Civil Litigation 

Management Manual 

Second Edition 

The Judicial Conference of the United States 

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management 

2010 

This manual is for the guidance of judges. It is not intended to be relied 

upon as authority, and it creates no rights or duties 

COMMITTEE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Julie A. Robinson, Chair James B. Haines, Jr. 

Richard J. Arcara Daniel L. Hovland 

John D. Bates Robert J. Johnston 

Marcia A. Crone Benson Everett Legg

Aida M. Delgado-Colon Ronald B. Leighton 

Gregory L. Frost Steven D. Merryday 

Julio M. Fuentes Amy J. St. Eve 

July 2010 

This is the second version of the Civil Litigation Management Manual, 

approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States at its March 

2010 session. This revised version was prepared under the direction of the 

Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. 

 The original version, prepared in 2001, captured the most effective 

practices developed by courts in implementing the pilot programs and 

plans required under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. Under the 

Act’s mandate, the judiciary was required to develop, and periodically 

update, a manual to describe and analyze “litigation management, cost 

and delay reduction principles and techniques, and alternative dispute 

resolution programs considered most effective.” 28 U.S.C. § 479(c). This 

version retains the foundation of the original version and suggests additional practices for handling today’s litigation. For instance, since 2001, 

electronic case management is now the norm under the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, and electronic discovery is commonplace. This version addresses those realities. It also encourages judges to 

tailor case management to the specific needs of the case so that, where 

appropriate, a judge can ensure that the cost and complexity of a case 

relates closely to the nature and size of the claims. 

 As in the original version, the manual contains over 200 pages of 

forms in Appendix A. These forms were submitted by district and magis-
trate judges across the country as examples of methods to manage every 

stage of a civil case. The forms have been updated by many of the same 

judges who provided the original forms for the first version of this manual, and the Committee thanks those judges for their time and contributions. The Committee is also grateful to both the Administrative Office 

and the Federal Judicial Center for supporting the Committee in this project and for their substantial contributions. 

 Finally, this version will be available primarily electronically on the 

judiciary’s website, the J-Net, and on the Federal Judicial Center’s website. Moreover, unlike the original version, Appendix A, containing the 

court forms, will be available only electronically, not in print, so that the 

forms may be updated more easily. You should periodically check for 

changes to the manual or its appendices, as they will occasionally be updated in between major substantive revisions to reflect changes in the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other minor edits. 

 We hope that you will find this manual useful as one of the many 

tools available to assist you in your day-to-day work. 

 Julie A. Robinson 

 Chair, Court Administration and 

 Case Management Committee 
v

Contents 

Acknowledgments xi 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1: Early and Ongoing Control of the Pretrial Process 5 

