldbeabigburdenonmyclientsifitwasabigpartofacasebecauseallmyclientsarenon-profitorganizations.Therefore,wepurposefullytrynottobringcasesthatrequirelotsofexpertsanddiscoveryforthisreason.

OurdivisionhassuccessfullyusedlocalrulestostreamlinetheproceduralrequirementsofadministrativereviewclaimssuchasERISA.TheFJCmightconsidertheformaladoptionoflessstringentproceduralanddiscoveryrequirementsinthesecases.

Partieswithalong-standinglitigationrelationshipshouldbeexcusedfromthemoreformalcasemanagementrulesandpermittedtoengageindiscoveryontheirown,onlyseekingcourtinvolvementwhenadisputearises.IpracticeFELAlawandmostFELAplaintiffanddefenselawyerscooperateindiscoveryanddonotneedclosecourtsupervision.

Pleaseincludedataaboutthejudiciaryanditsroleinthediscoveryprocess.Muchdiscoveryabuseisbydefendantswhoabusediscoverytoforceresolutiontocases.

Strongdiscoverymustbeavailabletoinsurethatmostlitigantswillcomplywithdiscoveryobligations.Afewwillabusethesystemandthecourtshouldtreatthemharshlyandimposesanctionsmoreoften.

Thedisclosuresareajoke.Theyrequiremoreworkthannormaldiscovery.EarlymediationisalsoajokeitcostsustoomuchmoneyforanoofferweneedtostreamlineandhaveresponsestonormaldiscoverywithteethandmoreRFA’ssincetheynarrowtheissuesfinallywhateverhappenedtotryingcases?Seemsitusedtobecheaperandquicker.


Asformytrials100medmalandproductssotheyarecomplexcasesbutstilltoomuchcrapandnotenoughtrials.

Thesystemgenerallyworksanddoesnotneedwholesalechange.

Thetimelimitsplacedondiscoveryaremuchtoorestrictive.InthecaseIwascontactedabout,mymotiontofileanamendedcomplaintwasdeniedbecauseitwas21daysbeforetheendofdiscovery.Thecourtfelttherewasa"publicinterest"inseeingspeedyresolutionofcases.Then,ittookthatcourt14monthstoruleonsummaryjudgment.Somuchforthepublic’sinterestwhenthecourthastimeconstraints.

ThereshouldbenoholdondiscoverybeforetheENE.itwouldbemoreproductiveiftherewasamandatorydisclosurebeforetheENE.

Whetherdiscoveryismoreorlessexpansive,eachDistrictthroughouttheCountryshouldhaveUNIFIEDprocedures.Forattorneyswhopracticeinmultiplejurisdictions,whichisanincreasingphenomenon,itisridiculousthattherulesofprocedurevarysowidely,incourthouseslessthan100milesfromeachother.

Youcan’ttryacasebasedonvoluntarydiscoveryasnopartywillvoluntarilyproduceinformationthatisadversetoit.Thereneedstobestrongerrequirementsofprivilegelogsforinformationwithheldandstrongerscrutinyofthoselogswithmoreencameraexaminations.

Mypracticeisprimarilyplaintiff’smedicalmalpracticeclaims.Thediscoveryrequiredofbothsidesisfairlystraightforwardandconsistent,casetocase.Thepartiesusuallyhaveaclearunderstandingofwhatrecordsanddocumentsareneededinthecase.Theseareproducedwithoutquestion.Ihavenothadamotionregardingadiscoveryquestioninfederalorstatecourtforabout8years.

Rule26disclosuresnotadequateduetoevasion,generalizations,incorporationofopposingparties’disclosures.Betterenforcement,i.e.follow-upconf.withjudge,couldsavecostsandtimeindiscovery.

ThecurrentdisclosuresrequiredbyRule26arenotmeaningfulandonlyservetodelaysubstantivediscovery.Myexperiencewithelectronicdiscoveryislimitedandwilllikelyincreasethisyear.

TheRule26(a)(1)voluntarydisclosurerequirementsneedtobetakenmoreseriouslybyallthefederaljudgesshouldshowzerotoleranceforthe"usual"objectionsof"vague","overlybroad"andthelikewhenansweringinterrogatoriesandrequestforproduction.IfyoudonotunderstandwhatIamtalkingabout,takealookatthefirst-roundwrittenresponsesfromsomebigfirminaproductliabilitylawsuit!


TheRule26disclosureobligationsaretoooftenskirtedbycasesthatholdthata4factortestappliestowhetheranuntimelydesignatedexpertcantestify.Rule37(c)(1)shouldbeappliedaswritten.

FYI:Ourdiscoveryrequestsweredisputed.Asettlementwasreachedinwhichplaintiffswithdrewtheirrequestinexchangeforanagreedupondiscoveryschedulependingoutcomeofthecourt’srulingon12(b)motions.

ElectronicDiscovery

AsaPlaintiff’sattorney,Ifindthatcorporationsdragoutdiscoverywithobjectionsratherthanvoluntarilyproducingdiscoverableinformation,especiallyelectronicdiscovery.ItismorelikelythataDefendantwillchargeaPlaintiffforcopiesofdocumentsthanitisforaPlaintifftochargetheDefendant.

Delayingandstonewallingtacticsbydefendants,coupledwithshortandfirmdiscoveryandtrialdeadlinesimposedbyJudgeswhoareconcernedaboutstatisticalreportsabouttheirnumberofpendingcases,combinetocauseinjusticeforplaintiffswhotypicallycannotprovetheircaseswithoutthoroughdiscoveryfromthedefendant.

EffortsbyaStateGov’tentitytoenforceoutrageouscontractorcostsofelectronicdiscoveryagainstaplaintiffinanemployment(EEO)caseservedtoconstitutepunitivelitigationmeasures;CourtsandpartiesareNOTdealingwithelectronicdiscoverycorrectlyortimely,especiallythecostcomponents.

ElectronicDiscoverycostsareoftenaphantomexcuse.Defendantswillsaytheinformationdoesn’texistorwouldbeexpensivetoproducewhentheyjustwanttoblocktheroad.Adatabasequerycanbecheapanddamning.ADwilljustneglecttoasktheemployeewhoknowshowtoformulatethequery.

Electronicdiscoveryispotentiallyacheaper,moreeffectiveandmorereliablewayofdiscoveringthetruthincivillitigationthanmanyothermethodsnowinuse.

Idonothaveextensiveexperiencewithelectronicdiscovery,buthaveheardhorrorstoriesregardingtheamountofworkcaused.Itseemsabetterbalanceshouldbestruckregardingneedforinformationandburdenandcost.

Inlinewith"gunsdon’tkillpeople,peoplekillpeople."Ithinktheopponentsandattorneysmakeforgoodorbaddiscovery.Ifsomeonewithatotallackofelectronicknowledgetriestodoelectronicdiscoveryitisgoingtobeaproblemnomattertherules.

MostofmycasesinfederalcourtareJonesActcases.Electronicdiscoveryisnotsubstantial.Allfeesarecontingent.

Plaintiffdiscoveryofelectronicinformation,eitherpre-orduringlitigation,isajoke.Defendantswillnevervoluntarilyprovidedamagingemailorotherdigitaldata;and


PlaintiffsarepowerlesstocompelsuchproductionunlesstheyhavetheextremelyunlikelyequivalentofasmokingguntodemonstrateDefendantconcealmentofelectronically-storedinformation.

Themajorityofmycaseloaddealswithpersonalinjurycases.Irepresentplaintiffswhohavebeeninjured.ElectronicdiscoverythatIhavereceivedinthepastusuallyinvolvescompanymanuals.

FederalCourtPractice

ThemajorityofmyFederalpracticeisinrepresentingcitizensaggrievedbylawenforcement,usuallyfalsearrest(42USC1983).Asaresult,ourdiscoveryisratherlimited.

TheEasternDistrictofVirginiainNorfolkalwaysfavorsgovernmentandbusiness.

#1:MoreMagistrateJudges[oruseofapanelofneutrals]areneededineveryDistricttoenforcethe"InitialDisclosure"RequirementsofFRCP26&37."InitialDisclosure"requisitesundertheCivilJusticeReformActwasagoodidea-but,sincetoomanylitigantsignoretheirR.26duties,andtherearetoofewMagistrateJudgestoenforcetheirR.16.1[EarlyMeet,Confer,ExchangeDiscls.]Orders,over-workedUSMJsandlackoftimeforoversighthasledtounfairnessforthosewhodocomply,aswemust&do.#2:MoreMagistrateJudges=better,fasterandequalJusticeunderFRCP1.

Asaplaintiff’sattorney,Ilikealmosteverythingaboutlitigatinginfederalcourt,includingtheprofessionalismofstaffandfromthebench,themoredetailedprocedure,thequalityofthecourtroom......theonethingIdonotlikeistherequirementofunanimitywithjuryverdicts.Inourstatecourts,9outof12isneeded...thefederalcourtburdenistootoughandallowsonedissentingjurortopotentiallyholdtheothershostage....shouldbe5out7incivilcasesbutIwon’tholdmybreath...thatwillneverhappen.

AsanOregonpractitionerandprimarilyanappellatepractitioner,myresponsesmaydifferfromattorneyswhodomoretrialwork.Oregonisacongenialplacetopractice.Wegenerallyworkoutalotofissueswithoutcourtintervention.

CaseswouldbehandledmorefairlyinDistrictCourtsifthejudgeswerenotsoconcernedthatcivilcasesclogtheircriminaldocket.PerhapscivilandcriminaldivisionsshouldbeemployedinDistrictCourtssothatthosejudgeshandlingcivilmatterswillbevastlymorefamiliarwiththeCivilRulesofProcedureandwillbefreedfromtheneedtoprovidespeedytrialsincriminalcases.

Civillitigantsareatadisadvantageinfedctduetocriminaldocket.

FederalcourtshereintheFifthCircuitareviscerallyandunremittinglyhostiletoregularpeople--notbecauseoftheirrace,gender,etc.,butbecausepeople’slastnamesdon’tendin"INC."or"CORP."


Federalpracticeisfarsuperiorthaninstatecourts.

FederalproceduresaretoohardonPlaintiffs.

Generallyspeaking,Ibelievethesystemworkswellexceptforthefactthatitistooslow,whichIbelieveistheresultofcaseload.

Iappreciatebeingincludedinthesurvey.MyexperienceinFederalCourtwithboththecourtandcounselhasbeengenerallypositive.

Igreatlypreferthestatecourtsystemoverthefederalcourtsystem.

Ihavebeenpracticingforover35yearsintheSouthernDistrictandNorthernDistrictnowalmostexclusivelythereasIfindthatthelaw,judges,magistrates,attorneysandcourtfacilitiesarefarsuperiortoStateCourtpractice.Iconsidermyselfveryfortunatethatmypracticepermitsthischoice.

IonlybringmycasesinFederalCourtbecauseFederalCourtstronglyenforcesdiscoveryagainstmunicipalitiesthatIamsuing.Statecourtsletthingsslide.

IpracticeprimarilyinArkansaswherethefederaljudiciarydoesanadmirablejobofcasemanagement,thepracticingbariscooperativeandwellcontrolledbytheCourt,andtheCourtfairlyadministersjustice.

Ithinkthatfederalcasesaretoomicromanagedbythecourt.ManygoodtriallawyersthatIknowwillnotpracticeinfederalcourtforthatreason.

Itcostsmoretolitigateinfederalcourtthanitdoesinstatecourtbecausethefederalsystemimposestoomanyrulesandtechnicalprocedures.Thatalsoresultsinlessfairoutcomes.Itendtoavoidfederalcourtasaconsequenceoftheabove.

Limitingdiscoveryfavorscorporatedefendants,whicharealreadyatasignificantadvantageinDistrictCourt.

MypracticeisintheareaofERISAbenefitslitigation,andtheFederalCourtsaroundthecountryhaveyettodeterminethescopeofpermitteddiscovery.AnamendmenttoERISAexplicitlystatingthataFederalERISAactionislikeanyotherfederalactionwouldbeappropriate.

Nodisrespectintendedbutlawyerswhopracticeplaintiffs’aircrashlitigationsayinprivatethatvoluntarilyfilinganaircrashcaseintheFederalCourtsisthecommissionoflegalmalpractice.

NowacaserarelyissenttoMagistrateforsettlementconference,evenifthatmethodisselectedbytheparties.Ifitisnotanoption,removeitandleavepartiestochooseotherADRmethodsattheSchedulingConference.


SomeofthequestionsIeithercouldnotanswerorwasnotcomfortableanswering.Inanutshell,thefederalsystemalreadydramaticallyfavorscorporatedefendants,forawholehostofreasonsbeyondthescopeofthislimitedemail.Sufficeittosay,tiltingthingsevenfurtherintheirfavorbylimitingdiscoveryandbyheighteningburdensonplaintiffswouldonlyservetomakeanalreadyunlevelplayingfieldthatmuchmoreslanted.

Theamountofworkrequiredofcounsel,solelyfortheCourt,postdiscoveryandpre-trial(suchasbenchbinders,etc)isoppressiveandtoocostly.Itisahugedeterrentforsmallermonetarycases.

Thecaseuponwhichmyparticipationisbasedisnotarepresentativecase.Overallthefederalsystemisstackedagainsttheindividualandfavorsthe$$.

TheCourtsoftheNorthernDistrictofIllinoismaintainahighstandardforthelawyerswhopracticebeforethesecourts.Therefore,theissuespresentedtothecourtareoftenresolvedwithoutthenecessityofconstantmanagementbythecourt.Further,theFederalRulesofProcedureandtheLocalRulesoftheNorthernDistrictenablethepartiestolitigatewithoutburdeningthecourt,thusreducingtheexpensestoboththeplaintiffandthedefendant.TheformalityandhighstandardsoftheCourtincreasestheabilityofallpartiestoexpeditiouslyandfairlyresolvedisputes.

TheFederalCourtsarealready,ingeneral,tooDefendantfriendlyandplacetoomanyburdensonPlaintiffs.ThelastthingthattheFederalCourtsneedistooplacemoreobstaclesforPlaintiffsinobtaininginformationfromDefendantsthoughdiscovery.ThebigproblemfrommyperspectiveisthattherearetoomanyinstanceswhenDefendantsofferfalseandmisleadinginformationinthediscoveryprocessandthereisnorealpenaltyforwhatamountstoperjury.

Thefederalcourtsneedtoexperimentwithalternativestotraditionallitigation,involvingserious(perhapsmandatory)ADRmethodsincludingtheappointmentofaserious(empowered)neutraltomonitordiscoveryinrealtime(sitinondepositions).

TheFederalcourtsneedtoactivelylimitdiscoverytomatchcasesizeandstructure.Hugecasesandordinaryonesneedseparatediscoveryplansandmoreaggressionatdrawingdistinctions.

TheFederalSystemisprettygoodasitis.Far,far,farbetterthanourstatesystem,anditstartswithqualityofthejudges.

TheFederalsystemseemsmoreconcernedwithclearingitsdocketthanprovidingjusticeforthe"people".Italsoappearsthatitfavorstherichandgovernmentoverlessfortunatecitizens.

TheFederalsystemworksfine.


Thejudge’spretrialhandlingofexhibitsmadethetrialgosmootherthananypreviousoneinfederalcourt.

ThemajorityofmyworkinFederalCourtisERISAdisabilitycases.ThesystemworkswellintheMiddleDistrictofFloridaaswenowhavelimiteddiscovery.[Namesdeleted].

ThemodelplantheEasternDistrictofTexasusedseveralyearsagoonatrialbasisrequiredmoremandatorydisclosuresandworkedwell.

TheonlytimeIaminfederalcourtiswhenIamremoved.Idislikefederalcourt,notbecauseofdiscovery,butbecauseoftheFRCP56standards.

Theprincipledifferencebetweenthefederalcourtsandthestatepracticeinmyareainvolvesthedepositionsofexperts.Instatecourt,werelyexclusivelyonexpertreports,andtheabsenceofexpertdepositionsreducesthecostsassociatedwithdiscoverybymorethanhalf.Moreover,Ihavecross-examinedmorethan50expertsattrial,andhaveneverfeltIneededadepositioninadvanceinordertodosoeffectively.

Therearetoomanycaseseliminatedatanearlystagewithoutsufficientdiscoverybeingproduced.Thedisclosuresshouldincludealldocumentsmaintainedbytheparties.

ThereshouldbemoreseminarssponsoredbytheCourtsforattorneys.Also,IoftenfeelthatFederalCourtpracticewithitsrequirementsfavorsbiggerfirmsandnotthesmallfirmorsoloattorney.

Thiswasanunusualcasefactually.Myanswerstothecasespecificquestionscertainlydonotreflectmyexperienceinother"gardenvariety"plaintiff’spersonalinjurycasesthatIhavelitigatedinFederalCourt.Generally,thelawyersseemtogetalongwellanddiscoveryrarelybecomescontentious.

WepredominantlyhandlePlaintiffs’wageandhourcasesundertheFLSA.Unfortunately,theFloridaDistrictCourtJudgeshaverespondedtoahighinfluxofthesecasesbynarrowlyinterpretingjurisdictiontohearsaidcaseswhichhasledtothedismissalofapproximately40%ofthecaseload.SeetheTHORNEcaseoutofthe11thCir.anditsprogeny.Ratherthanimplementingthisdraconianmethodtoreduceahighcaseload,IalwaysfeltthattheDistrictCourtsofFloridashoulddesignatespecialdivisionsorJudgeswhoonlyhandlewageandhourcases.Thiswouldbeafairsolutiontothe"issue"without,ineffect,sterilizingtheeffectoftheStatute(FLSA)viathejudiciary.

WestillhavesomatterspendinginthecasesoIcouldnotanswerallofthequestions.Igenerallythinkthestreamliningthatseemstobeonthetablewouldbeadenialofjusticetomostpeople,especiallyifmandatory.

Toomuchmotionpracticeinfedcourt.Toorigidondeadlinesinsomefedcourts.

Earlymandatorymediationwouldbehelpful.Thankyouforyourinterest.


MyonlycomplaintaboutlitigatinginfederalcourtisthatthemandatoryE-FilingsystemisNOTuserfriendly.Anattorney(andparticularlyaproperplaintiff)whoisfilinginfederalcourtgenerallyneedssignificantpriorexperienceintheE-Filingsysteminordertounderstandtheesotericrequirements.EachtimeIhavefiled,Ienduphavingtotalktoaclerktodeterminehowtowadethroughthefilingprocess.Theprocessshouldbesetforthonlineinamuchmoresimplifiedmanner.

JudicialManagement

Thedefendantadmittedtodestroyingalloftheevidencewhichtheyclaimexistedatthetimeofherterminationandfailedtosearchbackupandstorageofthosefiles.TheDistrictCourtgrantedmotionsinliminetoexcludementionofthedestructionofevidence,thewipingofthecomputerharddriveofthedecisionmakerandnumerousothersignificantpiecesofevidence.

BiggestconcernofmineisthatJudgescanhaveadramaticeffectontheoutcome.ThoughIgenerallyhaveahighrespectforthefederaljudgesinHawaii,Iamawareofatleastonestatejudgewhowillintentionallytripupplaintiff’sattorneystohelpthedefense.

TheLocalRulesprovideforagoodframeworkwhereIpractice--MiddleDistrictFlorida.Judgesneedtorealizethatsometimesadditionaldiscoverytimeisneeded,andshouldgrantadditionaltimemorefrequently.

Addjudicialtemperamentandpracticestotheinquiriestocomeclosertoreallifeanswers.

AlmostallofmycaseswereremovedfromStatecourts.AllofmyclientswouldhavepreferredtostayinYumaCounty.AppearinginCourtinPhoenixiswhatreallyincreasedourcosts.Judgeswerenotwillingtoallowustoappearbytelephoneonsimplepretrialmatters.Thisnecessitatedpullingyoungchildrenoutofschoolstoappearbeforethejudge.IhavealwaysfeltthatthejudgesanddistancefromYumaiswhatcausedourcoststoskyrocket.Igreatlypreferthesystemusedinourstatecourts.Federaljudgestendtobetooinvolvedindiscoveryandinpretrialprocedures.

Especiallyinemploymentcasesandcases,generally,defendantscompaniesshouldberebukedbythecourtfortheirdiscoveryabuses.Judgesareoftenreluctanttopunishdefendantcompanies,representedbylargelawfirms,whentheattorneysengageindelaytactics.

Federalcourtsofferseveralmechanismsbywhichdiscoverymattersmayberesolvedandsettlementfacilitated.Ontheotherhand,IbelievethatcurrentlyPlaintiffsfaceanuphillbattletoavoidtheircasesbeingguttedbyJudgeswithheavydocketsratherthanallowedtoproceedtotrial.

Generally,thefederalsystemworkswellandefficiently.TheproblemIhaveencounteredisthepoliticizationofthefederaljudiciarywhereconservativejudgesareappointedforthespecificpurposeofminimizingtheimpactofcivilrightslaws.


IenjoypracticinginFederalCourt.JudgePhillipsgaveusafairtrialandwascourtesytocounselonbothsides,allowingustodohaveafairtrialandpresentourevidencetothejury.

Ihavebeenanattorneyfor32yearsanddomybesttostayoutofFederalCourts,(a)thejudgesareatbesttemperamentalandorabusive,(b)thereisnosimplerulebooktofollow,likestartingatrule1andgoingtorule2,thenrule3,etc.and(c)itwouldbeniceifwedidnotneedaunanimousverdictinFedCourt

Ithinkthebiggestissueinthiscasewasthedelay.Yearsandyearsforaresolution.Thecourtskeptextendingthedeadlines.Itwouldhavebeenbetterifthediscoveryhadbeendoneasitwasbutinamuchshortertimeframe.

Ifthecourtswouldstopfavoringbigcorporationsandstartenforcingdiscoveryrulesagainstthem,andpreventdefensecounselfromplayinggamesindiscoverythroughtheirincessantpractice,triallitigationwouldgomuchsmoother.

Infederalcourt,mygreatestproblemiswithgettingpromptjudgeattentiontothecase.IdonotfindthatR.16,infact,causesthejudgetofigureoutwhatthecaseisaboutandimposerulingsbasedonthatknowledge.Slowjudicialactiononbriefingisalsoanissue.MyclientsareSierraClubandthelike;theyarelookingforinjunctivereliefanddeclaratoryjudgments--damagesarenotrelevant,butmuchoffederalprocedureisgearedtomonetarydamages.Myclientsareharmedbythemerepassageoftime--afewthousanddollarsamonthformonthsandmonthsdrainstheirresources.

Inmyopinion,theJudgeassignedtoeachcasehasaverylargeimpactontheissuesaddressedbythissurvey.Areasonable,fair,yetstronghandedJudgewhotakesanactiveroleinthecasescankeepacase,anddiscovery,ontherighttrack,aslongaspersonalbiasisleftoutoftheequation.

IntheNorthernDistrictofAlabamaIbelievethejudgeshavefoundtheappropriatelevelofjudicialmanagement.Idothinklawyersshouldbeheldtoahigherstandardincomplyingwithinitialdisclosures.

Judgesshouldbemorewillingtograntsummaryjudgmentifthelawisclearandthefactssupportthedecision.Muchunwillingnesstograntsummaryjudgmentseemstostemfromfearofpoliticalconsequencesandisnotbaseduponadesiretoseejusticedone.

Judgesshould:HoldearlytrialconferencesandsternlycautionlawyersagainststrategicbehaviorindiscoveryandparticularlyenforcetheRule26earlydisclosureprovisionsoncoreevidentiarydocuments.