A. Establishing Early Case-Management Control 5 

1. In general 5 

2. Specific techniques 6 

a. Initial scheduling orders and case-management guidelines 6 

b. Early case screening 8 

c. Differentiated case management 9 

B. Prompting Counsel to Give Early Attention to the Case 10 

1. In general 10 

2. The parties’ “meet and confer” conference and mandatory initial disclosures 10 

3. Supplementing the “meet and confer” agenda 12 

Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 13 

A. Consulting with Lawyers and Unrepresented Parties 14 

B. Scheduling a Rule 16 Conference 15 

C. Setting a Case-Management Plan Through the Rule 16 Conference 17 

1. Who should conduct the conference? 17 

2. When should the conference be held? 17 

3. Where should the conference be held? 18 

4. Is teleconferencing appropriate? 18 

5. Should the proceedings be recorded? 19 

6. Who should attend? 20 

a. Lawyers 20 

b. Litigants 20 

c. Others 21 

7. What can lawyers prepare? 22 

a. The conference statement/order 22 

b. Short-form conference statement/order 23 

c. Uniform orders 24 

8. What subjects are covered at the Rule 16 conference? 24 

9. What can you do to monitor the scope of the claims? 26 

a. Identifying and narrowing the issues 26 

b. Limiting joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings 28 

D. The Scheduling Order and Calendar Management 28 

1. Issuing the scheduling order 28 

2. Calendar management considerations 29 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

vi 

Chapter 3: Discovery Management 31 

A. In General 31 

B. Specific Techniques for Managing Discovery 33 

C. Anticipating and Forestalling Discovery Problems 35 

D. Limiting Discovery 37 

1. In general 37 

2. Document requests 39 

3. Depositions (who, how many, etc.) 40 

E. Handling Discovery Disputes 41 

1. Methods for reducing the number of disputes 41 

2. Discovery motions 41 

F. Discovery of Electronically Stored Information 42 

1. Electronic discovery issues 43 

a. Preservation of data 43 

b. Form of production 44 

c. Archives and legacy data 45 

d. On-site inspection or sampling 45 

e. Need for expert assistance 46 

2. Management tools for electronic discovery 46 

a. Early exchange of computer system information 46 

b. Rule 16(c) pretrial conference agenda 47 

c. Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures 47 

d. Proportionality 48 

e. Cost allocation 48 

f. Rule 53 special master or Rule 706 court-appointed expert 48 

Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 51 

A. In General 51 

B. Specific Techniques 54 

1. Pretrial motions conference 54 

2. Motions screening 55 

3. Motions timing 55 

4. Limiting oral arguments on motions 57 

C. Treatment of Specific Types of Motions 57 

1. Motions for summary judgment 57 

a. In general 57 

b. Specific techniques 58 

2. Motions for injunctive relief 59 

3. Motions for remand 60 

a. In general 60 

b. Specific techniques 61 

4. Motions to dismiss 62 
Contents 

vii 

a. In general 62 

b. Specific techniques 62 

5. Motions raising qualified immunity 63 

6. Motions that remove a case from the schedule set for it 64 

7. Motions for sanctions 64 

a. In general 64 

b. Specific techniques 66 

Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 69 

A. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures 70 

1. Some terms to keep in mind 71 

2. Authority to refer cases to ADR 73 

3. Deciding whether to refer a case to ADR, selecting an ADR process, 

and determining the appropriate time for the referral 75 

a. Mediation 78 

b. Arbitration 79 

c. Early neutral evaluation 80 

d. Summary jury trial, summary bench trial, and mini-trial 81 

e. Settlement week 82 

4. Selecting and compensating an ADR neutral 83 

5. Issuing a referral order 85 

6. Managing cases referred to ADR 87 

B. Judicial Settlement 88 

1. The judge’s role 89 

2. The timing of settlement discussions 90 

3. Successful settlement techniques 92 

4. Recording the settlement 95 

5. Settlement in cases involving pro se litigants 96 

6. Ethical and other considerations in judge-hosted settlement 

negotiations 97 

Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 99 

A. Planning the Final Pretrial Conference 100 

1. Timing and arrangements 100 

2. Preparation for the final pretrial conference 101 

3. Subjects for the conference 102 

a. In general 102 

b. Preliminary considerations 103 

c. Expert witnesses 104 

d. Exhibits 105 

e. Jury issues 106 

f. Scheduling and limiting trial events 107 

4. The final pretrial order 109 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

viii 

B. The Trial Phase 109 

1. Jury trials 109 

a. In general 109 

b. Techniques for trial management 109 

c. Assisting the jury during trial 111 

2. Bench trials 113 

a. In general 113 

b. Techniques for trial management 113 

c. Deciding the case 113 

Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 117 

A. Mass Tort, Class Action, and Other Complex Cases 118 

1. Complex cases generally 118 

2. Mass tort cases 121 

3. Class action cases 121 

B. Management of Expert Evidence 122 

1. Early pretrial evidence 123 

2. Daubert hearing; final pretrial evidence 124 

3. Trial evidence 125 

4. Court-appointed experts 126 

C. High-Profile Cases 127 

1. Making a plan and assigning responsibilities 128 

2. Planning for the presence of the media 130 

3. Interacting with the media 131 

a. Court interactions with the media 131 

b. Attorney interactions with the media 132 

4. Protecting the jurors, facilitating their attention, and providing for 

their comfort 132 

5. Planning for security 134 

6. Managing the courtroom 135 

7. Managing the case and the rest of your docket 136 

D. Pro Se Cases 136 

1. Early screening 137 

2. In forma pauperis status 139 

3. Securing counsel for pro se litigants 139 

4. Scheduling and monitoring the pro se case 141 

5. Holding settlement discussions and conducting the trial 143 

Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 145 

A. Court and Chambers Staff 145 

1. Law clerks 145 

2. Secretary/judicial assistant 148 

3. Courtroom deputies or case managers 149 
Contents 

ix 

B. Magistrate Judges 150 

1. Referral of nondispositive matters 151 

2. Referral of dispositive matters 152 

3. Referral of trials 152 

4. Other referrals 153 

5. Method for assigning matters to magistrate judges 153 

C. Special Masters 154 

1. Authority to appoint a special master 155 

2. Reasons for appointing a special master 156 

3. Selecting and appointing a special master 157 

4. The special master’s report 159 

5. Compensating the special master 159 

Chapter 9: Using Information Technology for Litigation Management 161 

A. Training for Judges and Court Staff 161 

1. National workshops for all judges 162 

2. Workshops for newly appointed judges 162 

3. Online training for judges 163 

4. Training for court staff in support of judges 163 

B. Using CM/ECF to Manage Cases 164 

1. Case-management reports 165 

2. Statistical and conflict-checking reports 166 

C. Case Management Outside Chambers 167 

Appendix A: List of Sample Forms 169 

Appendix B: Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR 173 

Appendix C: Sample CM/ECF Reports 187 

Appendix D: Bibliography 189 

Appendix E: Table of Statutes and Acts 199 

Appendix F: Table of Rules 201 

Index 203

xi

Acknowledgments 

This second version of the Civil Litigation Management Manual was prepared under the direction of the Committee on Court Administration 

and Case Management of the Judicial Conference. Special recognition 

should be given to District Judge Ronald B. Leighton, who chaired the 

subcommittee overseeing the revision and led the effort to update the 

hundreds of pages of sample forms contained in Appendix A. The following members of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee served on the subcommittee and contributed a great deal of time 

and effort in drafting and reviewing revisions to the manual: District 

Judge Julie A. Robinson, District Judge Benson E. Legg, District Judge 

Steven D. Merryday, Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston, and Bankruptcy Judge James B. Haines, Jr. The Committee is also grateful to former Magistrate Judge Ronald Hedges, now retired from judicial office, 

whose meticulous review and excellent suggestions enhanced many chapters of this version of the manual, and whose publications on electronic 

discovery were used to update the chapters relating to those issues. 