Lessjudicialinterventionthereshouldbenodiscoverytimetablesthatrestrictthetimeattorneyshavetoperformpretrialdiscoveryforlessthanoneyear


Mississippifederalcourtsareinterribleshapecurrently.Theyhavebeen"hi-jacked"byrogue,"pro-business"stateSupremeCourtJustices.

Myfirmencounterssituationswithrelativefrequencywhereinfederalcourtjudgesfailtoruleonmotionsinatimelymatter.Asaresult,theentirecaseunnecessarilycomestoacompletestand-still.Thereshouldbeaprocedureinplacetoensurethatdistrictcourtjudgesareattendingtothemattersontheirdocketsandrulingonbothmotionsduringtrialandpost-trialmotions.

Somefederaljudgesareoverlyenamoredwiththeirpowertoimposetheirpersonalviewsoncases.Minnesotastatecourtjudgesaremorerespectfuloflitigantsandtheirattorneys.

SomeoftheJusticesneedtobemoreunderstandingoftherestrictionsthatattorneyswhoaresolepractitionersorfromsmallfirmshavetodealwithintermsofavailabilityetc.

Thecostofappellatelitigationisgreatlyincreasedbythefailureofthedistrictcourttoentertaintheclaimsagainstallpartiesandrequirestoomanyinstancesofremandandotherappellatefees,therebyincreasinglitigationcosts.Itappearsmanyfederaljudgesdonotreviewdenovotheobjectionstothemagistrate’srecommendationsasrequiredbystatuteandincreasesthecostoflitigationandlossoftime.

TheEasternDistrictofTexasusedtohavemandatorydisclosureofallrelevantdocuments,whichmadethingsmuchfaster,easier,andcheaper.Thatisagoodwaytogo.ThingsgetexpensiveindiscoverybecauseeveryoneobjectstoeveryrequestandJudgesseemunwillingtohammersomeoneforthoseobjections.Ifthathappened,thingswouldalsomovequicker.Generally,IamseeingJudgeswhoseemoverworked,underfunded,andunderstaffed.Thisiswhyittakeslongerandlongertogettotrial,andwhymoreandmorepressureisputonthepartiestosettle.Trialsareagoodthingandshouldbemoreaccessible.

Thefairnessoftheprocedureandthequalityoftheoutcomedependslargelyupontheintegrityandskillofthejudgeinapplyingtherules,notintheletteroftherules.Judgesneedmorespecializationintheirworkloadssothattheycanbringexpertisetoeachcaseandnotreinventthewheelineachcivilaction.Toooftenthewheelcomesoutsquare.

Thefederalcourtissoisolatedthatitisdifficultforclientstohavearealisticunderstandingofwhatisgoingonintheircase.Itisclearthatthefederalcourtdoesnotwanttoactuallyseeorhearcivillitigation,sinceeverythingisdoneonpaper.Mostofthejudgesrefusetohearsummaryjudgmentmotions,andhavingatrialisalmostunheardof.Thesystemwouldgreatlyimproveifthesedispositivemotionswereheard,ratherthanread,andhavingmoretrialswouldencouragesettlement.

TheFederalsystemtiltstowardarecoveryforcorporationsandgovernment-stateandFederal.ActuallyFederalJudgewilleverunderstandhowasoleindividualwillfeel.IhaveknownmanyFederalJudges,andtheydonotunderstandthediscoveryprocess.


Thejudgeshouldbemoreaccessibletoquicklyresolvediscoverydisputeswithoutalltheunnecessarypaperworkandhoopstojumpthrough.

ThemostfrustratingpartofFederalCourtistheinabilitytohavehearingsincourt,andtheinflexibleFederalJudgesthatwillnotallowpartiestoagreeondiscovery,evenwhentheparty’sagreementswouldnotinterferewiththeabilitytotrythecaseasthecourtschedules.

ThetemperamentandinterestoftheJudgegreatlyaffectsthetenorofdiscovery,thequantityandtimingofdiscovery,thecooperativenessofcounselandthetimelinesstotrial.Whethertherulesarelessormorerestrictive,anexperiencedandfairjudgehasthegreaterimpactontheprocess.

Toomanyfederaljudgescomeacrossasangry.Thejudiciarycannotdemandorexpect"civility"betweenattorneyswhenthejudgesfartoooftenfailtosetagoodexample.Oneneednotbeajerktobeagreatjudge.PleasesharethatwithALLofthejudges!

Moreliberaldiscoveryrulesmaymakeitmoreworthwhileforplaintiffsinemploymentcasestolitigateinfederalcourtshoweverrecentprecedenthasmadefederalcourtshostiletoplaintiffs’employmentclaims.Myclientsavoidfederalcourtasmuchaspossiblebecauseofthefederaljudiciary’sblatanthostilitytowardsplaintiffs.

Mypracticeislimitedtoemploymentdiscriminationlaw.ArecentHarvardstudyshowedthatplaintiffsinjobdiscriminationcasesprevailonly18%ofthetime,comparedwith51%ofplaintiffsinothercivilactions.Thissuggeststhatcurrentjudgesaregrosslyunfairtojobdiscriminationplaintiffs.ThisfactaffectedafewoftheanswersIgaveinthissurvey.

ThebiasinFederalCourtsforemploymentcasesistheabuseofSummaryJudgmentbymanyJudges.CertainJudgesareanearlyautomaticwinforemployers,regardlessofthemerits.

Rules

AsurveyontheusageofRule56SummaryJudgmentmotionsisalsowarranted.

Ibelievetherulesforanofferofjudgmentshouldberevisedsothatthereareconsequencestothedefendantforfailingtoacceptareasonableofferofjudgment.Astheruleisnowwrittentheofferofjudgmentisonlyatollforthedefense.

IthinktheautomaticdisclosuresinRule26areveryhelpful.Ithinktheyshouldbeexpanded.

ManyofthecasesmyfirmhandlesaresimpleSection1983claimsthatrequireminimaldiscoveryandtwotothreedepositions.Onthesecasesjusticewouldbeadvancedwithafiletotrialtimelineofsixmonthsorless.Therulesaretoocumbersomeforthesimplecases.


Myclientexperiencedaninordinatedelayinreceivinghissettlementfunds.Thereshouldbea30dayrequirementtotenderthefundsfollowedbysanctionsifnotprovidedwithinthetimeperiod.

Myexperienceisthattherulesassociatedwiththeconductoftrialaremoreonerousthandiscovery.Discoveryisnecessarytoferretoutthetruth,andhamperingdiscoverybytherespondingpartyrequirestheflexibilitytomakefurtherinquiry.Currentrulesundulylimitaccesstoinformationduetotimelimitationsimposedpreventing"serial"discoveryrequests.

Oneveryseriousproblemconnectedwiththeuniformityenvisionedinrules1and2istheadhocdeviationfromcriticalrulesiscertainareassuchasERISAlitigationwithoutanycoherentexplanationwhysuchcasesshouldbetreateddifferently.

Perhapsitismyage…67.ButIdon’tthinktherulesneedanychange.

Revisingtherules-ashintedatinthesurveywoulddisproportionatelybenefitlargecorporatedefendants.Iwouldbeopposedtothesuggestedrevisions.

Rule11shouldbethrownoutbecauseseldomifeverwillajudgeimposesanctionsevenwhenclearlywarranted.

Therulesrelatingtocourtesycopiesseemsburdensomeandunneeded.

Therulesshouldallowdepositionsbyvideoconferencingasamatterofcourse.Rightnowifyouropponentrefusestoagreetodeposebyvideoconferencing,amotiontoauthorizevideoconferencingisrequired.Litigantsrefusetoagreeinordertocreatebarrierstotakingdepos.Thisshouldbechangedtoallowdeposbyvideoconferencingjustliketherulesallowdepostoberecordedbyvideomerelyuponnotice.

ThesingleworstdiscoveryruleistherulewhichprohibitsanydiscoverypriortotheRule26(f)conference.Itisnotunusualforkeywitnessestomoveordisappearduringthe3or4monthperiodthatoccursafteracaseisfiledbutbeforetherule26(f)conferenceisheld.Ilikefederalcourtbetterthanstatecourt,however,Ihaveactuallyfiledseveralcasesinstatecourt(ratherthanfederalcourt)becauseIdidnothavetheluxuryofwaitingfortherule26(f)conferencetooccurbeforeIconducteddiscovery.Casesarelikecrimescenes--youneedtoimmediatelybeallowedtodeposewitnessesandgatherinformation.Thisinformationcanbelostwhenyouarerequiredtowait.Itisincomprehensiblethatthiswaitingperiodisrequired.

Thesystemisn’tbrokenforthegreatmajorityofcases,andtheFederalRulesasappliedarefair.Idon’tunderstandthemotivefortinkeringwiththem.Inasmallminorityofcases,ifdiscoveryistooexpensiveintheopinionoftheparties,theyshouldpursueADR,andnottakeawaythejusticethatpeoplecanobtainwithbroaddiscoveryandmandatorydisclosures.


Thissurveyisabluntinstrument,butIappreciatetheopportunitytocompleteit.Thebottomlineisthattherulesareonlyasgoodasthecare,sophistication,andneutralityofthejudgeswhoenforcethem,andthecivilityandsophisticationoftheattorneyswhoworkwiththem.

SummaryJudgment

Thelastsection-IwishIcouldhavecommentedaftereachselection-thatwouldgiveyoumoreinsightwhyIfeelthewayIdo.Overall,Iprefertobeinfederalcourtwiththeexceptionofthehigh%ofsummaryjudgmentsbeinggranted.

11thCircuitwillnotallowemploymentdiscriminationcases,otherthanthosewithdirectevidence,tosurvivesummaryjudgment.

Costsof$1,000shouldberequiredasadeposittobepaidtotherespondentintheeventofanunsuccessfulMSJtodiscouragegroundlessfilings.

Expandtimelimitforopposingsummaryjudgmentmotions.Californiastatelawnowrequires75daysnotice.

Federalcourtsoverrelyonsummaryjudgment,causingthepartiestoemphasizegamesmanshipinthediscoveryprocess.Discoveryisnotapreparationfortrialbutpartofthesummaryjudgmentpreparationprocessintoomanycases.

Ibelievethatsummaryjudgmentisusedtoooftentoreducedocketsratherthanseekjustice.Ifdiscoveryruleswereenforcedmoreso,thensummaryjudgmentproceedingswouldatleastappearfair.IntheSouthernDistrictofAlabama,discoverydisputesarenotoftenresolvedinamannersuggestingfairness.Andthensummaryjudgmentproceedingsareusetoendlitigation.

IthinktheFederalsystemwouldbebetterservedwithagreaterfocusonactualtrialasopposedtopretrialmotions.Thisisespeciallytruewhere,inmyopinion,thesummaryjudgmentproceedingsareclearlyabused.Invirtuallyeveryoneofmycases,thedefenseattorneyfilesaMotionforSummaryJudgmentcausinganunnecessaryinflationoflitigationexpensesevenwheretherearecleargenuineissuesofmaterialfact.IalsobelievetheFederalsystemwouldbegreatlystreamlinedandimprovediftheRulesrequiredtheattorneyandpartyfilingaMotionforSummaryJudgmenttoseparatelycertifytheiraffirmativebeliefinthemeritsoftheMotionpresented.Rule11doesnotdoenoughinthatregard.Asaconsequence,theplaintiffbearsthebruntoftimeandexpenseinopposingwhatareessentiallynon-meritoriousmotionsburdeningtheentiretyofthejudiciary.

Limitingsummaryjudgmentwouldlimitdiscoveryabuse.Mostdefensediscoveryisaimedatsummaryjudgment,notmerits.Limitsummaryjudgmentanddiscoverywillalmostautomaticallybecomemorereasonableandappropriatewhenaimedattrialorsettlement.


Muchmorecaseswouldbesettledifsummaryjudgmentislimitedandcasesarescheduledfortrial,aftercompletingdiscovery.

SummaryJudgmentisabusedandtooreadily--alltooreadily--granted.WeshouldhavesystemofMagistrateJudgebased"ClaimsSifting",wherebyafterfactdiscovery,thepartiescanpresentshort"ReadyforTrialClaimsList"tothepresidingMagistrateJudge.Partieswouldlikelyreachsignificantagreementinthat30to45dayperiod;anyremainingclaimswouldgototrialifpartiesagreedtheywereviable--and,onlydisputedclaimswouldbethesubjectofastreamlinesummaryjudgmentprocedure.Thus,wewouldfirsthaveasortof"Pre-SummaryJudgment"beforetheDistrictJudgewasinvolvedinlaboriousbriefing.

Summaryjudgmentisover-usedinthefederalcourtsystemandisoftenimprovidentlygranted.Thisunnecessarilyincreaseslitigationcostsaseveryfederalcasehasasummaryjudgmentmotionfiled,withnoconsequencetothedefendant,evenifthereareclearlydisputedissuesoffact.Thisover-useoftheRule56motionbylargedefendantsagainstindividualplaintiffsmustbeconstrained.

Summaryjudgmentistoofreelygrantedwhenimportantissuesoffactshouldbedecidedbyajury

Summaryjudgmentpracticeinfederalcourtincreasesthecostoflitigationanddiscouragessettlements,particularlyinemploymentcases.Rule56needsrevisionsandsomeretreatfromtheprinciplesannouncedinCelotexv.Catrett.

Thebiggestproblemwithfederallitigationtodayistheexplosioninsummaryjudgmentsincethethree1986SupremeCourtdecisions.Despitestatementstothecontrary,Courtsareresolvingfactualissuesthatarebetterlefttoajurytodecide.

Theimproperandliberaluseofsummaryjudgmentallowspartiestorollthedice.Ifmorecaseswenttotrial,morecaseswouldprobablysettle.

Thepropensityofthecourtstounfairlygrantsummaryjudgmentinfavorofdefendantsinemploymentdiscriminationcasesshouldbereviewedandcorrected.

Thesinglemostabusedaspectoffederallitigationissummaryjudgment,whichshouldbeseverelylimited.

Thesinglemostunfairaspectoffederallitigationissummaryjudgment,becauseadefendantneedallegenexttonothinginthemotionandtheplaintiffisrequiredtopresentevidencetosupporteveryelementofplaintiff’sclaim,includingdefendant’sstateofmindwhereitisanelement.Federaljudgestoooftenseemtouseacombinationofproceduraldevicesandsummaryjudgmenttoclearcasesoffthedocketandavoidtrial.


Rule12andTwombly

Inthecontextofemploymentdiscriminationlitigation,anystepstoincreasepleadingrequirementsanddecreaseplaintiff’saccesstorelevantdiscoverywouldprecludemanyplaintiffsandplaintiffs’advocatesfrompursuingmeritoriousclaims.

IwouldstronglyargueagainstchangingRule8orlimitingparties’abilitytoconductdiscovery.Doingawaywithnoticepleadingwouldonlyincreaselitigationcosts,asdefenseattorneyswouldhaveadditionalammunitiontobringin12(b)motions.

DepositionsbySkypeorsimilarwebbasedvideocansavecosts.ElectronicdiscoveryinNOTexpensive,buteasier.PDFmakesdocumentproductioneffective.Confidentialityisgenerallyawasteoftimeandshouldnotbegrantedandisinsteadusedasanexcusenottoproduce.12b6motionsareabusedbecausetheCourtneverdecidesthemforMONTHSandsometimesYEARSkillingre-pleadingandstatuteoflimitations.EARLYtrialdatesmustbeadheredtoandwillallowresolutionofdisputeswhetherthroughtrialorsettlement.

Idonotbelievethatsimplenoticepleadingshouldbeabandonedtosimplytheprocessinfederalcourt,becausethatwouldresultinmakingthecourtslessaccessibletothepublic.Lawyerstendtoabusethediscoveryprocess,particularlyindefensefirms,sotheycanuptheirhourlyfeecollection.

Inthiscase,oneofthesetsoflawyerswereveryprofessional,whereastheotherattorneywasdifficulttothepointofrudeness.Unfortunatelyorfortunately,hisclientwonatRule12(c)motionsothatIdidnothavetodealwithhimmuch.IwouldliketoseeRule56amendedtorequirestatementsofuncontestedmaterialfactthatarebackedupwithspecificreferencestodocumentsandtestimonyaswellasresponses.SeeRule9.10oftheLouisianaRulesforDistrictCourts.

Thecasewhichbroughtmetobeaskedtoparticipateinthissurveywasadisputebetweenattorneysregardingalargefeeinapersonalinjuryaction.Thedefendantattorney,fromanotherjurisdictionmovedtodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.Hismotionwasdenied.Oncethatoccurred,bothpartiesquicklyreachedasettlementasbothwereveryfamiliarwiththecostsoflitigationanddiscoveryinparticular.Idon’tthinkanythingdifferentwouldhaveoccurredifthecasehadbeenbroughtinstatecourt.Tomediscoveryitselfisnotthatcostly,itisattemptsbyopposingpartiestodelayandavoiditthatmakeitsoexpensive.IfsanctionswithrealteethwereplacedintherulestopreventdelayandavoidanceIthinkthecostofdiscoverywouldmoderate.Factpleadingmayhelp,butmakingplaintiffspleadfactsintheircomplaintsisnosubstitutefordetaileddiscovery.

Thereareunfairburdensonplaintiffsinthefederalcourtsystem.Idonotthinkthesuggestionsofrequiringmoredemandingpleadingandsettingtougherdiscoveryrequirementswillbehelpfultolitigants.Inmyexperience,undertheexistingsystemIthinkthejudgesandthemagistratesdoagoodjobinmanagingdiscoveryanddeadlinesinmycases.Alotdependsontheattorneysinvolved.Ithinkthatbadbehaviordiscovery


behaviorshouldbedealtwithquickly,whichwouldhelptopromoteprofessionalismandgreatercooperation.

Inallbutthemostcomplexcases,theabolitionofnoticepleadingandthefulldiscoveryprocesswillonlyassistthedefendants.Astonoticepleading,thefactsrelatingtomostcasesarepossessedbythedefendingparties.

AsasolepractitionerdoingsmallbusinesslitigationanddiscriminationcasesinChicagoFedCtthesystemissensibleandshouldnotbealteredtorequirefactpleadingandcostshiftingtosmallbusinessesorindividualplaintiffs.Tocoinaphrase,itain’tbroke,sodon’t"fix"it.

Butforthepartiesbeingallowedtogivenon-specificanswersindiscoverypleadings,IseenomajorproblemswithheFederalRulesofCivilProcedures.

Enforcingaheightenedpleadingstandardincivilrightscaseswouldprejudiceplaintiffsandgiveanunfairadvantagetodefendants.Insuchcases,defendantsalmostuniformlyhaveadisproportionallygreateramountofevidenceincludingtheidentityofindividuals,documentaryevidencesuchaspoliciesandprocedures,andphysicalevidencelikephotographsandvideofootage.Forcingplaintiffstomeetaheightenedpleadingstandardwouldrestrictplaintiffs’accesstothecourtsandwouldrendermanyclaimsimpossiblewheretheplaintiffmaynotevenknowtheidentityofthegovernmentorcompanyofficialsinvolved.Insuchcircumstances,plaintiffscanonlyguessatmanyofthefactswhichwillultimatelycometolightduringdiscovery.Iwouldstronglyopposeaheightenedpleadingstandardincivilrightscases.

Iamabigfanoffederalcourt.Ialwayshavebeen.Ithinkstatecourtsshouldadoptthefederalrulesandproceedmorelikethefederalsystem.Noticepleadingisfine.ByandlargeIthinkfederalcourtyieldsthemostfairoutcomes.Theyaremoreresponsiveandtakethesystemmoreseriouslythandostatecourts(hencethesurvey).

Idonotbelievethatanyone,attorneyorjudge,understandsthemostrecentSupremeCourtcaseconcerningtherequirementsofpleading.Ifanythingneedstobeclarified,itisthis.

IrepresentplaintiffsinSection1983actionsallegingpolicemisconduct.Iamasolepractitioner.Wealreadyhaveaheightenedpleadingstandardinthe11thCircuit.Werarelyhavediscoverydisputes.Therulesarefine.Anyadditionalburdenswillaffectsolepractitionerslikemyselfmorethanthelargefirmsthatdefendmylawsuits.Ihaveabsolutelynostaff.IfeelthatwhatIdoisimportant.Itisalsodifficult.Pleasedon’tmakeitanymoredifficult,sothatIcancontinuetoablyassistmyclients.

Ithinkgenerallythattherulesofdiscoveryaregood,andneednotbechanged.Therespondingpartiesneedtorespond,toavoidexcessivelitigationcosts.ThepleadingrulesandSummaryJudgmentrulesareverygoodastheyare,andIsupportNOTchangingthem.


Itismyexperiencethatnoticepleadingsanddiscoveryarenecessarybecausemanytortandcontractcasesinvolveissuesinwhichoneparty(usuallythedefendant)hasmoreknowledgeaboutthesubjectsotheotherpartyhastofindthefullfactsthroughdiscoverywhichleadstoanamendedcomplainttoclarifytheissuesandclaims.

Surveyquestionscombinepleading&discoveryissuesasiftheyarenotseparate.Expertdiscoveryinfederalcourtsisabigexpenseanddiscouragement.Pleadingissuesarenotanissueatall.Themorepleadingrequirements,themorewastedtimeandmoneyonwhetherpleadingisadequateBEFOREpartiesevenknowthefactsofthecase.Streamlineproductionofrecords,thendepositionscanoccurandlawyerswillknowtheircase.Then,theycanre-plead,ifnecessary.Noticepleadingisgoodforjust,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationoftheaction.Thekeyisgettingthefactsoutonthetableearlyandefficiently.

Thescopeofdiscoveryshouldnotbecurtailed,itshouldbeexpanded.Mandatingmoreofaheightenedpleadingstandardmayclosethecourthousedoorstodeservinglitigants.

Ibelievethatcaseswouldsettlefasterandmorefairly--orgettriedmoreefficiently--ifthefederalcourtsmadetwochanges:First,requireaslightlyhigherpleadingstandardthannoticepleading--butnotsohighthatitleadstoamotionever.

Thegoalshouldbetoresolvecasesonthemeritsandnotgettieduponpleadinganddiscoveryissues.

Thepresentsystemevensthefieldfornoncorporateplaintiffs.Theefforttopleasemorespecificallyratherthannoticepleadingonlybenefitsthedefendants--usuallycorporateorgovernment.Thefederalforumhasalwaysbeentheforumthatpromotesdiscoveryofthetruthandfulldisclosure,ratherthan"tricksofthetrade.Itssuccessisthereasonstatecourtsareadoptingnoticeratherthanspecificfactpleadings.

Twomblyhasalreadyheightenedthepleadingrequirements,renderinganotherchangerightnowunnecessary.ShouldtheCommitteeconsiderchangestothepleadingrequirements,however,itwouldprobablymakesensetoallowalittlemoretimetoseeifTwomblyhasasignificantimpactfirst.

Thediscoveryrulesareadequate.Noticepleadingandfraudpleadingareappropriate.Conleyv.GibsonandnowBellaresufficientastoRule8.Judgesfailtoproperlyenforcetheexistingrules.IcurrentlyhaveacaseinFederalCourtwith250docketentries.FourFederalCourtJudges,KSandnowNY,havedenied26(a)disclosuresaftertwoyearsoflitigation.26adisclosuresandproperdiscoverywouldsettlethecase.TheproblemisthatJudgesallowpartiestohidebehindvariousargumentsthathavelittleornothingtodowithacase,whenthetruemeritscanbedeterminedbyfollowingtheexistingrules.Proper26adisclosureswouldhavesettledthecaseIreferencedinJuneof2007.Stayingdiscoveryovera25pageloanfilehasallowedtheallegedfraudtocontinuewiththemultiplepleadings.


Therewereanumberofquestionsaboutheightenedpleadingrequirementsforcomplaints--butinmyview,defendantsroutinelycommitmoreegregiousviolationsofthepleadingrulesintheiranswers.Iroutinelyseealaundrylistofaffirmativedefensesthathavenothingwhatsoevertodowiththecase,alongwithdenialslike"theallegationsofparagraph__refertoadocumentthatspeaksforitself,andnoanswerisnecessary."Or,evenbetter,"theallegationsofparagraph__constitutealegalconclusiontowhichnoresponseisnecessary."Ihavestartedfilingmotionstostrikeinmanycases,butthisshouldnotbenecessary.IamfortunatetopracticeintheEDVA,wheregamesmanshipandobstructivediscoverytacticsaregenerallynottolerated.Thisislargelytheresultoftightdiscoverydeadlines,whicharegoodforeveryoneconcerned.

IbelievethatroutinestaysofdiscoverywhileRule12(b)(6)motionsarependingresultinsubstantialdelays,andoftenresultinsubstantialmiscarriagesofjustice.ThemisapplicationoftheTwomblycasebycertainfederalcourtstodismisscasesthat,untilrecentyears,wereroutinelyadjudgedmeritorious,andthatrequirediscoveryinordertoprovetheclaimsasserted,appearscontrarytothetermsofbothRule1and8,aswellastobeworkingafundamentalchangeinourciviljusticesystemthatfavorsdefendants,regardlessoftheactualmeritsofthecase.

Increasingly,andthenamarkedincreasepostTwombly,itseemsimpossibletoputenoughintomanycomplaintstowithstandRule12motions.ToomanycasesaredismissedonRule12motionevenbeforediscoveryisobtainable.

Mycasemaynotbeappropriateforthissurvey.ThecasewasaRule20multi-plaintiffcasefiledafteradecertificationofanotherFLSAcollectiveaction.TheDistrictCourtinitiallyadoptedaMagistrateJudge’srecommendationtodenyaRule12(b)(6)dismissalmotion.ThecasewasstayedforapproximatelytwoyearswhiletheCourtofAppealsadjudicatedaproceduralissuegermanetothecase,andupontheliftingofthestaythepartiesengagedinfurtherbriefingonthecentralproceduralissueandparticipatedinahearingconvenedbyaMagistrateJudge.ThecasewasdismissedwhentheCourtadoptedtheMagistrateJudge’srecommendationtodismissthecasefollowingthehearing.Therefore,thepartiesdidnotevenconveneaschedulingconferenceorconductanydiscoveryinthecase.

MycasesarefiledagainsttheU.S.governmentsomanyofthequestionsdidnotapply.Havingsaidthat,IfindnoticepleadingtobeveryeffectiveformetomakemyclaimanddefinetheissuesinthecasesIfile.

Thecaseuponwhichyouhaveaskedmetocommentisnotahelpfulone.Itwasanentirelyfrivolousactionbroughtbyproseplaintiffs.IwasimmediatelygivenpermissiontomakeaRule12(b)(6)motionwithindaysofserviceoftheComplaintandtheComplaintwaspromptlydismissedthereafter.IwouldbehappytodiscussanothercasewhereIcanbeofmorehelp.


CivilRights/EmploymentLaw

Ipracticeintheareaofcivilrightsandemploymentwheretheactionschallengedoccurbehindcloseddoorsandmyclientisseldomprivytoessentialinformation.

Inindividualemploymentcases,mostoftheinformationisinthehandsofdefendants/employerswhohavemanymoreresourcesthantheindividualplaintiffs.

MygeneralexperienceisthatthecourtshavebecomeincreasinglyhostiletoPlaintiffsandcivilrightscases.Iattributethistoanumberoffactors,nottheleastimportantofwhichisthatmanyjudgescometothebenchfromaprosecutorialorcivil

Thiswasadifficultsurveytocompletegiventhatmyclientsareprimarilyindividualemployeesthatsuefordiscriminationorothercivilrightsviolations.

Irepresentplaintiffs,whoaregenerallylowincome,incivilrightslitigation.ThemajorstumblingblocktoresolutionofmycasesisthefailureofdefendantstoprovidemuchthatisusefulintheirAnswersandInitialDisclosures.Notuntilwehavegonethroughseveralroundsofdiscovery,motionstocompelproductionanddepositionsdotheygetseriousaboutsettlement.

Iwasappointedastheattorneyforaproselitigantinanemploymentdiscriminationcase-attorneysshouldnotbeappointedtorepresentproselitigantsinemploymentmatters,theyhaveunreasonableexpectations.Idonotthinkthatemploymentcasesarethetypeofcasesthatwereanticipatedwhentherulesforappointingattorneyswerecreated.

Inemploymentlitigationtheplaintiffisalwaysdisadvantagedindiscovery.Thedefensehasalltheinformationandcontrolofmostofthewitnesses.Early,mandatory,comprehensivedisclosurewouldservetobegintoeventheplayingfield.

Inpractice,manyjudgeshavebecomefactfindersatthesummaryjudgmentstageofacase,especiallyinemploymentdiscriminationcases.Discriminationcasesinvolvequestionsofintentandmotivethatshouldbedecidedbythejury.

Limitingdiscoveryinemploymentdiscriminationcasesmakesitevenmoredifficultforplaintiffstoprovetheircases,sincetheyhavetoprovewhatadecisionmakerwasthinkingwhenhemadethechallengeddecision.Theproofisalmostalwaysexclusivelyinthepossessionofthedefendant.(Thisisalsoaprobleminarbitration.)

ManyofthequestionswerenotrelevanttomypracticebecauseIengageincivilrightslitigationunderTitlesIIandIIIoftheADA,whichhavefeeandcostshiftingprovisions.Myclientsneverpayforcostsorfees.Myrecoveryofmyfeesandcostscomesfromthedefendants.

OncivilrightscasesIhaven’thaddiscoveryproblemswiththegovernmentdefendants.Theygenerallycooperateandproducedfully,ifnotalwayspromptly.Thecostsoflitigation


onconstitutionalrightslitigationisthealmostmandatorysummaryjudgmentmotion.Dispositivemotionsarevirtuallyrequiredbyallpretrialordersinthesecases.Defendantswillnotsettleunlesstheyloseandjudgeswillnotencouragesettlementbeforethesemotionsareatleastfiled.

OurpracticeislimitedtorepresentingPlaintiffsinemploymentmatters.Wehavetobeveryefficientintheuseoffinancialresources.Thecostsassociatedwiththeuseofconsultantsand/orexpertstoretrieveelectronicallystoredinformationarerelativelyhigh.

Miscellaneous

ForyearsIhavehadoneormorecivilcasesbeinglitigatedinfederalcourt,soIhavesomeactualexperiencewiththeseissues.Iwanttobrieflyshareacoupleofobservations.

Overtheyears,Ihavenoticedtheissuanceoforderssometimesthataresubtleunlabelledessentiallyfinalordersundermininganddismantlingmyclient’scaseifnotimmediatelyappealedasaprotectivemeasure.

ThecaseofinterestwasdismissedforlackofpersonaljurisdictionintheEDofMich.

Themostbothersomeissueformeinthislitigationwastheprospectoftheactualphysicalgettingalltheboxesofmaterialspastsecurityandintothecourtafter8:00a.m.,butbeforethe9:00a.m.docketcall.

Discoverycostswerenotafactorintheoutcomeofmyrecentcase.MostofthePlaintiff’sdiscoverymaterialwasexchangedpriortoformalrequests.Defendant’sdiscoverymaterialwasprovidedinresponsetoPlaintiff’sinitialdiscoverymaterial.

Ihavebeeninvolvedfor25/28yearsinthefederalcourtsandwouldbegladtospeakwithasurveyororsomeonefromthecourtsystemtogivemeoverallviews.

Ihaverespondedtoanothersurveyregardingacaseinvolvingthefederalgovernment.However,inthiscase,theAUSAwasmorecooperativeanddiscoverywasnotobstructed.However,thecaseisonappealtotheNinthCircuit.

Ipracticefederaltaxlaw.MyclientsaretaxpayerswholitigatetheirfederaltaxliabilityinUSdistrictcourts,theUSCourtofFederalClaims,ortheUSTaxCourt.Thesefactsshapemyanswerstothegeneralquestionsabove.

Ipresume"federalcourt"includedbankruptcycourt.

Iwasthelocalcounselforthe[deleted].Iwasreleasedafterthecasewastransferredto[deleted].

Ifyou’reseekingfeedbackonspecificproposals,Iwouldbehappytorespondafterlearningmore.Somequestionsseemedtoreferenceideaswherethedetailsmakeallthedifference.


InthecaseIhaditinvolvedhousingdiscriminationandsettlementdiscussionswerestartedimmediatelyafterthecomplaintwasserved.Voluntarydiscoveryofinvestigationreportsoftheplaintiffhelpedtofurtherthesettlementthusnofurtherdiscoveryorsupervisionofthecourtwasrequired.

ManyofmyinitialanswerswerespecifictothisERISAcaseinwhichdiscoveryislimitedtotheadministrativerecord.

Mymostrecentcaseinfederalcourt(SDIll)wasaidedimmenselybytheparticipationofthecourt(viaitsmagistratejudge)inmediation

Sorryforthedelay!

Thecaseinquestionwasonewheredamagesweretheprimaryquestion.Anearlymediationgreatlyhelpedtoresolveit.

Theoptionsforthenatureofthefeearrangementdidnotallowforthearrangementinthereferencedcase,i.e.,contingentbaseduponhourlyratesandoutcome,notbasedonpercentage.

Thesubjectcasewasreferredtomandatoryarbitration.Asplaintiff’scounsel,thisisanexcellentmethodofresolvingacaseasitallowspartiestotryacaseinaquickandsummaryformatwithoutexpendingsignificantcosts.Further,thequicktimelineforarbitrationreducesdiscoverycostsbynoprolongingdiscovery.Thepartiesareeithercontentwiththeresultatarbitration,orthedissatisfiedpartymayappealbutknowexactlywheretheystandinrelationtoaneventualresultbytrial.Thisadditionallycausescasestosettle,asinthisinstance.Iwouldrecommendthattortcasesbereferredtomandatoryarbitrationwithnojurisdictionlimitondamages.

Thereshouldbea1dayminitrialinanattempttoreachasettlementbeforethetrialdate.SimilartoNH.

ThiscasewassmalldealingwithanInsurancepolicyprocuredthroughthePl.’sjob;Employerfailedtoprovideinfo.toHre:needforinsurabilityCert.fromW’sdr.--WorkplacetookpremiumsfromH’sck.for2.5years;Wdies&carrierwouldn’tpaydeathbenefit.Casesettledfor$75,000.00of$84,000.00policy.

Weareaplaintiffs’injuryfirm.OurFederalCourtinChicagoisagreatforumtomoveacasealongquickly,thediscoverydeadlinesareenforcedasarealltherules,whencomparedtoourstatesystem.Thejurypoolisnotgreatthough.

Unfortunately,mypracticehasbeenalmostexclusivelylimitedtostatecourtsomyinputmaynothavebeenverybeneficial.


SurveyComments

OnepointIwouldliketomake,isthatanumberofthequestionslumpedheightenedpleadingrequirements(doingawaywithmerenoticepleading)withrestrictionsondiscoverytostreamlinecases.

Thesurveydidnotaddressthe2largestcoststoplaintiffs1)delaybetweencasefilingandresolutionand2)requirementofphysicalpresenceoftheplaintiffinthedistrictfordeposition.

Thereisafundamentalproblemthatitwillbehardtoaddressinsuchasurveyasthis.Businessandlifeingeneralgetmorecomplexwithpassingtime.

ThissurveyomitsanimportantquestionregardingamajorvoidintheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.AspecificRuleisneededtoimplement,fairlyanduniformlythroughouttheFederalcourtsystem,42U.S.C.2000e.

Acoupleofthoughts:1)InthecaseIwascontactedabout,myclientwasclassofplaintiffs.TheoptionsforthequestionabouthowwouldIbestdescribemyclientdidn’tallowforthat.Representingaclassisverydifferentfromrepresentinganindividual.2)I’mnotsurewhatyoumeantwhenyouaskedwhatpercentageofthe"costs"shouldbediscoverycosts.Didyoumeantoinclude"fees"inthe"costs"?Ithinkyoumightgetdifferentanswersfromdifferentlawyers,dependingontheirfeearrangementswiththeirclients.

Noreflectiononthesurvey,butIfoundmanyofthesequestionsextremelydifficulttoanswer.

Somequestionsweresogeneralizedthatacompetentandresponsiveanswerwasnotpossible.Onoccasionthechoicesofagree-disagreeindegreesseemedrestrictive.

Surveyisabitlong.

Thankyouforallowingmetoparticipate.

Thankyouforallowingparticipation

Thankyouforincludingmeinthesurvey.Thecaseyouhaveaskedaboutsettledatacourt-sponsoredsettlementconference.Partieshadexchangedpaperdiscoveryresponses,butdepositionshadnotbeentaken.

Thankyoufortakingthetimetoinquireabouttheseimportantissues.

Thesurveydidnothaveenoughquestionsabouthowdefensecounseldrivesupcostsandcausesdelays.


Thesurveyneedstoletthe"taker"knowhowfaralongtheyareinthesurvey(i.e.40%complete).

Thesurveyseemedtofocusonelectronicdiscoveryissues,whicharerarelyifeverexperiencedinmypracticearea-Section1983litigation.

Thesurveyseemstobeatleast,inpart,writtentoassistthebigcorporationstrytolimittheirexposureindiscoveryande-discovery.IbelievetherulesinFederalCourtarealreadymuchmorestrictthaninStateCourtanddonotneedtobeamended.Thesystemworkswellandshouldnotbechanged.Ifanything,FederalCourtscouldrelaxtheirstandardsalittle.Lessdiscoverywouldallowmoredefendantstoavoidliability.

ThissurveywastoolongandIthinkyouneedtobetterexplainwhoyouareandwhyyouaredoingthissurvey.

Thiswastoolong.

YoursurveyfailedtoaddressanyADRtoolssuchasmediation,earlyneutralevaluation,etc.

Istronglydisagreewiththepurposeofthisproject.TheideaofrequiringPlaintiffstomorespecificallyarticulateclaimsattheinceptionoflitigation,willonlypermitdefendantstofurthermanipulatediscovery.

Generally,Ifoundthissurveytobebiased-inaclearway-toencourageresponsesthatwouldsupportgreaterlimitsandmorecostsharingofdiscoverycost,whichinturndisproportionatelywouldadverselyimpactplaintiffs.

Goodandthoughtfulsurvey-wouldbeinterestedintheresults.

Ihopetheparticipantscanbesenttheresultsofthesurvey.Thanks.

Iwouldhavelikedtoqualifymanyofmyanswers.

InreviewItakeissuewiththesurvey,becauseitseemstopresentaskewingtowardsacceptingformoverfunction.Thankyou.


RespondentsRepresentingPlaintiffsandDefendantsAboutEqually


Attorneyantics(improperandexasperating)indiscovery;andthegeneralhesitationonthepartofthecourttoinvolveitselfindiscoverydisputes,andaggressivelystopobstructionistbehavior,hascausedunreasonablecostanddelayinmanyofmycases.

Oneofthemajorproblemsthatimpedesjusticeandcausesunnecessarydelayandexpenseistheunwillingnessofjudgestodothedetailworktoenforcediscoveryrulesandcurbabusesbythesmallminorityoflawyerswhoabusetherules.

Dilatoryandcarefulparsingofdiscoveryanswersareusedtoobfuscatethetruthmoreoftenthanreachit.Thereshouldbepromptandseveresanctionsagainstparties/attorneyswhousediscoverytobludgeontheothersideandwhorefusetotruthfullyandfullydiscloserelevantinformation.

Generally,attorneysworkwellwitheachotherondiscoveryandotheraspectsofthecase.Oncedeadlinesareset,courtsneednotgetinvolvedunlessthepartiescannotreachanagreementoritwoulddisturbthetrialschedule.Irarelyneedtoseekcourtassistanceinfederalcourtfordiscoverydisputes.

Ipreferlitigatinginfederalcourthowevergetdiscouragedbythegamesmanshipemployedbylitigants/attorneysindiscoveryandmotionpractice.IwouldlovetoseeRule26sanctionsincreasedforbadfaithactionsofattorneysandlitigants.Thankyouforlettingmeparticipateinthissurvey.

Itrycasesonbothsides,butbyfartheincreasedcostsarecausedbythedefensesidewhentheyarechargingbythehour.Thustheabuseisinherenttothefee/compensationstructureinthesystem.WhenIstartedpracticinglaw,withlittleexception,therewasnodiscoveryinstatecourt;trialscamequickly,movedquicklyandgood,fairresultswereobtainedatareasonablecosttotheclient.Discoveryasitisappliedinmodernpracticeisnothingbutawaytobillclients,subsidizeotherwiseout-of-workattorneysandthusincreasecosts.Limitdiscovery,limittheuseandnumberofexpertsandallowpeopletotestifyaboutthatwhichtheyknowandthecostwillgodown,justicewillbeserved.Pleaseremovethegamesmanshipandexcessivecostfromlitigation.

Ifyourconcernsaretrulytoensureasimpleandlegitimateprocess,theareaofdiscoveryabuseondefendants,especiallycorporateentities,andtheirlargefirmcounselshouldbeexplored.Despitethewellversedfallaciesofboguslawsuitscreatingwasteinthesystem,themostexpensive,timeconsuming,andexasperatingaspectsofdiscoveryaretheabusesperpetratedbywell-moneyedandlargedefendantsandlargefirms.Whetheritbespeciousclaimsofprivilegeoverdiscoveryrequestedofthem,longand/orunnecessarydepositionsusedtochurnbillablehoursandasaharassmenttacticalongwithnumerousandextensivediscoveryrequests,withextendedsubpartstogetaroundlimitationsintheRules,large


defendantsandtheircounseltendinalargeparttounnecessarilyincreasethetimeandmoneyneededtopursuealegitimateclaim.

Inmyexperiencemostcivillitigationinvolveslargerlawfirmsthatcommitvastresourcestothediscoveryprocess.Eachpersonorpartythathasaremoteconnectiontothedisputemustbedeposed.Rarelyifeverdothesetangentsproduceanythingmeaningfulanddriveupthelitigationcostsconsiderably.Thereisalsoaperceptionthatfederalcourtcasestakeongreaterimportancethanstatecourtcases.Thisisalsousedasajustificationforthecommitmentofresources.

My42+yearsofexperiencehaspersuadedmethatdiscoveryintheFederalCourtsisabusedoftenbyfirmswhosefirmmembersarecompelledtoproducebillablehours.Ihaveconsiderableexperienceinlaborrelationsmatterswhichareoftenarbitratedbyprofessionalsorheardinfederalcourts.Mostcasescanbepreparedbyattorneyswithoutintrusiveandextensivediscoverydesignedtoenhancethebottomline.Earlybenchinvolvementhelpsconsiderably.IhaverepresentedbothmanagementandlaborandfeelIhavetheexperiencetomakethispoint.

Mysenseofthesurveyisthatyouareexploringtherelationshipofdiscoveryburdenandfairness.OneoftheproblemsisthattheburdenofdiscoveryvariesmostdependinguponthebehavioroftheattorneysandthewillingnessoftheCourtstointervene.Ithinkthecourtswouldfindthatiftheyrequiredanyin-courtdiscoverymanagementconferencewiththecourtearlyonthatisameaningfulplanningsession,manymotionswouldbeavoided.Wheremotionsoccur,thecourtshouldmoveawayfromthepracticeoflongbriefsonissuesandinsteadresolvetheissuesonoralargumentpromptly.Toomuchtimeandmoneyiswastedinbriefingdiscoveryissuesthatareprettyplainfromasimplediscussion.Also,partiesaremorewillingtofilemotionsiftheythinkthecourtwillbeslowinresponding.

Thecooperativeconductofcounselisthenumberonedrivingfactorinthecostoflitigation.Ifallsidesarereasonableintheirrequestsandarewillingtoworkthroughissuesinacooperativefashionthefederalcourtsystemworkswell.However,discoveryfightsforfightingalonebringsdownthewholelitigationprocess.Professionalcooperativecounselreducethecostandlitigationriskforourclients.

ThegreatmajorityofdiscoveryabusesandproblemsarisefromtheconductoftheattorneysandarenotcausedbytheRules.TheRulesaregenerallyfair,Irarelyhavediscoveryfightswithreasonableopposingcounsel.

Themotionpracticeinthefederalcourtclearlyfavorsbigcorporationsandbiglawfirms.ItunfairlymakesJudgestheJudgeandJury.Itissaidthatbiglawfirmswillburyyouindiscovery,andIbelievethatthevolumesofdiscoveryhaveunfairlyledtodismissalsonsummaryjudgmentmotionsinfavorofbiglawfirmsfortheirbigcorporations.

Theparticularcasethatwasthesubjectofthissurveysettledafterthedefendant,whomIrepresented,filedananswerbutbeforethePlaintiffreplied.Inmyexperience,apartycan


usediscoveryandmotionstodelayresolutionandincreasecostofthelitigationtoforceasettlement.Inmyexperience,judgestendtobelenientwhenpartiesabusediscoveryormotionpractice.

Therearetwoproblemswithdiscovery:(1)requestingpartieswanttoomuch;and(2)respondingpartiesoftendonotdiscloserelevantandimportantinformation.TheonlyremedythatIcanseeistomorenarrowlytailorthescopeofdiscoverytorelatemorecloselytothecausesofactionpleadedandtoimposesanctions--costs,exclusionofevidence,etc.--onpartiesthatunnecessarilydelayorfailtodiscloserelevantdiscoveryitems.ThanksforlettingmeparticipateinthissurveyandIwouldbehappytoworkwithanygrouptowardimprovingtherulesofcivilprocedure.

Howacasegoesthroughthesystemismoredependentontheattorneysinvolvedandthejudgethantheactual"rules".

DiscoveryCosts

Litigationcostswouldbegreatlydecreasedifattorneyswerecourteousandcooperatedwitheachother,whilestillprotectingtheirclientsandlookedtoreachafairresolution.

Costsinfederalcourtincreaseasaresultofthemultiplelayersofdisclosureandreportingnowinvogue.Further,thediscoveryperiodistooshorttoworkwithintheframeworkoftherulesandthecourts’abilitytoaddressdiscoveryissuesinatimelyway.

Courtsshouldbeencouragedtoaddresscostshiftingattheendofacasebasedonultimateoutcomeandconductofthepartiesindiscovery.

Federalcasesinmyareaaremoreefficientandlesscostlythanstatecasesunderthecurrentrules.FederalJudgeswillruleondiscoveryissuesquicklyandarenotshyingrantingsummaryjudgmentwhenappropriate.Thisisnotthecaseinstatecourt.Mandatorymediationandotherruleswhichforcesettlementsaregoingsofarastoleaveyounglawyerswithouttrialexperienceandcreatecompromiseswhenthereshouldnotbeany.