 The Committee would also like to thank the many judges and Federal 

Judicial Center staff who authored publications that were heavily relied 

on to update several chapters of the manual. Federal Judicial Center Director Barbara J. Rothstein carefully reviewed and substantially revised 

Chapters 5 and 7 of the manual. Many thanks also to the judges and 

court staff who assisted the Committee by providing updated forms for 

use in Appendix A of the manual. 

 Staff from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts assisted substantially in these efforts: this revised version would not have been possible without Jane MacCracken, who made substantial revisions to update 

the first edition of the manual, coordinated the revisions submitted by 

judges and other staff, and kept the project on track with her exceptional 

organizational, legal, editorial and writing skills; Abel Mattos worked 

with Jane in reviewing drafts of each chapter; Michele Reed, Joseph Phillips, Charles Six, and Thomas Davis made substantial contributions to 

the revision of Chapter 8; Barbara Kimble and Gary Bockweg reviewed 

and edited Chapter 9; Barbara Kimble assisted in creating Appendix C 

(sample CM/ECF reports); John Rabiej gave several helpful suggestions 

that were implemented throughout the manual; and Jennifer Soroko and 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

xii 

Kristean Berry provided clerical assistance. Special thanks also to the Office of General Counsel who reviewed the entire manual. 

 Federal Judicial Center staff also provided significant assistance, particularly Donna Stienstra, who prepared revisions to Chapters 5 and 7; 

James Buchanan, who made significant contributions to Chapter 9; and 

Geoff Erwin and David Marshall, who prepared the manual for publication. 

 Finally, the Committee gratefully acknowledges any others who 

helped in creating this manual but may have been inadvertently excluded 

above. 
1 

Introduction 

After the passage of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA), and the 

judiciary’s implementation of the requirements of that Act, the Judicial 

Conference stated that “[t]he federal judiciary is committed to, and believes in, sound case management to reduce unnecessary cost and delay in 

civil litigation, and thus ensure the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ determination of civil actions called for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”1

 It has been shown that “[m]anaged cases will settle earlier and 

more efficiently, and will provide a greater sense of justice to all participants. Even in the absence of settlement, the result will be a more focused 

trial, increased jury comprehension, and a more efficient and efficacious 

use of our scarcest institutional resource, judge time.”2

 The first edition of this manual, published in 2001, was written after 

the judiciary’s implementation of the CJRA3 and its extensive study 

evaluating the impact of the Act in the federal courts.4

 In the ensuing 

years, several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in an effort 

to improve discovery processes and respond to the widespread use of 

technology and electronic records. Also, since 2001, courts’ CJRA plans 

became part of their local rules,5 and the Case Management/Electronic 

Case Files (CM/ECF) system was implemented in all federal district 

courts. These changes are reflected in this edition. 

 1. Judicial Conference of the U.S., The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990: Final Report 10 (1997) [hereinafter JCUS CJRA Report]. 

 2. Id. 

 3. Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990). The 

Act required courts to adopt “civil justice expense and delay reduction” to “facilitate deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor discovery, improve litigation 

management, and ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil disputes” 

(former 28 U.S.C. § 471). The Act suggested a number of case-management techniques 

for courts to consider including in their CJRA plans. 

 4. James S. Kakalik et al., An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the 

Civil Justice Reform Act, Executive Summary (RAND Inst. for Civil Justice 1996) [hereinafter RAND CJRA Report]. 

 5. Most provisions of the CJRA have expired, including the requirement that courts 

maintain expense and delay reduction plans; however, the CJRA’s reporting requirements 

remain in effect. The judiciary publishes a public, semiannual report on pending civil 

matters. 28 U.S.C. § 476. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

2 

 Certain practices continue to result in decreased case length and 

costs: they include early judicial management, shortened discovery periods, and the setting of an early, firm trial date.6

 Yet, the judiciary is handling cases of increasing complexity with voluminous electronic records 

and limited resources, raising case-management challenges. The judiciary 

continues to explore better practices in a time of widespread Internet use, 

a restrictive budget climate, and a greater demand for public access and 

accountability. 

 The federal rules contain the authority for the judge to manage civil 

litigation and to take steps to enforce limits set by those rules. In addition, the Judicial Conference, in adopting the RAND CJRA Report, endorsed a number of case-management techniques, including the following: 

• Monitoring cases in which issues have not yet been joined to ensure that deadlines for service and answer are met, and beginning 

judicial action to dispose of cases if those deadlines are missed. 

• Waiting a short time after issues are joined (perhaps a month) to 

see if a case will terminate; if not, resuming active judicial case 

management. 

• Setting a firm trial date as part of the early case-management approach and adhering to that date as much as possible. 

• Setting a reasonably short discovery period tailored to the individual case. For nearly all general civil cases, this policy should 

encourage judicial case management no later than six months after filing.7

 To carry out these techniques, and to gain greater efficiency for the 

bench and the bar, many courts have adopted standardized casemanagement procedures for all civil cases within a district. Such courts 

 6. RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 26–28. 

 7. The Judicial Conference, in adopting the RAND CJRA Report, noted the importance of setting a schedule, as authorized by Rule 16, and endorsed the RAND study’s 

finding that early judicial case management significantly reduced time to disposition. 