Gettingahandleonreducingthecostsandburdensone-discoveryiswelcome!

Iwouldrecommendmoreearlycaseintervention-mediation,forexample.Forlower-valuedcases,arbitrationshouldberequired,tokeepcostsdown.

Myanswerstothissurveywereinfluencedbythefactthatthenamedcasewascommencedin2003,beforeElectronicdiscoverycameintoeffectandalsostronglyinfluencedbythefactthatduringthenearlysixyearsthattheactionwaspending,weneveroncehadtheopportunitytoeitherseeorhearourjudge(althoughwedidhaveamagistratejudgeruleondiscoverytwiceandaspecialmasterrecommendsummaryjudgment).Hadtherebeencasemanagement,theactionwouldhavebeenresolvedmuchearlierandatamuchlowercost.


Theup-frontpaperandconferralburdeninfederalcourtbeforedisclosure(toprepareforStatusConferences)istoohighandpresumesbothsidesknowtheother’scase-whichisnottrue.Requiringsettlementconferencesbeforedisclosures/discoveryisanexpensivewasteoftime.

Thissurveyistoolong.Thesystemworksasitis.Changingitwouldincreasecosts.

WhileIdon’tbelievethatlawyersgenerallyabusethediscoveryprocess,thereisstilltoomuchdiscovery.Lawyerswilltakewhateverdiscoveryisallowedsimplytoavoidbeingquestionedifthereisanadverseresult.Allowlessdiscoveryandrequiremoredisclosureearlier.Ifyoureallywanttoreducecosts,youneedtoalsolookatmotionpractice.Toomanyjudgessitonmotionstoolong.Issuesthatshouldbeeliminatedornarrowedcontinueincases(causingmorediscoveryandmorecosts)becausemotionsrotinchambers.Mayalsowanttolookatlimitingmotionstodismiss/motionsforsummaryjudgment.

DiscoveryProcess

Ithinkthelevelofdetailinthecurrentpretrialdisclosureandconferencerulesforcejudgestoapplymanagementtechniquesthatmaybenecessaryforsomebig,complexcases,butjustimposeunnecessarybusy-workinsmallerorsimplercases.

Makemorediscoverymandatory;court-propoundedInterrogatoriesandRPD.Eliminategeneralobjectionstodiscoveryandmandatedefinitionsofwordssuchas‘document’;‘person’;‘your’;etc.

ThesinglebestreformideaIhaveheardisrequiringbothpartiesupfronttoAGGRESSIVELYsearchforandPRODUCEanyandalldocumentspotentiallyrelevanttoanyclaimordefenseinacasewithinthefirst30-60daysofservice,unlessotherwiseagreed

Arevisionofthediscoveryruleswillbenefitthelegalprocedure.Whilethereisabalancingact,oftencourtsareunwillingtosanctionattorneysorpartiesbutgreaterenforcementwouldmakethejudicialmuchmoreefficient.

CasemanagementbyMagistratesaddstoomuchtimetoordinarydiscoverywhichcouldbehandledbyaStandardCaseManagementprocessbyRulewithexceptionscarvedoutbymotionwhenrequired.

DiscoveryistheAchillesheelofanycivilactioninanycourt.

Earlycourtinvolvementinframingtheissuesandthediscoveryprocess,tailoredtothetypeofcaseandlikelyrequirements,wouldgreatlysavethepartiesandthecourttimeandresources.Judicialoversightattheearlystagesofthecasewithfollow-upcasemanagementconferenceswouldyieldmuchgreaterefficiencies.Changingtherulesofcivilprocedurewilllikelyyieldmuchlessefficientcaseresolutionthanjudicialinvolvementandoversightattheearlystagesofthecase.


Earlysettlementopportunities(e.g.ENE)followedupwithlimiteddiscoverytofacilitateanotherENEmakesthemostsense.

Fasterandfirmertrialdates,fasterjudicialresponsetomotions,requireduseoftelephoneconferencesfordiscoverydisputeswouldallhelpgreatly.

Federalcourtsareviewedasbeinghighlydisdainfulof"small"casesandthereforeagainstthefilersofdiversitycasesand"small"federalissuessuchasFairDebtCollectionActcases,andthisisverytroublingandunjust.Mostofmyclientsare"small"partiesandtheyalwaysstruggleforfairnessinthefederalsystem,wherebigfirmsandbigclientsroam.

IbelievethatdiscoveryshouldbeallowedtocommencebeforetheRule17Conference.Theconferencesaremerelysettingascheduletoconcludediscoveryandthereisalotofdeadtimewaitingfortheconference.

Ihavefoundthatsettlementconferencesperformedbymagistratejudgesearlyinthelifeofcasesareveryeffective.However,experiencehasshownthatpartiesarereluctanttoshareinformationpriortothesettlementconferences,whichhinderstheabilitytosettle.Iwouldcontemplateasystemunderwhichthesettlementconferencejudgewoulddetermineatapre-trialconferencewiththeattorneyswhatinformationisnecessarytofacilitatetheirrespectiveclients’positiononsettlementand,ifappropriate,toenteraninitialdisclosureorderspecifictothecaserequiringeachpartytodivulgeparticularinformationinordertofacilitatesettlementconferences.

Iwouldfavoratieredsystemthatallowedformorediscoveryforlargercasesandamethodologytomakesuchanevaluationandtoreviseitduringthelitigationprocess.Iwouldalsofavormediationorothermethodstonarrowdiscoveryandtrialcostsearlyintheprocessratherthanjustasatooltosettlecases.

Ifitistherecommendationtoemployincreasedmandatorydisclosures,perhapspractitionersshouldbepolledonwhatkindandcategoriessuchdisclosuresmightbe.

ImmediatelyaftertheRule26disclosures,(orsometimeafter)eachpartyshouldproposekeyfactsthatwillbeestablishedbytheevidence,opponentmustrespondaccuratelytoeachseparatefact.

Inmyview,theCourtshouldrequireexpansivedisclosureswithfirmandfairmotionandtrialdatestoallowthepartiestoconductdiscovery.ThebiggestprobleminFederalCourtisthatthepartiesoftendonothavesufficienttimetocompletefactdiscoverygiventheCourt’scasemanagementorders.

Inordertomanagelitigation,ajudgeshouldsetreasonabledeadlinesforthecompletionofdiscovery,motionsandexpertopinions.Noextensions,unlessjustcausecanbedemonstratedandatrialdatekeptinplace.


Inourdistrictseveraljudgeshaveachambersrulethatpartiesmustfilefora"pre-filingconference"priortofilingadispositivemotion.IthinkthisisratherpointlessbecauseitaddsadditionalworkandtheJudgesneverseemtobeabletogetpartiestoabandonweakclaimsordefenses.IunderstandintheorywhattheJudgesaretryingtodo,butinpracticeitjustresultsinmoreworkwithoutanybenefittothelitigants.

Inthenamedcase,thepartiesagreedtoanearlypre-discoverymediationandavoluntaryexchangeofdocuments.Thecasesettledforlessthanthecostofdefendingthroughtrial.Inmostcivilcases,Ithinkthatmandatorypre-discoverymediationwouldbeproductive,asthecostsoflitigationarestillinfrontofbothparties.

Mediationshouldberequiredatanearlystageineverycase.

Morestreamlineddiscoveryandmandatorydisclosuresupfrontwouldencouragesettlementandlessencosts.

MuchoftherequireddiscoveryinFederalCourtisduplicativeandseemstoservenopurpose,suchasinitialdisclosuresandpre-trialdisclosures.Theseseemtobe"busywork"ratherthanproductivework.Also,thehighcostofdepositionsmakesithardforindividualpartiestobeonequalfootingwithcorporatedefendants.Forexample,inthiscaseIwasaskedabout,myclientcouldnotaffordtotakethedepositionsofthedefendant’sproposedexperts.

Requiringpartiestomeetandconferandprepare"joint"discoverymotionsasisdoneintheCentralDistrictofCaliforniaisawasteoftimeandleadstoadditionalattorneyshenanigansnotless.Similarlyrequiringcourtordertoextenddiscoverydeadlineswhenpartiesagreedtosameleadstotrapsfortheunwaryandgivesanadvantagetotheunscrupulous.Partieswhojerkaroundotherpartiesarerarelytakentotask,encouragingjerkingaround.

Thepartiesshouldhavetoappointadiscoveryadministratorwhoshouldberequiredtoattenda1hourclassondiscoveryobligations.

Thequalityofthediscoveryprocessisdependentonthequalityofthejudgesupervisingit.

ThescopeofdiscoveryalloweddifferstoomuchfromJudge/MagistratetoJudge/Magistrate;Courtsneedtoconsiderthelawgoverningdiscoveryinforeignjurisdictionswhenapartyisaforeignnational.

Thereshouldbeharsherpunishmentsfordisregardofdiscoveryobligationsbymunicipalities.


ElectronicDiscovery

Inlarge,complexcommerciallitigation,thekeydocumentsareoftencommunicationswhichareonlystoredelectronically;Icanthinkofmanycasesthatwouldhavebeenlostforaplaintiffifelectronicdiscoverywasnotavailable.

Thenewrevisionstothediscoveryrulesregardingelectronicdiscoveryarebeingactivelyusedbymostdefendantstoavoidproducingdiscoveryand/orfalselyclaimingcostburden.

Courtsshouldregularlyuserule26b2C(iii)tolimitelectronicdiscovery.

Electronicdiscoveryisthebiggestsinglelong-termissueincivillitigation.Itsdemandswillmakelitigationimpossibleforallbuttheveryrichest.Itneedsagreatdealofattentionandagreatdealofthoughtandagreatdealofoversight.

Iconsidermyselffairlyknowledgeableregardinge-discoveryincomplexcases(Ipractice100%patentlitigation).Nonetheless,IfoundsomeofthesurveyquestionsregardingESIinformativeenoughtoprintsoastoinsureIamaskingthesequestionsofmyclientandopposingcounsel.Ithinkitwouldbenefitthecourtstohaveamoreconcretesetofrulesregardinge-discovery.Forexample,inmyopinion,itwouldbehelpfuliftherewereconsistente-discoverylocalrulesthatoutlinedtheissuesandtopicsthatneedtobediscussed.Evencourtswithmoreprogressiverules(e.g.,USDCKS)werenotasextensiveasthesurveyquestions.

Ihopethiswashelpful.Ourcasestartedin2003anddidn’tsettleuntil2008.Overthattime,thepartieshadtoadapttonewrulesandinformationaboutelectronicallystoredinformationandthisledtoanumberofdisagreements.Ingeneral,however,theattorneysinmostcasesdidresolvetheirdifferencesbasedoncooperativediscussionsandreasonablecompromises.

IngeneralIdisagreewiththepropositionoflimitingdiscovery.Itgivespartiesanincentivetohideinformation.ButIdothinkthatelectronicdiscoveryshouldbelimitedoratleastmanagedbyamagistratejudge.

Ourcaseinvolvedanimmediateexparterequestforexpeditedelectronicdiscovery,whichwasgranted.Gettingandenforcingthatorderprovedexpensive.

Theareaofgreatestcost/abuseinthefederaldiscoveryprocedureiselectronicdiscovery,itscostsandburden.Thisshouldbeaddressed.Alsothedelayindiscoveryrequiredbyrule26(d)(untilaftertherule26(f)conference)oftencausesunnecessarydelayandshouldbeeliminatedsothatdiscoverycanbeginearly.

Thesubjectcasewasfiledpriortothee-discoveryrules.IneededtotakeCLEcoursesandcomputercoursestolearnbasice-discoveryand,unfortunately,itseemstohavedevelopedacottageindustryofformerattorney"e-vendors."These"e-vendors"arequiteexpensive.Iamconcernedthatthesecostsarebasically"blackmail"forsettlements.



(1)InFlorida,motionpracticeinfederalcourtsincreasesthecostoffederalactionsoversimilarstatecourtactions.Ifmotionpracticecouldbereducedormademorestreamlined,costswouldcomedown.(2)Whenmandatorydisclosureswereintroduced,itforcedpartiestocooperateandcommunicatemoreandthusmovethecasealong,helpingtoincreasethelikelihoodofanamicablesettlement.(3)Inmyopinion,anyimprovementsshouldbeinareaofstreamliningmotionpractice,encouragingmoremandatoryexchangeofinformationbetweenthepartiesandencouragingmorecooperationbetweentheparties.

Atthispointinmycareer,IamdisposedtoregardtheFederalcourtsasinstrumentsofinjustice,andtheever-proliferatingrulesasonemeans(thoughfarfromthemostimportantmeans)bywhichthatinjusticeismademoreandmoremanifest.

GenerallyspeakingIavoidfederalcourt.Idonotthinkyouaregivenasfairaforumasinstatecourt.Weneedmorejudgesandweneedtonotplacesomuchaburdenonattorneywithschedulingordersandrequirementthatdonotaffecttheoutcome.

Iamgenerallyimpressedwiththefederalcourts,thefederalrulesofcivilprocedure,andthefederalbench.Ithinktheearlyneutralevaluationconferenceispriceless.Ialsoliketheelectronicfilingsystem.

IhavefoundFederalCourt,withitscasemanagementsystem,tobemuchmoreefficientthanStateCourts.Thisefficiencyspansfromdiscoverythroughtrialandpost-trialmotions.

ImuchpreferthepredictabilityoffederalcourtbutbelieveallvoirdireshouldbeconductedbytheattorneysexcepttotheextenttheyasktheCourttoconductportions.

IpracticeinAZ,NDandMN,allstateandfederalcourts.AZstatecourtshaveimplementedmandatorydisclosuresrequirementswhicharegreaterthanthoseunderthefederalrules.TheAZstatecourtRulesareadisasterincomparisonstothefederalrules.Awholenewareaoflitigation/contesthasbeencreatedwhichhasmadecasesinAZstatecourtsfarmoreexpensive,morecontentious,andprotracted.DonotconsidertheAZ"solution"!

Ipreferpracticinginfederalcourtbecausetheoutcomeismorepredictablethaninstatecourt.Ingeneral,therulesinfederalcourtareexpectedtobefollowedandareenforcedbythecourtwhentheyarenot.

IntheEasternDistrictofTexas,wegenerallyhavemandatory,broaddisclosurerequirementswheretheattorneysarerequiredtoproduceallrelevantdocumentswithouttheneedforrequestsforproduction.Becauseofthissimplifieddiscoveryprocedure,myfirmgenerallyfilesplaintiff’scasesinfederalcourtwheneverpossible.


ItismoreexpensivetopracticeinFederalcourt.Rule26FRCPmakesdiscoverymoreexpensive.Thatbeingsaid,thequalityoftheDistrictCourtJudgesissuperiortostateJudges.

Lowercaseloadstofederaljudgesandmandatoryin-personconferencesrequiringjudicialparticipationwouldenhancetheresultandshortenthetimefromcomplainttoresolution.Overburdenedjudgespushawaynecessarycasemanagementtasksthatonlyexacerbatethelitigationandprolongthecase-inthelongrunconsumingjudicialresources.

ThebiggestinjusticeistheDELAYSinfederalcourt.Thiswasnotaddressedinyoursurvey.Thecaseatissuesettledbecauseitwouldhavetakenalmostthree(3)yearstogettotrial,andmyclientcouldnotwait.

ThecourtintheSouthernDistrictofFloridawhereIpracticeisverydiligentinquicklyresolvingandavoidingdiscoverydisputes.Overall,theefficiencyoftheprocessdependsonthecaliberoflawyers.Iwouldurgemandatoryseminarsonconductingdiscoveryandonthelocalpractice,aswellasdistrictjudgesroutinelyreferringdiscoverydisputestothemagistratejudgetoresolve.

TheefficiencyandproceduresofthefederalcourtinwhichIpracticearesuchthatdiscoveryabuseispracticallyimpossibletogetawaywithsothereislittleornone;thediscoverysummaryjudgmentproceduresaresuchthattheissuesarewellframedforthecourt’sdecisionbytheconclusionofsummaryjudgment(eveniftrialisrequired);thespeedofthelocalcourtissuchthatcostsareminimizedcomparedwithsimilarsuitsinthestatecourts;thelocalcourt’suseofmagistratejudgmentinthesettlementprocessisefficientandadvantageoustoearlysettlements.

TheFederalCourtsystemworkswellasis,butlikeallhumanactivitiestimelyreviewofandrevisionstothesystemareappropriate.

Therulesenableonepartytousediscoverytomakethepriceofjusticeprohibitivelyexpensiveforanopposingparty.Facedwiththeastronomicalcostsofdiscovery,litigantsareforcedtosettle--notbasedupontherelativemeritsoftheirclaimsordefenses--butsimplytoavoidthecostofhavingtoproveordisprovethoseclaimsordefenses.Suchasettlementisnotconsistentwiththeendsofjustice.Suchasettlement,rather,isaninjustice.Rulesandproceduresshouldrequireearlymandatoryfulldisclosuresandkeyfactwitnessdepositionssothatcasescanberesolvedpromptly,eitheronsummaryjudgmentortrial.Courtsshouldhavenoposition,interestin,orinputonthequestionofwhetheroneorbothpartiesshouldsettleacase.

TheUSDCEDMichigandoesagoodjobofearly-oninvolvementindiscoveryissues.Theseeffortsareoftenunderminedbyboilerplateobjectionsthattypicallythenrequireamotiontocompelforallissuesincludingelectronicdiscoveryissues.Muchofthecostanddelaycomesfromthoseobjections,themotionsthatfollow,thereferraltothemagistratethebriefingprocessthenahearing.Mighttake1to2monthsthathavenowbeencutoutofthesubstantivediscoverytime.


ThiscasesettledprettyearlyonduetotheactiveinvolvementofMagistrateJudgeAndersonoftheE.D.Va.Ourclientfeltthatitgota"hearing"duetohispersonalinvolvement.TheE.D.Va.anditsspeedydocketshouldbeamodelforothercourts.

WhenattorneyscooperateasstressedbytheCourtsinareasonablemanner,tremendousexpensesandtimearesaved.ThefactthatmostFederalCivilcasesmoveasquicklyastheydoactuallysavesclientsmoneyonlitigationinthelongrun.

Greateruseofappearancesbyphonewouldbebeneficial.Increaseto30daysthetimetorespondtoacomplaintorcounterclaim.

FederalcourtjudgesaremorepatientthanArizonaSuperiorcourtjudgesinresolvingdiscoverydisputes.Federalcourtjudgesseemtohavemorepowertocommentontheevidencetothejury.FederalCourtjudgesarerequiredtomakefindingsoffactineverycaseandthereforedoabetterjob.InthesmallerArizonacountiesthejudgesarestillelectedandthesejudgestendtoruleinthemannerthatwillgetthemthemostvotes.

JudicialManagement

FederalJudgesusedtobetheshiningbeaconofprotectingtherightsoflittlepeople.Thathastoolongbeenlosttoanurgencytoclearthedocketandutilizejudicialdiscretiontotiltthebalanceofjusticeinfavorofbiggovernmentandbigbusiness.SMJarehandedoutfartoofrequently.EvenwhenajudgedeniesSMJ,thejudgetakessomanyswipesingrantingpartialSMJ’sthatitbecomesalmostimpossibletohaveafairdayincourtontheissuesthatbroughttheclientthereinthefirstplace.

Formyclients,generallyentrepreneursandsmallbusinesses,theproblematiccostsoffederalcourtdiscoveryarisenotfromtheRulesbutfromtheinconsistencywithwhichtheRulesareapplied.MyexperiencehasbeenthemoreinvolvementandconsistencytheJudgehasduringdiscovery,thelowerthecostsandmorelikelythecaseistosettleaheadoftrial.

Iappreciatetheopportunitytoansweryoursurvey.Unfortunately,thefederalcourtsfavorthewealthyandthemoreinfluentialfirmsthatplacepartnersonthebenchandoftenreceivemore"justice"thanthelessinfluentialfirms.

IdonotpracticeinanycourtsthathavemorerestrictivediscoverythantheTexasfederalcourts.TheunfairnessIperceiveinfederalcourtistheinabilitytogetanoralargumentonanymotion,theburdenofthepre-trialorder(whichtypicallyrequiresthebriefingofissuesthatthejudgesummarilydismisses)andtheinabilitytogetapromptrulingonadiscoverydispute,whichrewardsdelayandobstructionbytheresponder.

Inmyexperienceasanemploymentlawlitigatoritisthejudgeormagistratethatmakesthedifferenceastowhetherthefederalrulesofprocedureworkornot,andthiswillnotberemediablebyrulechanges.


Inthenamedcase,wehadavery"handson"judge,whoworkedwiththeparties,requiredearlysubmissionofpositionstohim(confidentially),metwithbothsidestogethertofacilitateanunderstandingofissuesandcosts,whichIbelieveenhancedsettlementdiscussions.

JudgesandMagistratesshoulddiscloseanyrelationshiptotheparties(pastorcurrent),includinganyclosefamilymembersthatmayhavebeenemployeesorareemployedbytheparties.Weneedmorephoneconferences!!!!

Judgesshouldimposemonetarysanctionsonlawyerswhoroutinelyabusediscovery.Inextremecases,thesanctionofremovingthelawyerfromthecaseshouldbeutilized.

Somuchoftheexperienceofacaseisinfluencedbythejudge,nottherules,thatitisdifficulttofocusjustontherulesasadiscreteelementofacase.Youcouldchangetherulesallyouwant,butthatwouldnotgiveyouconsistencyinapplicationacrossjudges,ifyougetthepoint.

Theattitudeoftheassignedjudgemakesallthedifference.

TheCourtsgivealotofleewaytodefendantstoobtainun-neededdiscoveryandwastetime.TheJudgesshouldbemorefirmincases,andabitharsherondefendantstocomplywiththediscoveryordersandtry/settlecasesmoreexpeditiously.

Theoverallefficiencyofjudicialadministrationwillbegreatlyadvancedifjudgesdismissedfrivolouscomplaintsand/orclaimsatanearlystageoftheproceedings.Litigantsaretoooftenforcedtodealwithclaimswithoutmeritandwithattorneysthatgatherthecouragetoprosecutethesamewithoutfacinganyconsequences.Whenonepresentsafrivolousargument,theoryorcomplaintthereshouldbeobjectiveconsequencesforsuchbehavior.

Thesingle,greatestcauseofincreasedlitigationcosts,especiallyindiscovery,isthereluctanceoftheCourtstoquicklydecidedisputes.Therequestsforcounselto"workitout"amongthemselvesmakesdelay(andrepeatedincidentsofdisputes)inevitable.IfthelawyerscouldworkitouttherewouldbenodisputefortheCourttodecide.

Anydecisionisbetterthannodecision.

Thetimeittakesforjudicialdecisionsonmotionsslowslitigation.

Magistratesarbitrarilydepriveplaintiffsofproperdiscoveryandallowdiscoveryabusesbydefendants.

Rules

(1)TheRule26disclosuresareawasteoftime.Theydonotreducetheamountofdiscovery.Theyonlyaddmoretasks,createadditionalbillingopportunitiesforattorneyspaidbythehour,andbecometraps.


Therulesinvoluntarydismissalsarecumbersome.Manytimesaplaintiffwillwishtodismisswithoutleaveofcourtandwithoutpermissionoftheotherparty.MuchlikeinTNstatecourt,thefedsystemshouldallowa"non-suit"thatwillputthecasetobedwithoutadditionalcoststotheplaintiff.Ifthedefendantswishtogetcostsfromaplaintiffafteranon-suit,theycouldhavedonethatwithRule11sanctionsifthecasewasw/omerit.Asitis,theclauseinthevoluntarydismissalrulesexposesplaintiffstosanction-likemeasures.