JCUS CJRA Report, supra note 1, at 31. The Conference is opposed, however, to establishing as policy a uniform time frame, such as eighteen months, within which all trials must 

begin. The Conference stated that “[a] standard time frame may be counterproductive 

and slow down cases that could be disposed of much more quickly. Prescribing a national 

rule with specific trial deadlines could also lead to the same difficulties in [civil] case 

management that are caused [in criminal cases] by the Speedy Trial Act.” Id.
Introduction 

3 

use their websites to post standing orders or guidelines for civil practice, 

and, with the agreement of the district and magistrate judges, adopt standard orders for judges to use in all civil cases. Courts are encouraged to 

take such steps to maximize efficiency in their case-management procedures, but courts should remain able to tailor those procedures, when 

necessary, to suit the needs of a particular case. 

 This manual presents both successful practices and suggested practices in light of the new civil litigation landscape. The practices described 

here are derived from many sources, including judges’ published writings, court orders, lectures, and Federal Judicial Center (FJC) materials. 

While the first edition borrowed heavily from the FJC publications Manual for Litigation Management and Cost and Delay Reduction (1992) and 

the Manual for Complex Litigation, Third (1995), this edition draws from 

the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (2004) and Managing Discovery of Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Federal Judicial 

Center 2007). Finally, and most gratefully, we have drawn upon the many 

years of experience of the judges who have generously donated their time 

and expertise to this project. 

 The discussion in the manual’s first six chapters generally follows the 

chronology of a civil case. Thus, we begin with techniques for monitoring 

service of process and conclude with management of trials. Chapters 

seven through nine turn to more specialized matters, such as the management of special types of cases, the use of technology and CM/ECF, 

personnel resources, and institutional issues in litigation management. 

 One cautionary note seems appropriate at this juncture. The tools 

and practices outlined in the chapters that follow should not be employed 

without first making the conscious decision that the practice is appropriate in the case at hand. This manual is inspired by the belief that early, 

active case-management results in greater efficiency, reduced costs, and a 

shorter time from filing to disposition. In a national survey conducted by 

the Federal Judicial Center in 1997, attorneys most often recommended 

increased judicial case management as a means of alleviating discovery 

problems and reducing discovery expense, but multivariate analyses 

failed to detect an association between judge’s case-management approaches and disposition times or litigation costs. The study revealed that 

the total cost of litigation is most strongly associated with several other 

cost variables, especially the size of the monetary stakes, the size of the 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

4 

law firm, the type of case, and whether the case was complex or contentious.8

 

 Experience and anecdotal information suggest that some casemanagement techniques invariably add to the cost of litigation, usually in 

the form of added time requirements for lawyers and staff. It is also 

widely known that litigation costs in federal courts are rising and represent a real threat to any citizen’s access to justice. Judges are urged to not 

apply time-consuming case-management practices to those cases that 

have low dollar value and are otherwise straight-forward factual disputes 

involving settled principles of law; in such cases, the corresponding cost 

benefit usually obtained in complex cases with the utilization of such 

techniques will likely be absent. 

 Management of criminal cases is not covered in this manual. The 

Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials (Federal Judicial Center 

5th ed. 2001) contains a wealth of material judges will find helpful in the 

management of criminal litigation.9

 

 8. Discovery and Disclosure Practice, Problems, and Proposals for Change: A Casebased National Survey of Counsel in Closed Federal Civil Cases 2 (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 

1997). 

 9. The FJC also has published the following criminal case-management manuals: 

Terrorism-Related Cases: Special Case-Management Challenges (2008) and Keeping Government Secrets: A Pocket Guide for Judges on the State-Secrets Privilege, the Classified Information Procedures Act, and Court Security Officers (2007). 
5 

Chapter 1: Early and Ongoing Control of the 

Pretrial Process 

A. Establishing Early Case-Management Control 

1. In general 

2. Specific techniques 

a. Initial scheduling orders and case-management guidelines 

b. Early case screening 

c. Differentiated case management 

B. Prompting Counsel to Give Early Attention to the Case 

1. In general 

2. The parties’ “meet and confer” conference and mandatory initial disclosures 

3. Supplementing the “meet and confer” agenda 

A. Establishing Early Case-Management Control 

Establishing early control over the pretrial process is pivotal in controlling litigation cost and delay.10 Early control includes effective use of 

rules, procedures, and discretionary authority that cumulatively establish 

your role in the progress and conclusion of the case before you. It is very 

important to view this as a continuing process that includes an ongoing 

interplay between prefiling instructions, counsel actions, counsel meetings, and case-management plans, extending from filing to disposition in 

every case. It would be hard to overestimate the importance of your investments of time and thought into how you will use the casemanagement tools central to the exercise of your authority. Your discretionary tailoring of these tools to each case and your maintenance of consistency in applying them will help ensure your success as a judge. 

1. In general 

How early is “early,” and how much control is necessary? The control 

issue was ably addressed by Judge Alvin Rubin: 

[T]he judicial role is not a passive one . . . it is the duty of the judge . . . 

to step in at any stage of the litigation where intervention is necessary in 

 10. See RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 1, 11–16; Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth § 10.1 (2004) [hereinafter MCL 4th]. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

6 

the interests of justice. Learned Hand wrote, “a judge is more than a 

moderator; he is charged to see that the law is properly administered, 

and it is a duty which he cannot discharge by remaining inert.”11

 This intervention cannot occur too soon; the process of federal case 

management, and the role accorded the assigned judge in its administration, argue for the earliest exercise of control and oversight to ensure that 

case resolution comes at the soonest, most efficacious, and least costly 

moment in every case. Control over your cases will also help ensure that 

justice is not delayed and that you can give cases the kind of attention 

they need for a just resolution of the dispute. 

2. Specific techniques 

While individual districts may differ, cases are usually assigned to district 

judges, and in some districts to magistrate judges (see Chapter 8, section 

B.5, infra), immediately after filing. It is here, at this early juncture, that 

your first opportunity for judicial oversight and management control 

arises. 

a. Initial scheduling orders and case-management guidelines 

An important early opportunity to assert judicial control and to shape 

attorney expectations regarding every aspect of litigation practice and 

management arises at filing and assignment. In some districts, upon filing 

or shortly thereafter, an initial scheduling order is issued, setting out important early dates, such as deadlines for filing proof of service, for holding the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) “meet and confer” conference, and for making disclosures. Such an order can also inform attorneys of the date for the initial Rule 16 case-management conference. For 

examples of orders, see Appendix A, Forms 1–3. 

 Filing also provides an opportunity to give parties case-management 

guidelines tailored to the district and individual judge. Such information, 

in the form of a local rule, general order, or standing order, can outline 

the specific expectations for counsel and parties, including the judge’s 

administrative, case-management, and courtroom procedures. Such rules 

or orders often are posted on the court’s website and can be provided to 

 11. Alvin B. Rubin, The Managed Calendar: Some Pragmatic Suggestions About 

Achieving the Just, Speedy and Inexpensive Determination of Civil Cases in Federal Courts, 4 

Just. Sys. J. 136 (1978). 
Chapter 1: Early and Ongoing Control of the Pretrial Process 

7 

parties and counsel as hard copy or electronically. In addition to general 

pretrial practice tips, the rules or orders may include specific information 

regarding the form in which attorneys should submit the reports or joint 

statements required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 or 26. Forms 

4–9 in Appendix A provide several examples of case-management rules, 

orders, and guidelines provided by individual judges and courts to attorneys early in the case. 

 Consider creating for the attorneys and parties case-management 

guidelines containing 

• a statement outlining general rules of practice and procedure (including motions, continuances, decorum, and specialized standing orders or rules) for your court; 

• an order setting out procedures to be followed, deadlines to be 

met, and topics to be covered in the parties’ first “meet and confer” conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); 

• an outline (or exemplar/form/format), set of procedures, and 

topic list for submission of joint case-management and discovery 

plans; 

• an order detailing mandatory information and document exchanges or accelerated discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, including consideration of electronic discovery issues such as production, format, preservation, and location of the data;12 

• an order governing pretrial conferences; and 

• a form for consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. 

 In the following chapters we discuss many of the procedures listed 

above, such as the attorneys’ Rule 26 “meet and confer” conference, their 

joint case-management statement, and the judge’s scheduling and final 

pretrial orders. In each instance, citation is made to examples of forms in 

Appendix A. 

 Using such tools as an initial scheduling order, or a casemanagement order (supplementing your court’s local rules), you can 

provide specific and early notice to the parties of all preparations you 

 12. For further discussion of electronic discovery issues, see Chapter 3, section F, 

infra. See also Barbara J. Rothstein, Ronald J. Hedges & Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Managing 

Discovery of Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008) 

and Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s Guide to Pretrial and Trial (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2001). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

8 

want them to make prior to your first status or scheduling conference. In 

addition, by structuring parties’ initial planning meetings under Rule 

26(f), you can ensure that all parties will subsequently make effective use 

of your limited, formal conference time, and avoid problems related to 

electronic data, such as the loss or destruction of evidence. 

b. Early case screening 

Further early judicial control can be established through creative screening of the information contained in the initial pleadings and the civil 

cover sheet (JS-44). Some districts require additional information to facilitate early case screening. Your regular, structured screening of new 

case assignments (or the delegation of this task with specific guidelines to 

a magistrate judge, law clerk, or courtroom deputy) can provide an early 

warning of potential case-management problems. You can then address 

these problems through an early status conference, conference call, order, 

or other intervention before the problems deepen. You can look for potential service problems, potential proof problems, complex legal or factual issues, electronic discovery matters, and early dispositive motions, 

and you can address each according to your guidelines. 

 Consider 

• if the plaintiff’s case includes out-of-state defendants or factual 

and expert witnesses, issuing an order expediting a status or 

scheduling conference once key defendants have been served; 

• in the event of inexperienced counsel handling novel cases or 

matters that present complex proof problems, making an early 

referral to early neutral evaluation (ENE) (see Chapter 5, section 

A.3.c, infra); 

• in the event of an early dispositive motion, making a conference 

call to determine its ripeness for a ruling; and 

• in the event of repeated discovery squabbles or claims of excessive discovery motions practice, making a conference call to establish parameters. 