TherulesneedtoberevisedtoaddressarecentsituationIencounteredinthecasethatisthebasisforthissurveyrequest.Myclientwassuedbyahugecorporationthatallegedhecopiedtheirtextbooks/i.e.,copyrightviolations.

IfindthattheFederalCourtstendtobefarmorescrupulousintheirenforcementoftheRulesofCivilProcedurethanthatoftheirMarylandStatecounterparts.ItisthepredictabilityofRuleenforcement(orthelackthereof)ratherthantheparticularRulesthemselveswhichhavethegreatestdirectimpactuponthecostoflitigation/discovery.AslongastheRulesareenforcedfaithfullybytheCourts,costscanbekeptincheckandclients’expectationsproperlymanaged.

Itwouldbehelpfuliflitigantscouldexchangeandagreeonsearchtermspriortoproducingdocuments.Also,thesearchistheeasypartoftheprocess.Thetimeconsumingpartisweedingthroughthesearchresultsforrelevantdocuments.Becausethiscannotbedoneelectronically,itleadslitigantstoeitherproducemanyirrelevantdocuments,includingpossiblyprivilegeddocuments,ortoexpendagreatdealoftime(morethan30days)tosortthroughthedocuments.Therulesdonotrecognizethisreality.

OneoftheprimarycausesoftheincreaseinthecostofdiscoveryarethestringentrequirementsofRule702andtheDaubertdecision.AsaresultoftheincreasingnumberofDaubertchallenges,oftenfornootherreasonthanachallengingpartyuppingthecostofdiscoveryorpaddingtheirbill,expertsareforcedtospendthreeorfourtimesasmuchoftheclient’smoneypreparingDaubert-proofreportstoensuretheyarenotprecludedattrial.AportionofmypracticeisdevotedtoprosecutinganddefendingagainstDaubertchallenges,andIhaveseeninthelastfiveyearsanenormousincreaseinthecostoflitigationsurroundingeffortstoprecludeexpertwitnesseswhenthereisreallynobasistodoso.

Standardrulesregardingdiscoverycannotaddresstheintricaciesandnuancesofanindividualcase.Theattorneysinvolvedneedtobefreetoposetheinquiriestheyneedtodiscovertheparametersofthecase.

TheFederalRulesareagoodbutimperfectsystemrenderedevenmoreimperfectbythehabitualfailureofjudgestomakedifficultdecisionsinresponsetocompetingdiscoveryclaims.Theabilityofthejudiciarytounderstandthelegalunderpinningsofacaseinordertostructurediscoverysothatitisspeedyandinexpensiveisthemainissue.Magistratejudgeswhohandlediscovery,butnotsubstance,actuallyoftenfailtoappreciatetheinterrelationshipbetweenthetwothingsmeaningthatdiscoverygoesonandonaftertherelevantlegalissuesarecovered.


TheonlycomplaintIhaveabouttheFederalRulesaretherigidityoftheschedules.Theschedulesshouldbealittlemoreflexibletomeettheattorneys’otherobligationswhentheyarise.

Therulesshouldbeamendedtoallowapartytotakeonesubstitutionofjudgesasamatterofright.Thecourtsalsoimposetoostrictofdeadlinesondiscoveryandmotions.Thecourtsoftentreattheattorneysasthoughthependingcaseistheonlycasetheattorneyishandling.

SummaryJudgment

IfSummaryJudgmentwerenotinplay;discoverycostswouldbereduced.Toooftendefensefirmsrunupcostsandfeesindiscoveryjusttosetupasummaryjudgmentmotionthattheyfeelthey‘have’tofile.Summaryjudgmentisarguablyunconstitutional,anditsusehasbecometoomanyjudge’stoolsforavoidingtrial.

MybiggestissueisthatsomeJudgesitonmotionforsummaryjudgmentforyears.Asummaryjudgmentmotionormotiontodismissshouldbedecidedwithayear’stimeframe.

Mycasewasatrademarkinfringementcaseagainstanallegedcounterfeiterwhohadmentalhealthissuessomyresponsestomostquestionsprobablyshouldbedisregarded.Speakingmoregenerally,thebiggestproblemwithfederalcourt,andmystatecourtaswell,issummaryjudgment.Ifavorabolitionofsummaryjudgmentbut,failingthatrathermodestproposal,arequiredconferenceofcounseltoengagedinagoodfaithattempttoagreeontheuncontestedmaterialfacts.Also,frommylimitedexperiencewithit,discoveryofelectronicdataappearstobealogisticalandfinancialnightmare.Goodluck.

Mymainconcerninthefederalcourtsystemisthedegreetowhichthecourtgrantssummaryjudgmentmotionsascomparedtostatecourt.Theratioofsummaryjudgmentbenefitingdefendantsisverylarge.Inmanycases,itessentiallynegatestherighttotrialanddiscouragesearlyresolutionofclaims,sincecorporatedefendantsknowtheyhaveaverystrongchanceofattainingjudgmentbymotionevenwheredisputedfactsarepresent.

SummaryJudgmentmotionsshouldbeencouragedmorebyCourts.Itismyexperiencethatsummaryjudgmentmotionsareoftendisfavoredbyjudgesespeciallyearlyinthecase.ButsummaryjudgmentisthebestwayforCourtstodisposeofcasesearlywherepossible.

Rule12andTwombly

DiscoveryisabusedroutinelyinFederalandStatecourt.EnforcementofrulesofdiscoveryandabilitytoruleonmotionsismuchbetterinFederalCourtandprovidesmorecertaintyof[what]canbeexpectedgoingin.Achangeintherulestorequiremorefactpleadingshouldnotbeaburdentoanyone.Claimantsshouldbeexpectedtoknowthefactsonwhichtheybasetheirclaimsandamendmentisliberallygranted.


Ifmoredetailedpleadingisrequired,Iwouldbeconcernedthattheinitialstageofthecasewouldgetboggedinaseriesof"strategic"motionsformoredefinitestatement,motionstodismiss,demurrers,etc.,thatwetriedtogetawayfromwhennoticepleadingwasfirstadopted.

Inmyopinion,althoughinsomecasesdiscoveryisabusedunderthecurrentsystem,movingawayfromnoticepleadingandheighteninginitialdisclosurerequirementsisnotthesolution.Thatchangewouldonlyresultin(1)complaintsrifewith"informationandbelief"allegations,whichwouldunnecessarilycomplicateandconfuselitigation,and(2)insomecases,abuseoftheinitialdisclosurerequirements.Inaddition,giventhelargeamountofinformationthatmustbecollectedandreviewedgiventheubiquityofe-mail,etc.,therewouldbeenormouspracticalproblemsinherentincomplyingwithheightenedinitialdisclosureobligations.Clientswouldbeprejudicediftheysimplydidnothavetimetocollectandreviewallevidencepriortoinitialdisclosuredeadlines,andwerebarredfromusingthatevidencelaterinthelawsuit.

Myexperienceinthespecificcasequeriedisnottypical.Itwasa[deleted]personalinjurycasethatwentintodefault,judgmentwasenteredonthedefaultandthedefendantsattemptedtovacatedefaultandfailed.Thejudgmentwasappealedandthemattersettledduringtheappeal.Discoveryplayednoroleinthismatter.Withrespecttopracticeingeneral,IhavenotsomuchaproblemwiththepresentrulesasIhaveaproblemwithdilatorytactics,especiallybythelargerfirmsoneencountersinfederalpractice.Ibelievemoreassertivecasemanagementwouldassistindealingwiththesetacticswhichwouldbeusednomatterwhattherulesare.NoticepleadingisessentialtoprovideaccesstotheinjuredandIfindthatmanyjudgestendtousediscoveryasaweaponagainstproseandsmalllitigantstogettheircasesoutoftheircourtrooms.

Themostabusiveprocedurepresentlyisthe12bmotionsforearlydismissal.Aftertheplaintiffsurvivestwoorthreeattemptstheyarewithoutresourcestocontinuethefightanddiscoveryhasnotevenstarted.

Thereisaneedtorefinetheissuesearlyinordertopreventdiscoveryabuse.Underthecurrentregime,thepleadingsdonotadequatelyrefinetheissues,leavingpartiesandnon-partiesexposedtoansweringquestionsindepositionsthatare,atbest,marginallyrelevanttothecause,andatworstaretotallycollateral.Onesolutionwouldallowcounseldefendingawitnessbroaderauthoritytoinstructthewitnessnottoanswer.Foragooddiscussionoftheproblemofquestionsthatgotoofarafieldindeposition,andacomparisonofthedifferencesinstateandfederalcourtpracticeonhowthelawyerforthewitnessmayrespond,seeJudgeWettick’sopinioninAcriv.GoldenTriangleMgmt.AcceptanceCo.,142Pitts.L.J.225(1994).

Isupportheightenedpleadingrequirements,lessjudicialcasemanagement,andmoreliberaldiscovery

Morespecificpleadingruleswouldbemorebeneficialthanadditionalmandatoryinitialdiscoverydisclosures.Discoveryisalreadydifficulttocollectfromtheclient;additional


mandatorydisclosureswouldonlyincreasetheburdenandincreasemotionpractice.Ialsodealwithalotofproseindividualswhodon’tfollowtherulesanyway.Additionalrequirementswouldbeburdensomeonbothparties.Istrugglewithfollowingtheruleswhiletheproseindividualsdonot.

Electronicdiscoveryiskillinglitigation.Thecosts(andfearofspoliationclaims)areforcinglitigantstosettlecasesfartoearly.We’vetriedtocomeupwithsomecreativesolutionstoavoidthecosts(i.e.PerfectBarrierLLCv.WoodsmartSolutions,Inc.,2008WL2230192(N.D.IN))butit’sstillachallenge.Notsurewhattheansweris.Iliketheideaoffactbasedpleadings.

1.The"namedcase"hasnotended;wejusthadtheENEConference.Thus,Iskippedoverthefirstfewsections.2.WhenaMagistrateJudgehasexperienceinthesubject-matter,he/sheoftenfacilitatesearlyresolutionofthecase.However,whenajudgehaslimitedcivil-lawexperience,thecasesdonotsettleearlyon.3.Istronglydisagreewithanyproposaltolimitmotionpractice.Rule12and56Motionshelpdisposeofunmeritoriousclaims.4.Istronglydisagreewith"earlyfirmtrialdates"--itistooexpensiveforsmallerparties.Mostcasessettle,andashortpre-trialtime-framewouldresultinprejudicingpartieswhoarelesswealthythantheiropponents.Moretimeallowsforpaced-outdiscovery,experts,andsettlementnegotiations.Thankyou.

Inmystate,California,theabsenceofnoticepleadingresultsinsloppy,undisciplinedpleading,andundueexpenseinpleadingchallengesthatgonowhere.Inmyopinion,theFRCPisaworkofcollectivegenius.

MycriticismofFederalCourtisthattherearetoomanyrules.Everytimeacourttriestocontrollitigationwithbroadpolicies,itendsupcreatingmoreworkthatmayormaynotbeappropriateforallcases.ThereasonFedCt.costmorethanstatecourtisthatpartieshavetogetcompletelyreadyfortrialtooearly(allthepreparationmoneyisspent),andallmotionshavetobeinwritingandsupportedbywrittenbriefs;allthatformalbriefingisexpensive.InStatecourtyoucanappearbeforeajudgewithminimalwrittenpleading/motion/briefsandexplaintheproblemandgetaruling.ProcessislesscostlythantheformalFedCtprocess.Frankly,defendantsusetheincreasedcostandformalityofFedCtasanintimidationtacticagainstPlaintiffs.

TheRulesworkratherwellnow.Ithinkitwouldundulyincreasethecostoffederallitigationtorequiremoredetailedpleadinginthecomplaintandtofurtherrestrictdiscovery.TherulespresentlyallowJudgesandMagistratestotailordiscoveryasfitsthecasebeforethemandIthinkthoserulesshouldstaythewaytheyare.Heaviersanctionsfordiscoveryabusewouldleadtogreaterreformandcompliancewithobligationsthanchangingtherules.

Noticepleadingisnotaproblemsincemostgoodattorneyswillgobeyondtherequirementsofnoticepleadinginordertopersuadetheopposingpartytosettle.Thefinalquestionwasnotwellwordedintermsofwhetheritwouldbe"better"formorecasestogo


totrial.Betterforwhom?Betterfortheclient,thecourt,orthepublic?Probablynot.Betterfortheattorneyswhoarebillingatanhourlyrate?Mostdefinitely.

Namedcasewasdisposedofon12(b)(1)and12(b)(6)motionpriortoanswer,priortoschedulingorderandanydiscovery.


Mostofmyfederalworkisplaintiffs’civilrightsworkinwhichdiscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformationisnotespeciallysignificant.Governmentattorneysarefairlyaccustomedtotheprocessandgenerallycooperativeinreducingcoststobothparties.

Miscellaneous

Mynamedcasewasanimproperlyfiled"removal"byaproseparty.WehadtowaituntiltheschedulingconferenceforMagistrateWatanabetostronglyconvincetheremovingpartythathehadnobasisforremovalandfeeswouldbeassessedifhedidn’tvoluntarilydismiss.Thisshouldhavehappenedearlier.

Ienteredthiscaseafterdiscoveryandinitialmotionhearingsbutbeforeatrial.Myclientfiledprose.Idiscoveredthattherewasanunresolvedstatesuitstillpendingfrom20yearsagoontheexactsamesubjectmatter.

WeveryseldomseethetrialjudgeinanyoftheFederalcourtcasesuntilargumentortrial.Ibelievethatisamistake.Phoneconferencesarenotthesameasapersonalconference.

AU.S.DistrictJudgeappointedmetoreplacearetainedattorneyforaplaintiffwhobroughtacivilrightscaseundersection1983,contendingthepoliceofficerusedexcessiveforceinmakinganarrest,inviolationofthe4thAmendment.Thecourtoverruleddefensemotions.Thecasewastriedtoajurytwice.Thefirstjurywasunabletoreachaverdict.Thecourtgrantedamotionformistrialandresetthecase.Thesecondjuryreachedaverdictforthedefendantpoliceofficer.

AnswersassumethatRule26disclosuresarenot"voluntary"disclosures.

Iwasalawclerktoaveryproactivefederaljudge,andIobservedmorethan70trialsinthreedistrictsoninter-circuitassignments.

Ifthesurveywassentsooneraftertheconclusionofthetrial,Imighthaverememberedmoreoftheinformationrequested.

Inmypractice(federaltaxlitigation),thereisoftenverylittlerequiredinthewayofevidenceandmanyofourcasesareresolvedeitherondispositivemotionsorbystipulation.


Inthepresentcasesettlementwasreachedearlyon,astheclientwasnotpreparedtospendthemoneytoproceed.Wesufferedeconomiccoercion.

Justiceisdirectlydependentuponthequalityoftheattorneysandthejudge.

Letmeknowhowwecanprovideadditionalservice.

Manyofthequestionsdidnotapplytothisparticularcase,whichwasdismissedatanearlystagewiththeothersiderefusingtoprovideanyinformaldisclosurebeforeDefendants’MotiontoDismisswasdecided.

NeedsmorefederalfundingtoincreasetheteamofFederalJudicialOfficerssoastoallowmorecasestoreachthejury.

Thenamedcasesettledatanearlymediationconferenceorderedbythejudgeandadministeredbythemagistratejudge.Thisearlyinterventiondramaticallydecreasedthecostsofthecaseandwassuccessfulinbringingaboutaquickresolution.

Theparticularlitigationaboutwhichyouinquiredisanadmiraltycase.IpracticeprimarilyadmiraltylawandgetalongwellwiththeotheradmiraltypractitionersinthestateofFlorida.Westreamlinediscoverywhichmakeslitigationcosteffectiveandbeneficialtoclient.

SurveyComments

Mostofthesequestionsdonothavesimpleyesornoresponses.Eachcasevarieswiththesubjectmatter,thepartiesandtheattorneys.Some,unfortunately,makediscoveryburdensome,whileothersmaketheprocesslessexpensiveandproductive.

Someofthequestionsmighthavebeenanswereddifferentlyifthechoicesallowedconsiderationofcivilitybetweenadversariesandeconomicdisparityoftheparties.

Thankyoufortheopportunitytoparticipate.Thequestionsweregood.

ThankyoufortheopportunitytoprovidemyopinionsoflitigationanddiscoveryintheFederalCourts.

Thequestionsweregenerallyclear;ablogwithgiveandtake,andachancetoprovidecontext,maybeabletoprovideaddedinsight.

Thesurveydataisincompletewithoutaquestionaboutthenatureofthecase.

Thesurveyseemedtobedraftedfromthepointofviewthatthereistoomuchdiscovery.OurexperienceisthatUS

Willbeinterestedtoseeresults.


Eachcaseisreallysodifferent.Itisdifficulttoanswergenerallyforthosequestionscallingforsuchananswer.


RespondentsRepresentingPrimarilyDefendants


Iamanemploymentdefenseattorney,practicinginthefederalcourtforsome22years.InareassuchasFairLaborStandardsActovertimeclaims,Plaintiff’sattorneysabusethediscoveryprocesstocoercesettlement.

Thebestwaytocontrolcostsistoinsistthatthediscoverybedesignedtorelatetotheexistingclaimandnotbeafishingexpeditiontodiscoverwhatothermattersyoucanusetoexpandorcreatenewandenhancedclaims.

AsubstantialpartofmypracticeinvolvesdefensecasesinwhichthePlaintiff’scounselseeksvoluminousdocumentrequestsinordertoforcetheDefendanttosettlethecaseratherthanexpendtheman-hourstoproduceand/orfightthediscoveryrequests.Manyofthetopicsmerelyseektoobtaincorporategovernancedocumentsorinternalproceduresorprocessesthathavenothingtodowiththecase.Thefederalcourtshavelittletimetothoroughlychallengethese"fishingexpeditions"andintheSDFla,somejudgeshaveevenissuedstandingorderswarningattorney’snottoopposediscoverybasedon"relevancy."CorporateDefendantshavelittleprotectionagainst"private"issuesthathavenothingtodowiththeactualclaimsinthelawsuitotherthantoforceproductionandexpense.

Courtsshouldbemorepunitive,includingdismissalsofclaims,forpartieswhofailtotimelycooperateindiscovery.Thefailureofpartiestocooperateindiscovery,especiallyviaearlywrittendiscoverysuchasinterrogatoriesandrequeststoproduce,causedelaysandresultinarippleeffectonschedulingordersenteredbyCourts.Oftenthisprejudicesthepartyrequestingthediscoveryasitrelatestofuturedeadlines,suchasdispositivemotiondeadlines.Ifthepartiesknowthatcourtsaregoingtoenforcetherulesthatapplytodiscoverythisshouldservetorelievethisproblem.

Federaldiscoveryrulesareadequate.Problemsarisefrominadequatecomplianceorintentionalstonewalling.Motionstocompelareavailablebutthetime,cost,andultimateswearingcontestaboutwhohaswhatmakethisalessthanattractiveoption.OurlocalCourtusesamirrorversionoftheFederalRulessotheresponsetoquestionswhichassumeadifferentstatecourtsystemmaybemisleading.

Generallyspeakingonewouldhopethat,whendiscoveryputsinformationonthetable,thepartieswouldbeabletoreachsettlement.Ifinditfrustratingthatresponsestowrittendiscoveryandanswersareoftenrelativelyuselessintermsoflearninganythingnewbecauserespondingattorneysaresovagueorusestocklanguagewithlittleapplicationtotheparticularcaseinquestion.

Generallyspeaking,thediscoveryburdensarefairtobothparties.Iprefercourtrulesthatpermitinformalletterbriefsorletterrequeststothecourtforresolutionsondiscoveryissues,ratherthanfilingdiscoverymotions.Ontheotherhand,Ioftenfindthatplaintiffs’attorneysdonotfullycomplywithRule26(a)disclosurerequirements,thusnecessitating


meetandconferefforts.Iwouldfavoreasyaccessibilitytoamagistratetoresolvesuchomissions.

Ibelievethefederalcourtsshouldadoptanexplicitrulethatdiscoverymustbeproportionaltowhatisatissueinthecase.Thebiggestabuseofdiscoverycomesincaseswherethepartieshaveasymmetricalburdens.Whentheburdenisessentiallyequalontheplaintiffanddefendant,cooperationismostlikely.

Igenerallyrepresentdefendants.Whilediscoveryis,ofcourse,necessaryinmostcases,courtsnormallyfailtorecognizethataplaintiffbyspending30secondsdraftingarequestwhichreads"Pleaseproduceall..."cancauseadefendanthundredsofhoursofworkandgreatdisruptionofitsoperations.Similarlyitseemstobethegameofmanyplaintiffs’lawyerstopropoundvoluminousdiscoveryearlyinthegamewhenthedefenseattorneyhasnotreallygottenafeelforthecaseorthenatureofhisclient’srecords,andthenbecomeoutragedandmoveforsanctionsorexclusionofevidencebecausesomethingisdiscoveredsomelatertimeduringthecase-preparationprocess.Thediscoverygamefrequentlyseemsmoreoftendirectedtowardnotgettinginformation(followedbythethreatofsanctions)thanitistowardactuallygettingusefulinformation.

Ihavemoretroubleinsomestatecourtswithdiscoveryabusethaninthefederalcourts.

Incasesotherthanthespecificcase,wehaveseenveryabusive,disruptivediscoveryrequestsrequiringaninordinateamountofgovernmenttimefornodiscernablepurpose.Motionsforprotectiveordersnarrowitsomewhatbutnotenough.

Inmypractice,theplaintiff’ssideabusesthediscoveryprocessbecauseIrepresentmostlylargecompaniesthatholdallormostofthearguablyrelevantinformationanddocuments.Iroutinelyreceive50+documentrequestsaskingforyear’sworthofmarginalorirrelevantdata.Thecostofwadingthroughtherequestsbecomesexorbitant.Myclientstypicallycan’tmakeoverreachingdiscoveryrequestsbecausetheindividualplaintiff’sontheothersidesimplydon’thavemuchinformation(beyondtheirpersonaltestimony)thatisrelevanttothecase.Courtsoughttogetinvolvedearlyinaskingtheparties(particularlytheplaintiff)whattheyplanonaskingforindiscoveryandwhy,andthenlimitingtheabusivetactics.

Inourcase,therehadbeenapriorstatecourtcasethathadbeendismissedvoluntarilybyplaintiff.Itwasre-filedunderanewtheoryandthenremovedtoFederalCourt.MuchofthediscoveryfromthepriorstatecourtcasewasusedintheFederalcase.Theattorneysgotalongwell.Someofthedefenseexpertswerecompanywitnessesandtherewasatreatingphysicianusedbybothsides.

Insingleplaintiffemploymentcasesinmypracticeareathelawyerstendtocooperateindiscoveryandhaveveryfewdisputes.IamnotsureifthatisbecauseofthefederalbenchinAlabamaorbecauseofthetemperamentofthelocallawyers.


Moresanctionsshouldbeimposeduponlawyerswhodonotfollowthefederalrules.Federaljudgesshouldparticipatemoreinthelitigationprocess.

Myfederaljudicialdistricthasgoodlocalrulesandprocedures.Lawyersherearegenerallyreasonableandcollegial.Frustrationsofandexpensetolitigantswouldbereducedifallofthedistrictjudgesinthedistrictwerediligentandefficient.

MyprimaryFederalCourtlitigationinvolvesdefendingthemunicipalityforwhichIwork.Asasalariedattorney,Idonotdealwithmuchofthediscoverycostissuesthatothersface.

Simpletortcasesarenotusuallypronetodiscoveryabuses.Butcorporatelitigationcasesarefraughtwithabuse.

Thebiggestabuseofdiscoveryisunlimitedrequestsbypartieswhodon’twantorneedthedocuments,etc.thattheyareseeking,butonlypropoundrequeststodriveupcostsforopponents.Courtsaregenerallynotinclinedtodealwithdiscoveryandothercollateraldisputesuntilandunlesseverythingiswayoutofcontrol.

Thecaseinissuewasa1983falsearrestaction,andtheplaintiffs’counselwasmorethanhappytodriveupthecostsofdiscoverybecausesheknewshewouldbeabletorecoverthemfromthedefendantsifsheweretoprevail,via42USC1988.Wehadatoughcasetodefendandweremotivatedtosettle,butatthesametimewedidnotwanttorewardherfordrivinguptheatty’sfeesandcosts,whichborenorelationtotherealistic"value"ofthecase-Also,untilwehadreachedtheseconddayoftrial,shewouldnotbudgefromridiculouslyhighsettlementdemands.Weultimatelysettledforalumpsumof$225,000,leavingittoplaintiffsandtheircounseltoallocatethefundbetweenthem.

Thediscoveryabusesinmypracticeprimarilyinvolveexcessivedepositionhours.Ourlocalpracticeisprettygoodaboutthis.Asagovernmentlawyer,litigationcostsarenotthedrivingforceinsettlement.

Theplaintiff’spersonalinjurybaristhebiggestreasonfordiscoveryabuse.Theydonotplanwisely,andkeepmovingtheirclientsfromdoctortodoctorwhendefensecounselpaintsthemintoanunfavorableposition.TheCourtsshouldfrownondoctorshoppingwhichwillreducediscoverycosts(i.e.depositions).

Thereasonablenessofdiscoverycostsisdirectlyrelatedtothereasonablenessoftheattorneys.NoamendmenttotheFederalRulescanhaveasignificantimpactonthat.

Thespecificcasereferredtohadaplaintiff’sattorneywhowascompletelynon-responsiveandfailedonmultipleoccasionstopreparethejointstatusreporttothecourtwhichresultedinmyclienthavingtoexpendfundstofilemultiplereportstothecourtwithdeclarationsexplainingthesituationeachtimethecourtsentitbackforajointreport.Nosanctionwaseverleviedonplaintiffforthefailuretocooperateandtheburdenfelltomyclient,whichwasdisappointing.


Thissurveyiswaytoolong.EveryoneknowsthereistoomuchdiscoveryinFederalCasesandwaytoomuchabuseofdiscovery.

Ibelievetherulesareadequate.Thehesitancyofjudgestoenforcetherulesinapracticalwaytopreventlawyerabusesisthecoreofsuchproblemsastheyexist.Thebottomquartilelawyersgetawaywithtoomuchandthatiswhatgenerallycreatestheproblems.

DiscoveryCosts

Thetotalcostsoflitigationwereprimarilybasedontheattorneyhoursofthe2governmentlawyersrepresentingthedefendantinthiscase,usinghourlyratesof$108.75and$166.88.

42USCSec.1988andotherattorneyfeesprovisionsvastlyincreasethecostoflitigationandprovideanunequalincentiveforplaintiffstoobtainsettlementonnon-meritoriouscases.Whenattorney’sfeesare5to10timesacompensatorydamageawardthesystemisbroken.Attorneyfeesshouldnotbethemotivatingfactorinsettlingcasesandunfortunatelyitis.

1.Theparticularcaseinquiredaboutwasjudiciallydeterminedbeforetheinitialdisclosurestage.2.DiscoveryiscostlyandoftennotwellmanagedbytheCourt.3.Activecasemanagement,includingconsideringstageddiscovery,wouldbehelpful.4.Earlysettingoftrialdateswouldalsohelpavoidextendeddiscoverycosts.5.Ithinkreformisneededandapplaudyourefforts.

Costandwitness/clientconveniencewouldbemeasurablyadvancedbygivinguporlimitingthepractice(atleastlocally)ofthe2weektrailingdocketfortrialassignment.WhileIrecognizeit’sdonetoincreasetheCourt’sutilizationoffacilitiesandcasemanagement,itisextremelydifficulttojuggleschedulestoaccommodatetheextratimeneededfortrialonanuncertain2weekbasisandparticularlydifficultwithwitnessandclientavailability/scheduling.

Duetotheliberaldiscoveryrules,thecostofdiscoveryisfardisproportionatetothevalueofthecaseinalmostallcases.

Federalcourtiswaytooexpensiveformostcompanies.Veryacademicapproachgenerally-federalcourtsummaryjudgmentcostsalmostasmuchasastatecourttrial.

Istronglyrecommendmorejudicialoversightofdiscoverytolimitthescopeofdiscovery.Open-endeddiscoveryrequests,whichresultinlargevolumesofdiscovery(mostofwhichisuseless),arearealhassle,andarenotworththetimeandexpense,fromacost/benefitperspective.

IfIhaveonecomplaintwiththeFederalsystem(ingeneral)itwouldbethat,insomecases,theJudge’sfailuretoruleonMotionstoDismissand/orMotionsforSummaryJudgments(sometimesfor6monthsormore)protractsDiscoveryandthusthecostsofthecase,


whichcouldhavebeenlimitedbytheJudgerulinginatimelyfashion.IhavehadJudgeswhoseeminglycompletelyignoreReminderMotionsthathavenotbeenmadeonMotionsfiled.

Inmyexperience,thecostsofdiscoveryarehigherinstatecourtbecausestatecourtjudgesimposevirtuallynolimitationsondiscoverywhilefederaljudgesreliablyimposereasonablelimitationsondiscoverywhenissuesarepresentedtothem.Thatisonereasontheplaintiffsbarinmystateisturningtostatecourtmorefrequentlythanfederalcourt,whichisdisappointing.

Inthiscase,thelitigationcostsandthecostsofdiscoverywerereallyamootpointbecausethepartiessettledthecaseveryearlythroughfacilitation.Also,ingeneral,Idon’tbelievethatthecostsofdiscoveryorlitigationaretoomuch.Mostofmypracticeisdefendingsec.1983cases,andmycomplaintisthatthethreatofattorneyfeesbeingawardedtoplaintiffsmakesthecasessettleforfartoomuch.IntheMoorecase,itsettledforasmuchas10timeswhatitshouldhavebecauseofsec.1988attorneyfees.

SomePlaintiffs’attorneysuseexpansivediscoverytoharassdefendantsandforcesettlement.Theexorbitantcostofdiscovery,especiallyunnecessarylonghoursofdepositions,sometimesforceattorneytosettlecasesthatarefrivolous.Discoveryrequestsshouldbenarrowlytailoredtoaddresstheissuesraisedinthecomplaint.Courtsseemtobereluctanttolimitthescopeofdiscovery,evenininstanceswhereitisbeingabusedbyopposingcounsel.Thereshouldbealimitastonumberofhoursawitnesscanbedeposed,withoutleaveofthecourt.

ThecaseyouaskedaboutwasanERISAcase,sodiscoverywasnotmuchofanissue.Inmostnon-ERISAcases,discoverycanbeabigcostfactor,especiallywherethejudge/magistrateisnotwillingtomakerealdecisionsearlyonaboutthescopeofdiscovery.Abiggerproblemthatyoushouldlookintoisthecourts’inabilityorunwillingnesstoenforcedeadlinesonceimposed,whichdragscasesoutandalsosignificantlyincreasescostsfordefendants.I’mnotaskingforjudgestomicromanageortobeunreasonablewithrequestedextensions(attysneedjudges’cooperation),butwhenonesidecontinuallyignoresdeadlines,draggingthecaseout,theothersideshouldbeabletolooktothecourtforrelief.

ThiscaseinvolvedADA/Cal.statelawdisabilityaccessclaimsinaretailstore.ThereareliterallythousandsofthesecasespendingintheCaliforniafederalcourts.Statutoryattorneysfeesistheprimarypurposeofthesecases(sincedamagesarecappedbystatuteat$1K),andtheprohibitivecostofdiscovery(whichcouldpotentiallybeawardedasattorneysfees)actuallyservesasadisincentivefordefendantstolitigateANYofthesecases,99.9%ofwhichareblatantlyfrivolous.Ifthecostofdiscoverywerenotsohigh,thesecaseswouldberesolvedinarationalmannerrelatingtotheunderlyingmerits,notthecostoflitigation.Thesystemisadisservicetoallinvolved,andmakesamockeryoftheprocess.


Timeproblemsaredirectlyrelatedtothenumberofpartiesandhowmanypeoplehaveto"touch"thediscovery,i.e.AnswerstoInterrogatories,AnswertoRequesttoProduceandworkingaroundpeople’sschedulesfordepositions.

DiscoveryProcess

3-4monthstocompletediscoveryinmostcasesiswoefullyinadequateandwealmostalwayshavetomovethecourtformoretime.

Discoveryabuses,bothintermsofexcessiverequestsandfailuretoproduce,arebestresolvedwhenthejudgeassertivelyappliestheexisting(aswellasanyrevised)rulesandtakesapracticalandrealisticapproachtodiscoveryrequests.

Themosteffectiverulechangehasbeentherequirementofvoluntaryinitialdisclosures.Inmostcases,inlieuofidentifyingdocuments,Ivoluntarilyproducethedocumentswiththeinitialdisclosuresinthehopeofnarrowingdiscovery.

Adiscoveryplanagreedtobyallpartiesandapprovedbythejudgewouldallowforaroadmapforthediscoveryprocessandabudgetconcerningthecostsofdiscoverycouldbepreparedfortheclient.

Alittlemoreflexibilityandunderstandingregardingdiscoverydeadlines;especiallyinregardtotimingofmediations.

Discoveryisbroader,andisevenmoreburdensomeinstatecourtthaninDistrictCourt.Thediscovery"problem",ifany,hasnothingtodowiththeDistrictCourts.PleasedonotattempttocureanydiscoveryabusesinDistrictCourtbyturningtheDistrictCourtintosomesortof"rocketdocket"withseverelimitationsondiscovery.

Discoveryistooexpensive,burdensomeandmostlyirrelevant.Earlypre-discoverysummaryjudgmentmotionsshouldbeencouragedwhereappropriate,suchascopyrightcaseswherethemotionisongroundoflackofactionablesimilarity.Partiesshouldnothavetogothroughdiscoveryandonlythenbepermittedtomakedispositivemotionwhencasecanberevolvedbymotionwithoutdiscovery.

Discoveryproceduresshouldbetailoredtothetypeofcasebeinglitigated.

Discoveryworksbestwhenthepartiesandtheirlawyerscooperate.Thecourt’sroleisbasicallytoactasarefereewhentheydon’t.

Discoverywouldbemoreefficaciousifarealisticdefinitionofrelevancewereusedinthediscoveryprocess.

FederalCourt’saremoredemandingbutIthinkthisleadstobetterandmoreefficientlawyering.Aheightenedcomplaintrequirementwillassistinnarrowingtheissuesearlier.Unfortunately,aheightenedrequirementisnotaseasyforadefendant’sattorneywhois


justlearningofthecasewhenitcomesinthedoor.Ifthereissuchaheightenedrequirement,the20daystorespondshouldbeatleastdoubled.Thanks.

Generally,itisverydifficulttosay"allcases"shouldbesubjecttoanything.IthinkthepresentRulesworkintermsofidentifyingcasesearlyonas"standardorcomplex"aslimitingdiscoveryaccordingly.Blanketrulesseldomworkwell.

Iamadamantlyagainstanyfurthermovetowardrequiringpartiestoidentifyandproduceinformationtotheopposingpartyforwhichtheopposingpartyhasnotasked.TheothersideoughttobethoughtfulenoughtoknowwhatkindofinformationitwantsandtoaskforitandtheoriginalRule26,forexamplewhichrequiredlawyerstodeterminewhatwouldberelevanttothecaseandturnitovertotheotherside,justputhonestandconscientiouslawyersatadisadvantagevis-à-vissloppyordishonestlawyerswhosimplywouldnotexerciseduediligenceincomplyingwiththerule.Moreover,requiringthelawyerononesidetotryanddeterminetheuniverseofinformationtheothersideorthecourtmightdeemrelevantisoverlyburdensomeandunfair.

IamadmittedandpracticeinmultipleFederalCourts.Thissurveywasdifficultbecauseofthevastdifferencesincourtproceduresamongthevariouscourts.Inmyexperience,someworkmuchbetterthanothers.Inotherwords,somecourtsareverygoodateffectivelyandefficientlyresolvingdisputeswhileothers,frankly,createunnecessaryandcostlyrequirements,hurdlesandroadblocks.Soit’sdifficultto"evaluate"theRulesinanymeaningfulfashionacrossthevariousFederalCourtspreciselybecausethe"Rules"arenotapplieduniformlywhenitcomestoactualcases.AllinallItrulyenjoyFederalCourtcasesandprocedure(typicallyvastlysuperiortomostStateCourts)butlikeallthingsinlife,FederalCourtsarenotperfecteither.

Ibelievethereshouldbefocusonthemattersthatcanbediscovered.Alltoooften,plaintiffsseekirrelevantinformationonissuesespeciallydocumentrequests.Ialsofindbecausethereareveryfewtrialsanymore,depositionswhichshouldbeusedtoascertainwhatanindividualsknowsturnsintolawyersdoingtrialcross-examination.Also,Ifind90percentoftranscriptisuselessbecausethelawyersaskquestiononissuesthathavenorelevancetothecase.Ithinkwhatwouldhelpindiscoverydisputesisattheinitialrule16conferencethepartiesshouldstipulatetoallfactsthatarenotindispute.Fromthereagreetothedisputedfactsandthenonlyallowdiscoveryonthoseissuesandplacetheburdentherequestingpartytoshowhowcertaininformationtheybelieveexistisrelevanttothedisputedfacts.

Idefendlocalentitiesandtheiremployeesincivilrightscases.Anyuseofsimplifieddiscoveryandcasemanagementwouldrequiretheflexibilityforadefendanttooptoutofacompressedtrialsettinginordertogetatimelypre-trialrulingonimmunityissues.Caseswhichhavepre-trialdefensessuchasimmunitydonotfitwellwithinaonesizeapproachtocasemanagement.


IpracticeextensivelyinFederalCourtsacrossthecountryandbeforeadministrativeagencies(NLRB)wherediscoveryisnotallowed.ThequalityofjusticeinFederalCourtisnotimprovedwithdiscovery.Theoutcomeswouldbethesamewithoutdiscovery.

Istronglyagreewiththeconceptofbroadenedmandatorydisclosures.Forexample,insomeofmymorecomplexcasesinstatecourt,thejudgewillorderattheoutsetthatthepartiesturnovertheirrelevantdocumentsandfilestoeachotherwithoutformaldiscovery.Thishasproventobeanefficientwayforbothsidestoevaluatethemeritsofthecaseearlyonandhasledtoearlysettlement.

Iwouldliketoseestandardforcomplaintsbehigher.Toomaytimeswedefendcaseswhichallegedifficulttounderstandclaimsorclaimsthathavenofactualsupport.

IfInitialDisclosuresweretobeexpandedorincreased,itwouldbeimportantthattherebemoretimeforsuchdisclosures.

In1983cases,discoverymaybeabusedtoincreaseattorneys’feesandapplypressuretosettlecases.Thismaybeapatternwherestatutoryattorneys’feesexist.Itisnotuncommonforthefeestofarexceedthevalueofthecase,andultimately,summaryjudgmentisawarded.Perhapsphaseddiscoveryshouldbemandatedifthelegalissuescanbereadilyseparatedfromthedamagesissues.ManyJudgesisthisdistrictofferphaseddiscovery,butarecognizantthatthecasemustbe"timely"resolvedand,assuch,donotemphasizethisoption.

InitialDisclosuresprovidevaluableinfoforcaseevaluation.Idonotthinkdiscoveryshouldbeartificiallylimitedregardlessofthecase.Therulesarefineastheyare.Thecostsofelectronicdiscoveryshouldfallonthepartyseektheinformation.

Liberaldiscoveryhaskilledeffectivelitigationandtrial.Electronicdocumentdiscoveryhascompoundedtheproblem.Thecostofdiscoveryneedstobeshoulderedbythepartyseekingit,andinanyeventshouldbelimited.Mandatorydisclosures,enforcedbyagoodfaithstandard,couldstreamlinethediscoveryprocessandletcasesgototrial.

Partiesshouldhavetoturnoverwhattheyhavethathelpsthemandwhathurtsthem.Mostdiscoveryisawasteoftimeandthemajorabuseisobjectionstodocrequestsandinterrogatories.

Problemswithdiscoveryinthefederalcourtusuallyarisefromtwosources-(1)overlyliberaldiscovery,leadingtosignificantdisputesand(2)eithertherulingofthedisputeswithoutformalmotion,resultinginanadequateappellaterecord,or,failuretoruledisputesinatimelyfashion.Moreover,manypartiesfailtoabidebytherequirementsofRule26inInitialDisclosures,resultinginadditionaldiscoverybeingrequired.WhiletheRuleisclear,itislargelyignoredbymostplaintiffs.TheRulesshouldprovideeitherwithmorespecificitythoseitemsthataretobeproducedwithoutdiscovery,orJudgesshouldawardscostswhendiscoveryisrequiredthatwouldhavebeenavoidedhadgoodfaithdisclosuretakenplace.


Thankyouforlookingintothisimportanttopic.Idothinkdiscoveryhasbecometooautomaticandshouldbelimited.

ThecasethatIwasinvolvedinthatresultedinmyparticipationinthesurveywaspendingintheEasternDistrictofTexas.TheED-Texascanbeaverychallengingvenuefromadiscoveryperspectiveforacorporatedefendant.Thevenueandthejudgeswithinthedivision,probablymoresothanthediscoveryitself,playaveryimportantroleinourevaluationofacase.

TheeasiestwaytoaddressalloftheCenter’sconcernsistoamendtherulestopermittheprevailingpartytorecoverhis/herattorneysfees("costs").SuchcostsshouldbeassessednotastheuselessR11sanctionprocedurewhichrequiresthatapartyserveacopyoftheircontemplatedmotion,andnotasa"sanction"underrule37,butasamatterofcourse–i.e.costsshouldbeawardedasamatterofcoursetotheprevailingpartyonanynon-consentmatterthatisbroughtbeforethecourtasthecaseproceeds-e.g.motions,andtotheprevailingpartyattheendofthecase.Youwouldbeamazedhowmanyotherwisefrivolousclaims,casesandmotionswoulddisappear(andthecourtshouldbeallowedtoimposecostsnotonlyonthepartiesbuttheirattorneysdependingonthecircumstances).Regards.Thanksfordoingthis.

Thespecificcasethatresultedinmyparticipationinthesurveywasapro=bonomatterthatweagreedtotakeonafterthecasewasalreadyfiledandinthesummaryjudgmentstage.Weendeduptryingthecaseandobtainedagoodresultfortheclient.Overall,Ibelievethatfartoomanymattersinfederalcourthavetoomuchdiscovery,therulesaretoocumbersomeandthecourtstaketoomuchtimetodecidemotions.Noteverymotionneedsa15-20decision.Thepartiesneedquickdecisions,whethertheyareperfectornot,sothelitigationdoesnotgrindtoahalt.

Thesystemisgenerallyfairbutpossiblycouldbemoreefficientifmoreinitialdisclosureswererequired.

Thereneedstobeclearerblackletterlawregardingthescopeofdiscovery,ratherthanjudicialdiscretionwhichleadstoexpensivemotionsandprolongedlitigation.

Writtendiscovery,afterinitialdiscovery,isgenerallynotveryhelpful.

ElectronicDiscovery

E-discoveryandtheprocessofwhatacorporationhastodoisnotunderstoodbyFederaljudges.Thecostsassociatedwithe-discoveryareprohibitiveandusedasleveragebyplaintiffs.Attorneysfeesshouldbeawardedtoprevailingpartiesequally.

E-discoveryisnewenoughinthecourtsinwhichIpracticethat,byandlarge,themagistratejudgesandmostpractitionersarestillstrugglingwithfiguringouthowtohandle.Incidentally,thecaseselectedwasasmallcase,withlittleornoESIissues.TherearebeenothersinwhichI’vebeeninvolvedinwhichthecoststomyclientsofcompliance


haverunintothehundredsofthousandsofdollarsandhaverequiredseveralhearingsandmotionstocompelonbothsides.

Electronicdiscoveryaddressedtoconstantlychangingstoragemediaisaheavyburdenonpartiesrequiredtorespondandshouldbelimitedsharply.

Electronicdiscoveryisaprobleminoneofmyemploymentdiscriminationcases.Theplaintiff’sattorneyisharassingmyclientinhisprocedures.

Electronicdiscoveryisoutofcontrol.Courtsshouldrequireplaintiffstoshowwhatbenefittheyexpecttoreceivefromthediscoverysoughtandtheusetheyintendtomakeoftheinformationbeforeelectronicdiscoveryispermitted.Emaildiscoveryshouldbeseverelycurtailedbytimeframeandrestrictiveconcatenatedkeywordsearchesshouldberequiredtomassivelyreducethevolumeofemailthatcompaniesmustreview.

Electronicdiscoveryistoobroadandburdensomeondefendants,particularlynon-profitandgovernmentalentitieswithlimitedresources.Theelectronicdiscoveryallowedshouldbeseverelynarrowed,andprovisionsshouldbemadetoshiftthecostofelectronicandotherdiscoverytotheplaintiffs.

Electronicdiscoveryrulesneedreformastheyleadtooverkill,unfairimpositionofliabilityandresponsibilitiesoncounsel,andtacticalusetoincreasecostonaninstitutionalormunicipaldefendant,forinstance.

Electronicdiscoverywasnotalargefactorintheparticularcaseatissue.However,generallyspeaking,itisanextremelyburdensomeandexpensivepartofthediscoveryprocessinemploymentdiscriminationcasesonthedefenseside.

GoodMagistratesandexperiencedcounselcanmakeadifferencewhencommonsenseandsomeconsiderationofsubstantivelawisbroughttobearindealingwithdiscovery-especiallyelectronicdiscovery.

Iamaveteranofmanyfederalciviljurytrials.Thegenerallimitationsondiscovery(#ofinterrogs,#ofdeps,timelimits)havemadethingsbetternotworse.Electronicdiscoveryremainsaconcern,especiallyspoliationandcost.Thisisagoodprocesstotestthesystem.Keepitup.

Ifindthatelectronicfilinghasledtobetterjudicialmanagementofcases,whichinturnmakesdiscoveryflowbetter.Myexperienceinfederalcourtisthattheresolutionsofthecasesarequicker,andsurer,thaninstatecourt.

Ithinkinitialdisclosuresareuseless.Lawyersstillengageinthesamediscovery.Unlesswearetoimposemorelimitsondiscovery,initialdisclosuresshouldbeabandoned.RegardingESI,theCourtsshouldbemorewillingtoimposethecostofproductionintheseekingpartywithoutregardtothecorporatestatusoftheplaintiffordefendant.


Ithinktherulesonelectronicdiscoveryneedtobeimplementedoveralongerperiodoftime-andtheirprovisionsenforced-beforemakinganychanges.