 Early screening can be the “trip wire” of your case management. It 

allows you to head off problems as they develop, reinforce your authority, and adjust your case-management posture as necessary to keep cases 

moving and on schedule. 
Chapter 1: Early and Ongoing Control of the Pretrial Process 

9 

c. Differentiated case management 

Differentiated case management (DCM) is a system for managing cases 

that is based on the assignment of cases to tracks. Each track in a DCM 

system is defined by specified criteria, such as the complexity of the cases 

assigned to the track, the amount of discovery they will need, the likely 

time that will elapse between filing and trial, and the judicial and other 

resources that may be required. Each track also carries with it a specific 

set of procedures and case-event timelines that govern the progress of 

cases assigned to that track. These procedures, because they are standardized, allow the system to automatically track case progress, ensuring that 

no assigned cases “fall through the cracks” of case-management control. 

DCM systems usually rely on a uniform case-management order that assigns the case to a track and sets out the scheduling and other requirements of the assigned track. Appendix A, Form 28, provides an example 

of track definitions for a federal district court and copies of forms used by 

the court. 

 The purpose of a tracking system is to tailor the level of case management in each case to the needs of the individual case. However, unlike 

case-management approaches that treat each case on an entirely individual basis, DCM provides systematic recognition of differences in case 

types and thus tries to conserve court resources by systematically tailoring resource application. 

 Tracking systems are usually based primarily on case complexity, and 

tracks are typically designated as “expedited,” “standard,” and “complex.” Track designations can also reflect particular case types (e.g., Social 

Security or asbestos cases) or case characteristics (e.g., administrative or 

appeals cases). While some district courts have chosen to use only complexity designations, others use a combination of complexity and other 

designations. Districts that have adopted DCM programs generally have 

established from two to seven tracks—three- and five-track systems being 

the most common. 

 Many districts include an automatic track-assignment process for 

certain types of cases. Administrative or appeals cases, such as Social Security or bankruptcy appeals, are identified by their pleadings and are 

automatically assigned to the administrative/appeals track. For cases of 

greater complexity, as well as those not easily designated by case type, 

greater court involvement in the track-assignment process is usually re-
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

10 

quired. Some courts allow parties to initially designate the track assignment. 

 Regardless of how tracks are initially designated or selected, all DCM 

systems preserve the discretion of the assigned judge to alter the previously chosen track or any of its predefined management controls as individual case needs evolve. See Appendix A, Forms 16, 26, 27, and 28, for 

examples of orders and local rules pertaining to differentiated case management. 

B. Prompting Counsel to Give Early Attention to the Case 

1. In general 

While the responsibilities to properly conduct a civil case are shared by 

and weigh on all participants, the primary responsibility lies with counsel, 

not the court. Federal rules and procedures have increasingly recognized 

the value of placing these responsibilities on the plaintiff and the defendant and the need to conserve the system’s most limited resource, judicial 

time. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) ensures that counsel meet and 

jointly prepare for the Rule 16 conference, exchange core case information, and adopt, to the extent possible, a joint discovery plan. The rule 

provides tools through which you can delegate significant discovery and 

case-management responsibilities directly to the parties. Early preparation by counsel will minimize the need for your unscheduled case interventions and maximize the value of those interventions when they do 

occur. These results become especially important during your later conferences. 

2. The parties’ “meet and confer” conference and mandatory initial 

disclosures 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires that the parties in most 

types of cases meet and confer at least twenty-one days before the initial 

Rule 16 conference is held or the scheduling order is due. The purpose of 

this meeting is to discuss the nature and basis of the parties’ claims and 

defenses; identify issues and solutions for electronic discovery; develop a 

proposed discovery plan; agree on claims of privilege and procedures to 

assert such claims, especially when such data is inadvertently produced; 

discuss the possibility of settlement; prepare a joint case-management 

report to the court; and exchange discoverable information or arrange for 
Chapter 1: Early and Ongoing Control of the Pretrial Process 

11 

its exchange. Parties must file their joint plan with the court within fourteen days of the “meet and confer” conference.13

 The parties’ Rule 26(f) conference presents an early opportunity for 

counsel to analyze their case and plan its subsequent development. 

Equally important are the relationships that can be developed between 

attorneys and between an attorney and the judge, which depend in part 

on how you convey your expectations regarding this meeting. The tenor 

of these relationships will color subsequent interactions between attorneys, as well as between you and them. 

 Laying an appropriate foundation for this meeting can begin with the 

initial scheduling orders and case-management guidelines discussed earlier (see Chapter 1, section A.2.a, supra). By either of these means, you 

can set a date for the Rule 16 conference and key the Rule 26(f) meeting 

to it, or you can instruct counsel to ask chambers directly about appropriate dates and timing. An initial order or case-management guidelines 

can also communicate your expectations for the “meet and confer” conference, the preparations and work products you expect to emerge from 

it, and the end results you want to achieve. The Rule 26 work products, 

such as the disclosures made and the joint discovery plan, are outlined in 

Rule 26, and a suggested format for the joint report is reproduced in Appendix A, Form 10. 

 It is helpful to make clear that the discovery plan and joint casemanagement report prepared by the parties will play a central role in determining the subject matter of the subsequent Rule 16 conference. Some 

judges issue an order of general instructions, whereas others issue an order that will, with the judge’s signature at the Rule 16 conference, become 

the scheduling order for the case. See Appendix A, Forms 2, 11–15, 19–

24, and 29, for examples of orders concerning the Rule 26(f) meeting and 

the joint case-management report and discovery plan.14 

 13. Rule 26 does not apply to those limited actions specified under subdivision 

26(a)(1)(B). The rule requires each party to disclose the names, addresses, and telephone 

numbers of persons likely to have discoverable information, and the subject of that information, to support its claims or defenses; to provide a copy or description of all documents, electronically stored information, and things that support its claims or defenses; to 

provide a computation of damages claimed, along with the documents and other materials on which the computation is based; and to provide for inspection and copying any 

insurance agreement that may satisfy all or part of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). 