Ithinktheuseofelectronicdiscoverycanandhasbeenabusedinfederalcourt.Saiddiscoveryshouldbelimitedandmanagedmorestringentlybythecourt.

InthecentraldistrictofCaliforniatherearelimitsondeposastotimeandnumberwhichIthinkgreatlyreducesdiscoverycostsbetweenstateandfederalcourts.However,nooneisreallyaddressingelectroniccostsupfrontandwhenyougetabigfirmgoingafterapublicentitytheycandriveupthecostsdramaticallyandIhavehadthemrefusetopayforanycostsofelectronicdiscoveryeven50dollarsforthedisc.

Moreclarityonwhatisexpectedasfarasthecollectionandproductionofelectronicdiscovery,whenthecostsaretooburdensomeandshouldbeshared,wouldreduceasignificantamountofexpenseineverycase.Thatissue,inalmosteverysinglecase,resultsinacontentiousdispute,asthesourcesofinformationavailablethesedaysareimmense,andtherequestingparty’sinitialpositionisthateverystonemustbeturnedover,regardlessofthecosttotheotherside.Clearerguidelineswouldreducethisuniversalpointofcontentionthatdoesnotfurtherthelawsuit,butsimplyaddsexpense.

Mypracticeisdevotedtothedefenseofclientsunderstatutorylawwithfeeshifting.Discoveryisutilizedinamajorityofcasessolelyforthepurposeofincreasingfeeclaimsforthebenefitofplaintiffs’counsel.Theincreaseinfeesbasedonelectronicdiscoveryandtheunwillingnessofthecourtstopaycloseattentiontothereasonablenessofthesefeesrendersthelegitimatedefenseofcasesundulycostly,withnobenefittoplaintiffs(onlytheattorneysseemtobenefit).Thematerialbenefitofdiscoveryislostwhenweighedagainstthefeeshiftingcostsandthewillingnessofthecourtstograntsuchfeesirrespectiveofthelegitimacyofthefees.

TheanswersregardingthiscaseareskewedasitwasaPSLRAcasethatwasdecidedonmotionand,hence,mutualdiscoverynevercommenced.Thediscoverycostsreflectedintheanswersaboveinvolveddocumentpreservationandinitialreviewofsomeinformation,includinggatheringofESIforpreparationpurposes.Havingsaidthat,thesheercostofESIdiscoverywouldhavecoercedasettlementhereifthematterwasnotdisposedofonmotion.

Thecostofrespondingtoelectronicdiscoveryrequestscanbetremendous.Thiscostisonerousformostdefendants.Thepartyseekingelectronicinformationshouldberequiredtomeetsomeburdenbeforebeingallowedtoproceed,andtherequestingpartyshouldberesponsibleforallcosts.Partiesshouldnotbeallowedtoconductfishingexpeditionswithelectronicdiscovery.Thanks.

Theelectronicdiscoveryinthecasediscussedinmyresponsesherewaslimited,butingeneral,theelectronicdiscoveryburdensimposedbythefederalrulesaremuchtooheavy.


Theexplosionofe-discoveryhasledtoabusivetacticsbyplaintiffswhennotconstrainedbyjudgesinclinedtowards"wide-open"discovery.Theseproblemsaremoreprevalentinstate,ratherthanfederal,jurisdictions.Requiringthepartyrequestinge-discoverytofrontthecosts,withthosecostsbeingtaxableascourtcostsattheconclusionoftheaction,wouldbeaterrificdeterrencetoe-discoveryabuse.

Therulesonelectronicdiscoveryareaminefieldforthepractitionerandwithoutadoubtshouldbechangedtobelessburdensome,lesscostlyandlessinclusive/intrusive.Itisridiculoustohavetotellaclientthateveryonehastosaveeverythingfromtheircellphones,personallaptops,etc.Noonedoesitsowhyhavearulethatsaysyoumust.

Maybeinmulti-billiondollarcasesitmakessense--intheroutinecase,itisbeyondanythingthatanyonecansayisreasonable.EveryoneessentiallydisregardsthoserulesineverycaseinwhichIhavebeeninvolved--i.e.weenteranagreementupfronttonothavetoproduceESIexceptinPDFform.Thisisonerulethateveryoneagreesshouldbechanged.

Thereisnoquestionthatsomethingneedstobedoneaboutelectronicdiscovery.Thecostsareincredibleandburdensome,eventoamulti-nationalcorporation.Thetimeandmoneyspentfinding,retrievingandreviewingtheinformationsoughtissofaroutoflinewithanybenefittheinformationhaseveryieldedinanycaseinwhichI’vebeeninvolved.Thatis,innocasehasthebenefitoutweighedthecost.

ThiswasasmallcaseforalargeclientIhaveandthecostofpotentialdiscoveryoutweighedthecostofthecase.Ibelievethecasesettledforlessthan$5,000priortogettingintotherealESIproduction.Intheotherlitigationwehaveforthisclientinfederalcourt,thisclientgenerallyspendsover$500,000permonthoncomplyingwithESIordersalone.Andthiscosthasbeenongoingforyears.Otherdefendantsarespendingmuchmore-ourclientisaminorplayer.Thisdoesnotincludeotherfederallitigationthecompanyisinvolvedin.Since2004,probably90%ofmytimehasbeenspendondiscoveryandalargeportiononESIincludingoverseeingateamofpeoplewhohavebeenworkingonESIcodingandproductionsince2004.

Unfortunately,thecaseyouselectedforconsiderationwasaverysimple,standardmarinecargodamagecaseinvolvingonlyamoderateamountofmoneyandopposingattorneyswithalonghistoryofpriordealingssothecasewassimpleandverycivilcomparedtotheaveragecase.

Unsureifadditionalmandatoryrequirementsaregoingtoservetheneedsofreducingthecostsoflitigation.Litigationneedstobetailoredtotheparticularitiesofeachindividualcase;tothatextent,theinvolvementofafederalmagistrateishelpfultopotentiallynarrowtheissuesrelativetothecaseordiscovery.

Youaskedaboutasimplecase.Thenewelectronicdiscoveryrulesandissuescreategreatabuseofdefendantsbycompetentplaintiffsattorneysandgreatlyincreasethecostof


litigationtodefendants.Atthisstagetherequirementsarenotwellknowtotheaverageplaintiffattorneyanditisnotanissueinmostcases.


Morejudgesarerequiringthepartiestodiscusssettlementattheinitialschedulingconferenceinacase.BecauseJudgeswanttopushsettlementsoearlyinlitigation,clearer,morepreciseallegationsinthecomplaintarerequired.

MyfederalpracticedealsmostlywithdefendingclaimsofFourthAmendmentviolationsunder42USC1983.Amajorproblemforthedefenseisthatplaintiff’sallegations,nomatterhowpreposterous,areassumedtobetrueuntilaRule56motionisfiled.

Theprobleminfederalcourtisnotdiscovery(althoughthenewelectronicdiscoveryrulesaretooburdensome).Thediscoveryinfederalandstatecourt(Texas)isnotmeaningfullydifferenttome.

Thiswasanatypicalcaseforme.UsuallythereiscontentiousdiscoveryoverpolicepersonnelrecordsandlengthyRule37jointmotions.JudgeWilsonisveryefficientingettingmatterstotrial,whichisatypicalaswell.

1.Individualssuinggovernmentshouldgenerallyberequiredtofileunsealingreleaseswiththeinitialcomplaint.2.Municipaldefendantsshouldgenerallybeafforded90days(ratherthan20days)torespondtoaninitialcomplaint.3.Judgesshouldbepermittedtorequireplaintiffstoprovideanearlysettlementdemand.4.Discoverynotplainlyrelatedtotheclaimsatissueshouldgenerallybebarred.5.Guidelinesshouldbeestablishedfordeterminingwhetherplaintiffsshouldhavetosharethecostsofproducingdiscoverythatisnotplainlyrelatedtotheclaimsatissue.

Byfarthebiggestwasteofresourcesinfederalcourtcomesfromnotdecidingdispositivemotionsinatimelymanner.IfCourtswouldruleonmotions,thepartieswouldhavemoreinformationonwhichtobasedsettlementnegotiationsandwouldnotengageinuselesslitigationandtrialpreparationincasesthatshouldbedismissedonsummaryjudgment.

Forme,themainadvantageoffederalcourtpracticeoverstatecourtpracticeisthatfederaljudgesarenotafraidtoruleondispositivemotions(andtograntthemwhereappropriate).Alsothefederalrulesonoffersofjudgmentarefarmoreeffectivethanthoseinstatecourt.

ForthemostpartwithafewnotableexceptionstheFederaljudiciaryisVastlymorefairandevenhandedthaninStatecourts.ThecostsandfairnesstothelitigantsismuchbetterinFederalCourt.InmostcasesthatIhaveinFederalcourtwefindasafehavenfromideologicalandpoliticalfavoritismintheStatecourts.TherearefartoomanycountiesinTX.WhereasadefendantyouwillNOTgetafairshakeintheStatecourtduetoideologicalandpoliticalconsiderationsofthelocaljudiciary.Thisresultsinmassivelyhigherbillstodefenseclientsinthoseforums.TheFederalcourtsdoa100timesbetterjobindispensingjusticethandotheStatecourts.


Generally,myexperienceinFederalCourthasbeenverypositive.ThereismorehandsoncasemanagementinFederalCourtthanStateCourt,andIwouldbehesitanttoreviseprocedurestoincludemorejudicialcontrol,ortolimitdiscovery.Itisn’tbrokensodon’ttinkerwithittoomuch!

Iamgenerallyverypleasedwiththepracticeinthefederalcourts.

Ibelievethatoverall,thefederalsystemismuchmoreefficientandcosteffectivetolitigatecasesthenthestatecourtsystemsandinthelastyear,IhavehandledcasesinVermont,RhodeIsland,PennsylvaniaandNewJersey.Manytimes,inthestatecourtsystem,discoveryismuchmoreburdensomeandthereislittlejudicialinvolvementorinteraction.Thatisnotthecaseinthefederalsystem.

Ihavefoundfederalcourttobefairandmoreeffectiveinlitigatingclaimsthanstatecourt.Therulesareveryfairasis.Rushingcasestotrialismoreburdensomeandlesseffectivethanlettingthecaseprogressnaturallysinceallcasesarenotthesame.Inmyopiniontherulesaregoodwheretheyarenow.Iwouldurgethoseinvolvedtotinkerwiththeruleslessanddevotethattimetoadjudicatingcases.Thereisconfidencetobefoundinconsistency,notconstantchange.

Iholdthefederalcourtsinhighesteem.However,asinstatecourts,amorestringentapplicationandenforcementoftheruleswouldlessentheexpenseoflitigation.Further,prosepartiesarepermittedtoinflictsubstantialcostonotherpartieswithlittleornoconsequence.

Ipreferlitigationinthefederalcourtsduetotheavailabilityofsummaryjudgmentbasedonuseofdepositions,whichisnotavailableinourstatecourts.Whileexpenseisgreater,itisprimarilyrelatedtopreparingforandarguingsummaryjudgment.Rarelyaresummaryjudgmentmotionsarguedinourstatecourts.

Ithinkourfederalsystemworkswell,thoughIthinkthatthereistoomuchemphasisonclosingcaseswithoutenoughconsiderationtotherealitiesofbusylitigators.

Inthismatter,myclientvoluntarilywithdrewthecomplaintonceitwasassuredthatthedefendantwasoutofbusinessandhadnoassets.Astocost,itisnotsomuchincomplyingwithdiscovery,butratherthatthefederalrulesrequiremorethingsthanstaterules.

LitigatinginFederalCourtisapleasurebecausetheCourttakesseriouslydispositivemotions.

Myclientstypicallywantcasesinstateratherthanfederalcourts.Federalcasesaremoreexpensivedespitetheclaimstotheopposite.

MycommentisspecifictothejurisdictioninwhichIpractice:TheNorthernDistrictofIllinois.Ihavehadmattersinmanyotherfederalcourts,andtheNorthernDistrictistheonlyone,tomyknowledge,thathasaprocessforattorneystophysically"present"the


motionandbeheardforabriefingschedule.Inmyview,thisisanunnecessarystep,andaddedcost,totheprocess.Briefingschedulesformotionsaretypicallysetbyrule,uponreceiptofelectronicfiling.Thankyou.

Mypracticeisprimarilylaborandemployment.Generallyspeaking,IthinkthefederaldistrictcourtsinArkansasdoagoodjobofcontrollingtheirdocketsandaddressingissuesthatinvolveabuseofdiscoveryunderthecurrentrules.

Ofprimaryconcernistheproblemoflocaljudgeswhohavetheirown"localrules"whicheitherchangeorabrogateexistingFederalRules.Forexample,manyjudgesintheCentralDistrictofCaliforniarequiretheirownformsofSummaryJudgmentmotions(jointmotions)thatrequiresomuchextraworkastobeprohibitiveandimpossible(howdoesonerequire"jointfacts"onanMSJiftheissueiswhetherthefactsareundisputed?)Manyjudgesaresoreluctanttotakecasestheyseekanywaytogetremand.Thecostsoffederalcourtlitigationisabsurd.

Ourfirmrepresentsinsurancecompanies.Whengiventhechance,weALWAYSremovecasestofederalcourtbecausefederaljudgesaregenerallybetter(andnotafraid)tofollowthelawonsummaryjudgmentmotions.TheextradiscoveryrequiredinfederalcourtisNOTadeterrenttoourdecisiontoremovecases.

Regardingcosts,oneotheritemwhichshouldbeaddressedistheamountoftime/moneywhichthepartieshavetoinvestinpreparingacasefortrial.Manyfederaljudgesrequireextensivepre-trialordersandpre-trialbriefs.Thisshouldbestreamlinedandpaireddownsoastoallowmorecasestobetried.

StateCourtsareclogged,understaffedandincapableoffairlyresolvingcomplexcases.OurFederalcourtsaretheBenchmarkfortheworld.Pleasedonot"overfix"them.Theyactuallyworknow!

TheactualcaseinvolvedinthissurveywasoneoftheleastcomplicatedfederalcasesIhavehandled,withthefewestdiscoveryissues--soitwasnotthenormformypractice.MyexperienceisthatRule26disclosureisneversufficient,butIamskepticalthatrequiringmoredetailedvoluntarydisclosurewillinanywaylessentheneedforinterrogatoriesandrequestsforproduction.OurfederalcasesareALLscheduledfortrialnotlaterthan18monthsafterfiling.Averygoodsystem.Ihavespentmanyyearsonsuchissues,asIwasamemberofourstate’sRulescommitteefor19years.

ThecostofnotifyingtheclassinarelativelylargeclassactioninfederalcourtforcedoneclienttobringmatterinD.C.SuperiorCourt,wherefundamentalnatureofthecomplaintwasfederal.Frustrating.

ThelitigationcostsofdefendingthecaseatissueinthissurveywerevastlyincreasedbecausetheCourttookalmost22monthstoruleonmyclient’ssummaryjudgmentmotion,requiringthepartiestoretainexpertsandpreparefortrial.


ThesystemintheUSDCEDLAworksextremelywell.Somelawyerscauseproblemsandseemtogetawaywithitbutoverallwehaveanexcellenthardworkingandefficientjudiciarythatcausesthingstoworksmoothly.

Thethingthatdistinguishesuseoffederalcourtoverstatecourtisthequalityofthejudges.Thereisapresumptionthatifacaseisfiledinfederalcourt,justicewillbemoreintelligentlyadministered,withoutanyreferencetodiscovery,electronicdiscoveryorotherthingsaskedaboutinyoursurvey.Myexperienceisthatmosttimesthisistrue.Itcertainlymakescounselputonabetterface.

Thereisnoblackandwhiteanswertoanyofthequestionsposed.Discoveryexpenseistypicallynotaconcern.Rather,fairnessofthejudiciaryandtheappellaterouteisoftenanoverridingconcern.Federalcourtsaremorecognizantofe-discoveryissues.Accordingly,itismorelikelytobecomeanissueinfederalcases.However,wehavebeenabletoworkwithopposingcounselinmorecomplexmatterstoaddresse-discoveryframeworkaspartoforinadvanceoftheRule26(f)meeting.Itisourpracticetoinvolveopposingcounselinlegalholdandkeywordprocesstoeliminatepotentialdisputesdowntheroad.

Wearefortunatetohavemagistrateanddistrictjudgeswhogenerallyenforcereasonablediscoveryprocedureswhichallowsdiscoverytofunctionasitshould-todevelopthecasetoallowthepartiestomakeanaccurateevaluationandproceedtotrialorsettlement.Theprocessdependsonthefactthatmostattorneysinthisareaareabletocommunicatedirectlyandprofessionally.Manydiscovery"abuses"couldbeavoidedbymoreattentiontoprofessionalismandlesstoenactingmorerules.

Wehaveagreatfederaljudgewhichmakestryingalawsuitveryefficientandenjoyable.Sheisanabsolutepleasuretoworkwith.Sheisveryfairandalwaysprepared.Evenifsherulesagainstyourclientyoufeelshehasgivenyouaveryfairhearing.

Motionpracticeisvitaltodefendingexcessiveforceclaimsinfederalcourt.


JudicialManagement

Themoresignificantdiscoveryissueinmyfederalpracticeisthefailureofmagistratestoenforcerelevantdiscoveryrequests.Themorediscoverythemorelikelythecasewillresolveasitshould,becausethemorethepartiesknowaboutthecase.

Asanattorneywhodefendsinsurancecompaniesinbadfaithcases,IlikethefederalsystembecauseoftheECFsystem,thejudgeshavethecasefromstarttofinish,discoveryismuchmoreuniformandorderlythanstatecourt,andthejudgesaremoreinvolvedintheircases.Ialsofindthatgenerallyfederaljudgesaremoreprofessionalandpolite.Mostofmycasesinvolveintensediscoverybattles.Infindthatfederaljudgestoabetterjobthanstatecourtinmanagingandresolvingthedisputesinanorderlymanner.Ichoosefederalcourtbecausethediscoveryissuesareeasiertolitigatetherethanstatecourt.Thankyoufortheopportunitytobeapartofthesurvey.

Federaljudgesarenotconsistentinmanagingdiscovery.Somesetstrictdeadlinesandothersdon’t.

Forsolepractitionersandsmallfirmswithlimitedfinancialresources,practiceinfederalcourtsis,moreoftenthannot,prohibitivelyexpensiveandthereforerisky.Asaresult,thereisoftenanattitudeamongfederaljudgesthatifyouarefromasmallfirm,youareunwelcomeintheircourt.

IansweredthequestionregardingwhethertherulesandcourtsystemwerefairinthenegativebecauseincomparisontomostfederaldistrictcourtstheWesternDistrictofWashingtonisextremelyplaintiff-friendlyandunfriendlytogovernmentasdefendants.

Ibelievediscoverycanbeimproved,thefederaljudgesmustnotbesorigidinforcingmatterstotrialwhenthepartiesneedmoretimetoconductdiscovery.Strictadherencetoatrialdatemaybegoodforclearingacaseoffajudge’sdocket,inmostcasesitisnotinthebestinterestofthepartiesbeforethecourt.

IdonotfindproblemswiththeRulesofCivilProcedure.Unfortunately,theyarenotenforcedonasystematicandregularbasis.IseeproblemsarisingwithECFwhereitappearstheJudgesarenotcloselyreadingtheorderspreparedbytheLawClerks.

Ifjudgeswouldspendlesstimetryingtoforcesettlementsofsuitsandmoretimetryingthemordisposingofthemonmotion,therewouldbefewerunmeritorioussuitscloggingupthecourtsandmoretimeforlegitimatecases.

Ingeneral,thecourtsseemtofollowtherulesofcivilprocedure,howeverwhenajudgeallowstheotherpartytototallyignoretherulesanddeadlines,thereislittleornorecoursetothisabuseofpower.Also,largeandwealthyplaintiff’sabusediscoverytoincreasetheirfeeswithabandonandtheCourtdoesnotreigninthispractice.


Inmyexperiencesomefederalcourtsgooverboardwithrequiringpartiestoprovideamultitudeofreports(likeaRule26freport)whichdonothingtoresolvethecase,andaremoreformthansubstance,andonlyaddtoexpenseoflitigation.Furthermore,judgesrarelyfindthatsanctionsareappropriateforfailuretocooperateindiscovery,orenforcetheirowndeadlines.Discoverywouldnotbeasexpensiveorasmuchasanordealifthecourtswouldconsistentlyenforcetherules.

JudgeLynnHughesactivelymanagedtheidentifiedcasespecificallytocontrolcosts,giventhesizeoftheclaim.Itwenttotrialsixmonthsafterfiling.

Judgesforgetthattheyweretriallawyersandsetdiscoverydeadlineswhichdonottakeintoconsiderationthatlawyersoftenareworkingonmanycasesatonce;inthiscasewesettledafterinspectionofmachineandsiteofincidentrevealeditwaslargelycausedbymisuseoftheproduct-MandatoryarbitrationintheWesternDistrictofPAistooearlyandthusprecludesarealchancetoresolvethematter-butthiscasewastheexceptiontothatrule.

Judgesshouldresolvediscoverydisputesquicklyandeasilywithoutwrittenmotions.Judgesshouldnotforcesettlements.Thereistoomuchemphasisoncooperation.Ifamotiontocompelisfiled,thejudgewilllikelyblametheattorneyfornotcooperating.Acooperatingattorneyisusuallytakenadvantageofbytheaverageattorneythatwillnotcooperate.

Judgesshouldenforcethediscoveryruleswehave,shouldpaycloseattentionindiscoverydisputestowhethertheyarereallyingoodfaith,andshouldconsider(astherulespermit)whetherthediscoveryrequestisappropriateconsideringtheamountatstake.

LackofdiligencebythecourtsinenforcingthemandatoryRule26disclosuresinmydistrictisnothelpful.

MyonlyrealcriticismwiththeFederalSystemistheinabilitytoappealaremandorderandthelackofanextraordinarywritproceduretodealwithmaverickjudges.

Thecasethatpromptedmyreceiptofthesurveywasasummonsenforcementproceedingthatdidnotentaildiscovery;Istronglybelievethattoomanyjudgeshavean"aplagueonbothyourhouses"or"yougoworkitoutyourself"approachtodiscoverydisputes.

Themostunpleasantaspectoffederallitigationisjudicialtemperament.Theimperialjudiciaryisaliveandwellinthefederalcourts,andthelongerIpractice,themoreunpleasantitbecomes.

Theunwillingnessofjudgestograntdispositivemotionsand/orexercisestrongcontroloverabusivediscoverypracticesencourages"scorchedearth"tacticsandturnsthejudicialsystemintoaveryexpensivelottery.Mostofmy(employment)casessettlebecausethecostofgoingforward,eveninmeritlesscases,can’tbejustified.It’slikedealingwithlegalizedextortion.


Thereshouldbemorejudicialinvolvementtodiscouragediscoverybattles.

Whenthereisadiscoverydisputewhichrequiressomecourtinvolvementforresolution,itcanbedifficulttogetatimelydeterminationwithinthetimeframefordiscovery.Especiallywherethepartieshaveusedsometimetotrytoworkitoutthemselvesfirst.

Rules

ChangestotheFRCPregardingcostsawardedforprevailingpartiesmightencouragelitigantstoforgobaselessclaims.CostsforWestlawresearchandmanyotherareasshouldberecoverable.Goodlucktowhomeverwiththisproject.Itisencouragingthatsomeoneislookingattheseissues.