 14. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f), failure to participate in good faith in a Rule 26(f) 

conference to develop a discovery plan may result in court sanctions. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

12 

3. Supplementing the “meet and confer” agenda 

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) serves as a point of departure in establishing requirements for the “meet and confer” conference, 

you may wish to add other requirements particularly suited to your own 

case-management practices, including agenda items for subsequent Rule 

16 conference planning. 

 Consider 

• requiring that the plaintiff submit to the defendant, no later than 

ten days before the Rule 16 conference, written settlement proposals to be exchanged (or discussed) at that conference;

• requiring that the parties submit their views on the utility of any 

available alternative dispute resolution (ADR) devices in enhancing early settlement prospects; 

• requiring a proposed schedule for the filing of motions; 

• establishing a timetable for filing and service of dispositive motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or 56; 

• identifying an anticipated date of trial (based on the discovery 

plan) and the expected number of trial days for each party; 

• establishing a proposed agenda for the Rule 16 conference; 

• requiring that the joint case-management plan (with dissenting 

addenda, as necessary) be filed with the court no later than two 

weeks before the Rule 16 conference; and 

• requiring parties to identify the format and location of all discoverable electronic information, and to state whether the information is readily available, the cost for producing it, and whether it 

must be preserved.15

 15. Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, supra note 12, at 4–5. Parties 

cannot be sanctioned by the court for failing to provide electronically stored information 

if the data was “lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). Accordingly, issues of electronic data preservation 

should be discussed and agreed on as early as possible in the case. 
13 

Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a CaseManagement Plan 

A. Consulting with Lawyers and Unrepresented Parties 

B. Scheduling a Rule 16 Conference 

C. Setting a Case-Management Plan Through the Rule 16 Conference 

1. Who should conduct the conference? 

2. When should the conference be held? 

3. Where should the conference be held? 

4. Is teleconferencing appropriate? 

5. Should the proceedings be recorded? 

6. Who should attend? 

a. Lawyers 

b. Litigants 

c. Others 

7. What can lawyers prepare? 

a. The conference statement/order 

b. Short-form conference statement/order 

c. Uniform orders 

8. What subjects are covered at the Rule 16 conference? 

9. What can you do to monitor the scope of the claims? 

a. Identifying and narrowing the issues 

b. Limiting joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings 

D. The Scheduling Order and Calendar Management 

1. Issuing the scheduling order 

2. Calendar management considerations 

The foundation of civil case management is the case schedule, which sets 

deadlines for both attorney and judicial actions leading to case disposition. Every civil case should be placed on a schedule, whether the case is 

an administrative matter, such as a Social Security review, or a complex, 

multiparty action. Scheduling is critical to effective litigation management for two reasons: (1) deadlines help ensure that attorneys will complete the work required to bring the case to timely resolution; and 

(2) unless a case is scheduled for an event (for example, a conference or 

filing of a motion), it may drop from sight. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) directs that a scheduling order 

be issued in every case (except those exempted by local rule) “as soon as 

practicable” after receiving the parties’ Rule 26(f) report or after consult-
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

14 

ing with parties, but no later than the “earlier of 120 days after any defendant has been served or 90 days after any defendant has appeared.” 

The scheduling order controls the course of the action unless modified by 

a subsequent order (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d)).16 Even in cases exempted by 

local rule from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a minimal but firm 

schedule should be set. At the other end of the scale are cases, such as 

some class action and mass tort cases, that require extensive management, numerous rulings, and periodic adjustments to the schedule as the 

case unfolds; for guidance in handling the special needs of these cases, see 

the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth. 

 Your goal should be to set a schedule that is as tight as possible but 

also realistic in light of what you know about the case, the attorneys, the 

settlement posture of the parties, and the need to develop information 

necessary for a reasoned and principled resolution of disputed issues. 

Scheduling is an art form; although it benefits from the structure provided by rules, it requires you to exercise your best judgment in every 

case. 

A. Consulting with Lawyers and Unrepresented Parties 

There are several approaches to setting a case schedule, including automatic issuance of a standard schedule for all cases of a certain type, review and approval of a schedule submitted by the lawyers, and preparation of a schedule in consultation with the lawyers at a Rule 16 conference. One question you may have is whether it is necessary or useful to 

consult with the lawyers to set the schedule. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that the judge shall 

enter a scheduling order after consulting with attorneys and unrepresented parties. Note that the rule specifically includes consultation with 

unrepresented parties. Consultation is important for two reasons: 

(1) consideration of the subjects listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

16(c) may be necessary or helpful in arriving at an appropriate scheduling order; and (2) the rule provides that the schedule shall not be modified except by leave of the court upon a showing of good cause. Orders 

therefore need to be realistic, taking into account the needs of the case, 

 16. See generally Charles R. Richey, Rule 16 Revisited: Reflections for the Benefit of 

Bench and Bar, 139 F.R.D. 525 (1992). 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

15 

your calendar, and the lawyers’ other commitments (see Chapter 2, section D, infra, for a discussion of the scheduling order). 