Ibelievethefederalrulesgenerallyworkwell.InWyoming,wedonotseethediscoveryabuseswehearaboutoccurringinotherjurisdictions.

I’mnotsuretheRulesneedtobechanged,orthepresentRulesbetterenforced.WhatistoleratedinStatecourtbywayofevasivenessandunhelpfuldisclosureresponsesislesstoleratedinfederalcourt,butittakesamotiontogetrelief.

MyrecommendationwouldbeaRule26amendmentstatingthatdocumentsnotproducedduringdiscoveryandlaterproducedarepresumedtohavebeenwithheldandpresumednotadmissible.OnRule56Iwouldaddanamendmentstatingthatrenewedsummaryjudgmentmotionsbasedoninformationpreviouslyavailableduringafirstsummaryjudgmentmotionarenotfavored.

Onesizefitsallrules,particularlywithregardtodiscoveryanddisclosure,shouldbereconsidered.Perhapsatieredsystem,dependinguponthenatureandmagnitudeofacase,shouldbeconsidered.Manycasesdonotwarrantthedegreeofdiscoverywhichmoresignificantcasesrequire.Asmattersstandnow,nodistinctionisdrawnbytherules,tothedetrimentofpartiesandthecourt.

OverallIhavefoundtheFederalRulestobefarsuperiorthanthoseofthestatecourtsIpracticein.Iwouldrecommendmorejudicialinvolvementwhetherthatbefrommagistratesorjudicialrefereessotheprocessismonitoredmorecloselyandtheoutcomeprovidesforamorefairprocess.Sometimeslawyersaretoowaryofupsettingjudgeswithdiscoverydisputesbutintheenditshouldbeaboutwhatisfairnessandjusticecallfor.

Rule26isconfusing.

Rule54permittingtheawardofcostsshouldbeexpandedasawaytoshiftmorediscoverycoststothelosingparty.IbelievethiswasaSedonaConferencerecommendation.

Rulesshouldbemoreflexible;mandatorydiscoveryshouldbestreamlined;shorterRule16plans;attorneyfeesshouldberecoverableforprevailingpartyinallsuits.


TheCourtactuallyshouldhavemoreflexibilityinallowingnecessarydiscoverythantheamountallowedundertheRules.SomecasesaremorecomplexthanothersandtheCourtshouldnotforbiddiscoverybeyondtheRulelimitsjusttomeettheRules-itshouldconsidertheissues/parties/circumstancesinvolvedinthecase.

TheRule26expertdisclosuresseemtobethebiggestexpenseandburden.Ihaveyettoseesuchadisclosureobviatetheneedforanexpertdeposition.

TheRulesworkwell.WhileIappreciatetheefforttoimprovetheRules,thecurrentrulesallowforafairpresentationoftheevidencetoajury,andjuriesalmostalwaysreachtherightresult.

ThereshouldbesomeconsiderationgiventoamendingRule56torequirethedistrictcourtstosetdefinitenon-oralhearingdatesfordispositivemotions,preferably60-90daysbeforeascheduledtrialdate.Whendistrictcourtjudgesfailtoissuedecisionsondispositivemotions(A)untiltheFridaybeforeaMondaytrialstart;or(B)aftertrialpreparationhasbegun,itresultsinahugewasteoftimeforthePartiesbecausenooneknowspreciselywhatclaimsaregoingtobetrieduntilthecourtissuesadecision.Post-summaryjudgment,ifthereareremainingclaims,ithelpsdramaticallyreducethetimeandexpenseofpreparingfortrialwhenonecanplanwitnesses,exhibits,etc.,wellinadvanceoftrial.

SummaryJudgment

Althoughnotinthecaseathand,toomanycasesaredismissedonsummaryjudgmentandaffirmedonappeal.

Courtsshouldgivemuchmoreattentiontosummaryjudgmentproceedings,asmostcaseswhichproceedtotrialshouldhavebeendismissedonsummaryjudgment.

Idealwithaspecialtyareawherecasesarefullyheardthroughanadministrativehearing.Thefederalcourtisthereviewingbody.Discoveryisnotfavoredincaselawandittakestimetogetthecourtuptospeed.Thishasledtoveryawkwardsituationsinfederalcourttoshoehornthesetypesofcasesinthecasemanagementsystemsconcerningdiscoveryinsteadofmovingquicklytosummaryjudgmentsbasedontheadministrativerecord.

Ipersonallythinkmoresummaryjudgmentsshouldbefiledtolimitthescopeofissuesatthetriallevel.

Moreliberalgrantingofsummaryjudgmentswouldbeamoreeffectivewayofdisposingofnon-meritoriouscasesandlimitinglitigationcoststhangeneralizeddiscoveryreforms.

Rule12andTwombly

IthinktheSupremeCourtwasrightinestablishingtheTwombly,whichshouldbeextendedandenforcedinallcivilcases.


Excessivediscoveryandoverzealouspractitionersaremakinglitigationveryexpensive.Infact,itismakingitprohibitivelyexpensiveforwell-financedlitigantsandhasnearlydeniedjusticetomostthatarenotfinanciallywelloff.Discoveryexpensesarebecominganunnecessaryburdenandthetheorythatyoumustknoweverythingthatcanbedoneisananachronismofanotherera.Costcanbedramaticallydiminishedbystringentdisclosuresrulesanddetailedpleadingrequirementsofallfactsthatentailapartytoaremedy.Moreover,stringentinitialschedulingordersandconferencesandactivecourtsupervisionwillshortenthetimecasesforcasestobetried,discouragediscoveryabusesandpromoteearlysettlements.

Ibelievethatoneoftherulesthatshouldbereviewedistherulethatrequiresallmotionstobearguedbybriefanddoesnotallowforhearings.Ifsomeofthediscoverydisputescouldberesolvedathearings,especiallythesimplerdiscoverydisputes,itmightallowforquickerresolutionsanddirectiontothepartiesthatwouldprovideasubstantialsavingsindiscoverycosts.Also,moredetailedstatementsoftheissues,whetherininitialpleadingsorearlypre-trialconferences,wouldassistincurtailingdiscoverycostsandreducethetimeittakestomoveacasethroughthefederalsystem.Thecostoffilinganydiscoverymotion,thedelayinarulingonthosemotionsandthetimeittakestoworkacasethroughthefederalcourtscausesadditionaldiscoverycoststhatcanbecurtailedwithrulechanges.

Mycriticismistheliberalnoticepleadingthatisparticularlyunfairtodefendantsgiventhebroad,expensivediscovery.

CompliancewiththeRule26disclosurerequirementisachallenge,especiallyinEasternDistrictcourtswhichrequirethedisclosureof"allrelevantinformation."Pleadingsareoftenvague,makingitimpossibletoknowwhattheothersidemaydeemrelevant.Compliancewiththeseordersisnotrealistic,andisoftenusedbyplaintiffstotrythecaseonsanctions,ratherthanonthemerits.

Discoveryisanecessarytool;onethroughwhichcasesarewonorlost.Discoveryisessentialhoweverincreasedscrutinyofpleadings,increasedrequireddisclosuresandincreasedjudicialoversightofcaseswillincreasethelikelihoodofpretrialresolution.

FederalCourtistooformal-everything-absolutelyeverything-requiresaformalmotionorpleading.Thelawclerksandsecretariesarealmostneverhelpfulevenwhenthephonecallisintendedtoaidthecourtandnotfosterexpartecommunications.

Iamconcernedthatmoreelaboratepleadingrulesandgreaterinitialdisclosureswerelumpedtogetherasa"simplifiedapproach",whentheseareverydifferentideas.Complicatingpleadingisabadidea.Pleadingsaretoodenseandfullofsuperfluousallegationsandargumentalready.Rule*’smandatefora"shortandsimplestatement"isroutinelyignored.Complaintsreadlikepressreleases-ornovels!Inpleading,lessismore.Requiringgreaterinitialdisclosuresisanexcellentidea.Withgreaterinitial"automatic"documentproduction(includingelectronicdata)andstandardinterrogatoriesattheoutset,discoverycouldmoverelativelyquicklytodepositions.Generousdeadlinesforpaperdiscoveryareawasteoftime.


Thissurveyisgearedtowardschangesinthediscoveryprocess.Ibelievethatdiscoveryisusefultobothsidesinordertomeasureand/orprovethemerits,weaknessesandstrengthsofeachparty’scase;accordingly,Ipreferhavingbroaddiscovery.However,Idobelievethepleadingrequirementsshouldbelessliberalastherearemanymeritlesscasesthatproceedthroughthecostlydiscoveryandmotionphasebeforetheplaintiffiswillingtosettleoragreetoareasonablesettlement.

Whilethecasechosendidnothaveanyelectronicdiscovery,Ihavehadcaseswherethathasbecomeamajorissueandonewhichisveryexpensivewithoftenverylittlegainedbyit.Itseemstobeusedasavery,veryexpensivefishingexpedition.Ialsobelievethatthereshouldbemorestringentpleadingstandards.Casesthatoftengetdecidedonsummaryjudgmentcouldbedismissedatthepleadingstageiftheplaintiffswereheldtoahigherstandard.Claimsthatarebeingfilednowmightnotbefiledwithahigherpleadingstandard.

Noticepleading(andtheruleallowingliberalamendmentstopleadings)isanunfairadvantagetoPlaintiffsandunfairdisadvantagetoDefendants.

Overall,theFederalCourtSystemismoreefficient,fairandpredictablethanStateCourt.Idofeelstrongly,however,thatbyrequiringmoreinformativepleadingfrombothplaintiffsanddefendants,andrequiringmoreexpansivediscoveryatanearlierstage,thecostoflitigatingwouldbereduced.

Thecurrentdiscoveryprocessgenerallyprovidesadequateandefficientdiscovery.However,federalcourts,inmyexperience,areoverlylenientwithproselitigantsandwithrepresentedpartiesthatfailtorespondtodiscovery.Stricterenforcementwouldmakelitigationfarmoreefficient.Also,aheightenedpleadingstandardwouldgreatlyreducethefrivolousclaimsfiledinfederalcourtandallowthecourtandcounseltofocusonmeritoriousclaims,andavoidwastingtimeandeffortwith"shotgun"typecomplaintsthatthrowineverypossibleclaimthatanactiveimaginationcoulddreamup.

Judgesneedtobettermanagediscoveryandthe12(b)process.TheSupremeCourthasmadeitmoredifficulttopassmusterunder12(b)forthereasonthatdiscoveryissoexpensiveandthatsuchcomplextrialsinfrontofajuryarelikeplayingroulette.

ThemainproblemIseeisjudgesrefusingtogetinvolvedinthecaseuntiltheend.Summaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedmuchmorefrequently,andifthejudgeiswrong,thereisanappeal.Onoccasion,thejudgehasnotevenreadthebriefsbeforetheRule12motionisheard.Whereapartyiscaughtinaviolation,heshouldbesanctioned.Anysanctionwouldbeeffective,nomatterthesize.Bestofluckwithyourworthysurvey.

Thecasereferenced,inmyopinion,wasfrivolous.Itriedtoutilizeeveryruletolimitdiscoveryandobtainanearlyresolution.Ihadlimitedsuccess.IrepresentmunicipalitiesandpoliceofficersinSection1983litigation.Therules(7(a),12(e),12(b)(6)andlocalruleslimitingdiscoveryarenotstrictlyapplied.Iwouldliketoseemoremandatesto


followtheserulesin1983litigation.AlotoftaxpayermoneyisspentlitigatingclaimsthatareultimatelydismissedperanMSJthatcouldhavebeendismissedveryearly.

TheRulesshouldstateamaximumperiodoftimeforthecourttoruleonpendingpre-trialmotions.TheRulesshouldpostponeinitialdisclosuresuntil12(b)motionsareruledupon.Thejudgesshouldtailortheirorderstoreflectthechoicesofferedinelectronicfiling.

WhileIbelievethatrulescoveringdiscoveryandnoticepleadingincouldbeimproved,theyarefarsuperiortothesystemsprovidedforinStatecourts.

IthinkthatthequestionabouttheRule8standardmayhavebeenrenderedmootbytheTwomblyandIqbaldecisions,whichhaveemphasizedtheneed,evenunderthecurrentstandard,tobemoreprecise.Ialsofeelthatdefendantsinmyareaofpractice(employmentlitigation)bearalmostalloftheburdenandexpenseofdiscovery,creatingunjustincentivestosettlecases.

Thankyoufortheopportunitytoprovideinput.Ourfirmiscompletelypaperlessandweroutinelydealwithelectronicdiscovery.Amongthebenefitsarevariousprogramsthatallowfordiscoveryanddepositionstobeintegratedforeasyaccess,codingandpresentation.IamfindinginFederalcourtthattheBellAtlanticv.Twomblycaseisservingtorequiremuchmorespecificpleadingthatultimatelyhelpsframetheissuesearlier;andconsequently,reducescosts.


Ispecializeinlaborandemploymentlaw.Ingeneral,thefederalcourtsdoanexcellentjobofoverseeingthesecases(discovery,settlement,SJandtrial).However,Ithinkstreamlineddiscoveryprocedureswouldlessencostandcouldstilladdresseachparty’sneeds.Goodluck!

Mostofmycasesareforgovernmentaldefendantsincivilrightscases.IfindthatthePlaintiffsattorneysrunupcostofdiscoveryandnumerousdepositionstoincreasethepossiblerecoveryunder§1988fees.

Myfocusisindefendingemploymentlitigation.Invirtuallyeveryemploymentcasefiledinfederalcourt,thecostsofdiscoveryandlitigationareusedtoleverageasettlement.Inmyexperience,manydefendantspaysettlementsincompletelyfrivolouscasesbecausethecostoflitigationsubstantiallyoutweighsfairnessandjustice.Thepresentrulesdonotworkforsmallandmid-sizebusinessesthatcannotaffordtodefendthemselves.

Pleaseeliminateproceduresthatrequirepreliminarynon-bindingtrialstomagistratesorarbitrators,andthatalloweitherpartytosimplyobjecttotheoutcomeandproceedtotrial.Therequiredpreliminarynon-bindingtrialisagreatwasteofresourcesandacauseofdelay.ExampleistheruleinN.D.Ga.thatallTitleVIIcasesbetriedtoamagistrate--butifyouwin,theopponentcanstillforceajurytrial,andyoucannoteventellthejurythatyouwonbeforethemagistrate.


Sincemostofmyclaimsarerepresentingmunicipalitiesandtheirofficersincivilrightsactions,thebiggestdeterrenttotryingcasesthathavemeritisthethreatofattorney’sfees.

ThemostsignificantproblemIhaveencounteredinfederalcases(intheemployment/discriminationarea)turnsontheavailabilityoffeeshifting,andthefactthatthecourtscurrentlydonotlinktheavailabilityoffeestothereasonablenessoftheefforts.

ThereasonthatmyclientssettlecasesisbecauseoftheriskofhavingtopayPlaintiff’sattorneyfees,intheeventevenasmalljudgmentisenteredinPlaintiff’sfavor.Whilediscoveryisasignificantcosttolitigation.Itisthat"hammer"thatcausesmostDefendantstosettleratherthangototrialinemploymentdiscriminationcases.

Miscellaneous

Asafedgovernmentagencywegenerallyproduceallknownresponsivedocumentswithprivateattorneyshidingtheballmoreoften.

Generally,myexperiencehasproventhatsomeaspectsofdiscovery-i.e.,writtendiscovery-donotbenefittheparties.Writtendiscoveryproducesmanyobjectionsfrompartiesthatpreventpartiesfromobtainingworthwhileinformation.

Inthiscase,Ihadworkedwiththeopposingattorneyonanumberofothertrials.Wewereabletomeetearlyonandworkoutanagreementthatprovidedfortheexchangeofpaper,notelectronicdiscovery.

Thecaseinquestionwasaninsurancecoveragematter.Inthiscase,thefourattorneys(allofwhomhadknownandrespectedeachotherforyears)fullycooperatedandagreedonajointstipulationofallrelevantfacts.

AsubstantialcosttothelitigantsintheFederalcourtsnotaddressedinthissurveyarepre-trialpreparationrequiredbythecourtaswellasposttrialsubmissionstothecourt,particularlyinbenchtrialcases.

Defendantadmittedliability..courttrial..caseundersubmissionfartoolong..verdictextremelylow.

Discoverycostsandbutoneimportantissue.Morelitigationisgeneratedandforcedtoinequitableconclusionsdueto1988feeshifting.

Idon’tthinkIcandisclosetheactualcostofdefendingthiscase.

Ihadtwoothercasesgoingonsimultaneouslysoitwashardtorememberwhatoccurredinwhichcase.Thebiggestdisputewasovertheneedforaprotectiveorder,astherewassecuritysensitiveinformationinvolved.ItookthedepositionofPlaintiff’sexpertwhichIforgottolistabove.


I’dbehappytoparticipateinanyadvisorycommittees.

Intermsofcontext,CaliforniastatecourtsdonotrestrictdiscoverytothesamedegreeasisthecaseintheCentralDistrictofCalifornia.Myresponsesweresomewhatgovernedbycomparisontostatecourtshere.

Inthisparticularcase,IfiledaMotiontoDismissorforSummaryJudgmentafterreceivingthecomplaint.Thecasewasresolvedbeforediscoverybecameanissue.

Manyofthequestionswerenotapplicabletothecaseinquestion,asPlaintiffswereproceedingprose.

Moretrialswouldbebetterformebutnotnecessarilyforthelitigants.

Mycolleaguesandregularlylitigatemaritimematters.Weareveryinterestedinthisissueandwouldbegladtohelpthecommittee.

MyexperiencelitigatingthiscaseintheWesternDistrictofPennsylvaniawasextremelysatisfyingtobothmyselfandmyclient.

Opposingcounselinthelistedcaseisalongtimeadversary,soweenjoyamutualrespectandcivilityincooperatingindiscoverymatterstogainmoreefficientresultsforourclientsandsoastonotburdenthecourtswithdiscoverysquabbles.

[Namedcase]wasaproseprisonercaseagainsttheStateParoleBoardsomyresponsesreflectthatfact.

PleaseexaminetheNorthernDistrictofGeorgia’sformsubmissiontobecompletedfollowingtheRule26(f)conference,whichIfindtobethoughtfulandwellorganized.

SomeStatecourts,likeTexasallowthePartiestoselectthediscoverytrackofthecasebasedontheissuesandbasicfacts.ThismayworkintheMaritimecasesthatthatIgenerallyhandle.

Sorry,Idonothavethetotalattorneycostsonthecaseyouaskedforbutestimatethatitwasapproximately$36,000.

Thecasewassenttoarbitrationfollowingmotiontocompelarbitration.[Illegibleword]itwouldbegoodrepresentativesample.

Thenamedcasewasfiledbyproseplaintiffswhoareusuallyhardertoworkwiththanwithattorneys-withexceptions.Thecourtshouldprovidemorecontroloverproseplaintiffcasesandlitigiousproseplaintiffs.

TheonlycriticismIhaveinthiscaseiscasespecific.TheENECwasneverheldbecausethedefendantskeptcontinuingitduetounavailability.Ibelievewecouldhaveresolvedthe


caseevenearlierhadwebeencompelledtoactuallymeetatanENECasisnormallydone.Insteadweendedupresolvingthecaseatasettlementconference.However,overall,Ithinktheprocedureforthisinsurancecontractdisputewasadequateandreasonable.ThislaststatementhasbeentruefortheothercasesIhavehandledinthisSouthernDistrictofCaliforniaandtheCentralDistrictofCalifornia.

Thesubjectcasewasastandardseamaninjurybroughtundermaritimelaw.TheresultsofDiscoverybroughtresolution.WithoutbroadDiscovery,theclaimwouldhaveproceededtotrial.

Theuseofmediationwasnotaddressedandwouldaffectmylastansweraboutmorecasesgoingtotrial.Mediationisanalternativeandhashelpedinmanycases

Thereneedstobeabetterbalancebetweentheneedsoftheparties/theirattorneysandthecourts’dockets.Casesshouldbesubjecttojudicialscrutinybeforeserviceofprocessondefendantsisaccomplishedtohelpweedoutthemeritlesscasessooner.

ThiswasahardsurveyformetoanswerasthecasewhichpromptedtherequestwasaprobonoVetscaseinvolvingadiscretelegalissue.Ontheotherhand,myworkwithcorporatelitigationpromptedsomeanswersregardingmyoverallexperiencethatwouldbearfurtherdiscussion.Thankyouforyourtime.

WishIknewmoreabouttheproposedchangesinordertoanswersomeofthequestions.

SurveyComments

Someofthesequestionsareloaded.Generally,Ithinkweneedtofocuslessonchangingtherulesandmoreonencouragingamoreuniformapproachtoapplicationoftherulesamongourjudgesandmagistratejudges.

Alotofthequestionsarebadlyworded,sothatitisunclearwhatyouarelookingfor.Otherquestionsaresovagueandsubjectiveastobemeaningless.Theset-upissuchthatforonebatchofanswers,the"agree/disagree"spectrumishiddenasonegetstothebottomofthepage,creatingthepossibilityofconfusionandresponsesoppositeofwhattheyshouldbe.Obviousquestions,suchastheresultofthelitigation,areomitted.

Pleasebesuretoinformmewhentheresultsofthesurveyarepublishedontheweb.Thanks.

Someofthequestionswereveryambiguous.Forexample,IthinkfewercasesshouldgototrialbecausejudgesshouldadheretoRule56,andnotbecausepartiesshouldsettlenon-meritoriousclaimsthatwithstandsummaryjudgment.Thesummaryjudgmentpro

Surveyistoolong.Don’tneedmorerulesondiscovery--plentyofrulesandcourtenforcementisavailableintimelyandefficientways.


Surveywastoolong.Suggestamorefocusedapproach.

Thankyouforaddressingthisissue.

Thankyoufortheopportunitytoparticipate!

Thanks!

Thesurveyisunreasonablylong.

MycasewasaproperPlaintiffallegingconstitutionalclaimsvia42USC1983decidedona12(b)6motion;thusthenatureoftheresponsesherein.

Thereshouldbeachoice"notapplicable"ratherthan"unabletosay."Therewasnoquestionregardingsanctionsorderedbythemagistrateortrialjudgeand,ifso,whetherthesanctionsrelatedtofindingsoffactorweremonetaryinnatureandorboth.Thereshouldhavebeensometypeofclassificationsofcases,i.e.,personalinjury,productliability,policemisconduct,laborandemployment,intellectuallaw,etc.

We[are]anationalgroup,whichw/ojudgesandvariationsdependingonthelocalcourt,managesdiscoverybasedonthedifferentcasetypes,applyingrulesconsistentthroughouttheentireFederalCourtsystem.

Wellthoughtoutsurvey

Youhavetoomuchtimeonyourhands.

Excellentsurvey.

Goodluckwiththereviewprocess.Welookforwardtoseeingtheresults.

Goodluck.

Ifoundthissurveyveryinterestingandlookforwardtotheresults.Icouldnotpersonallyanswerthetechnicalquestionsaboute-discoverybuthopefullyotherscould.

Iwouldbeinterestedinobtainingthepollresultswhentheyarecomplete.Thankyouforaskingmetoparticipate.Veryinteresting.

[Namedcase]wasaforeclosurecase,whichisnothowatypicalcaseishandled.

Documents

Federal Judicial Center National, Case-Based Civil … · 1 Executive Summary This report presents preliminary findings from a survey of attorneys in recently closed civil cases which