B. Scheduling a Rule 16 Conference 

When deciding whether to hold a scheduling conference, it is well to keep 

in mind the purposes Rule 16 seeks to achieve (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)):

• expedite the disposition of the action; 

• establish early and continuing control so that the case will not be 

protracted because of lack of management; 

• discourage wasteful pretrial activities; 

• improve the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation; and 

• facilitate settlement of the case. 

 The decision to hold a scheduling conference depends on what you 

want to achieve at the outset of the case. Do you simply want to set dates 

for the major events in the case? Such dates are likely to be more realistic—and the case better managed—if you consult with the attorneys. 

Once your goals move beyond scheduling to such matters as narrowing 

issues, controlling the scope of discovery, or exploring settlement, you 

will undoubtedly want to hold an initial scheduling conference with the 

attorneys or any unrepresented parties. 

 In deciding whether to hold a conference, you should look at the 

various characteristics of the case. For example, if the case involves many 

parties or potentially voluminous discovery, if you identify claims that 

are likely to be dismissed on a Rule 12(b) motion, if you know the attorneys to be short on cooperation, or if the case might easily be settled with 

your intervention, you will probably want to hold a conference. 

 Many judges think a conference should be held in every case, either 

in person or by telephone. They see it as an opportunity to accomplish 

many things: narrow issues, assert control over discovery, attempt settlement, meet the litigants, find out who the attorneys are and what their 

relationship is, acquaint attorneys with the specific procedures of your 

chambers, put a “face” on the judicial system for inexperienced litigants, 

and show the attorneys who is in control of the case. Advocates of conferences also argue that an investment of time early in the case saves time 

later by eliminating the potential for disputes over discovery and other 

issues. Other judges have less faith in scheduling conferences, especially 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

16 

in routine cases. They believe early conferences are a waste of resources. 

Certainly, conferences that are merely perfunctory are a waste of everyone’s time. You should hold a conference if you have specific purposes 

you want to accomplish and can organize your approach to ensure that 

they are accomplished. 

 In some courts, specified categories of cases are exempted from the 

conference requirement. These cases, however, will still benefit from early 

judicial management of some kind.17 For example, many courts exempt 

Social Security, government collection, habeas corpus, and section 1983 

prisoner cases, and have adopted discrete management approaches or 

“tracks” appropriate for these cases in their courts. The tracks establish 

preset time frames and standardized, presumptive deadlines for significant case events. This prearranged format for managing these limited 

categories of cases allows a judge to keep such cases on a preset, or 

“autopilot,” management system, yet reserves the judge’s right to intervene at any time to change it. See Chapter 1, section A.2.c, supra, for a 

discussion of differentiated case tracking generally. 

 You have broad discretion as a judge, guided by the stated purposes 

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, to tailor case-management approaches and conferences to the needs and circumstances of the case. 

That discretion offers opportunities for innovation and creativity but also 

tends to introduce into the case a large element of unpredictability from 

the perspective of the lawyers and litigants. Lawyers can play their part in 

litigation management more effectively if they know your expectations. 

Consider, therefore, posting on your court’s website a standing order or 

guidelines covering your expectations for the pretrial process, such as 

discovery and motions practice, and trial procedures. For a sample of 

general orders and guidelines, see Appendix A, Forms 4–9; for examples 

of forms and orders regarding preparation for the joint case-management 

statement and case-management conference, see Appendix A, Forms 3 

and 10–15. See also Chapter 1, sections A.2 and B.2, supra. 

 17. The Judicial Conference, in its final report on the CJRA, endorsed the use of 

tracking systems for these types of administrative and quasi-administrative cases: “The 

DCM concept may provide its greatest benefits by offering standardized casemanagement procedures to those plaintiffs whose claims are the least amenable to more 

formal adversarial procedures and whose litigation dollars are the most limited.” JCUS 

CJRA Report, supra note 1, at 28. The Conference also warned, however, that tracking 

systems in some cases “can be bureaucratic, unwieldy, and difficult to implement.” Id.
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

17 

C. Setting a Case-Management Plan Through the Rule 16 

Conference 

If you have decided that a scheduling conference is necessary, you still 

have many decisions to make about when, where, how, and by whom the 

conference will be conducted, and who should attend the conference. 

1. Who should conduct the conference? 

To advance the purposes of the Rule 16 conference and to use it as more 

than a perfunctory exercise, a judge, not a law clerk, should conduct it. 

The Rule 16 conference is generally the first point of significant contact 

for establishing case-management control. You have an unparalleled opportunity to set the pace and scope of all case activities that follow, to 

look the lawyers and litigants in the eye, and to set the tone of the case. 

You will also be in a better position to assess the personalities involved 

and the likelihood of early settlement. 

 If you are a district judge who assigns civil pretrial case-management 

duties to a magistrate judge, consider conducting the initial scheduling 

conference jointly, or at least attending part of the conference. Your presence will send a strong message to the attorneys and litigants that you are 

in control of the case. The magistrate judge and attorneys will also be able 

to coordinate their calendars more efficiently with yours. If rulings are 

needed on motions, particularly dispositive motions, you will be able to 

make them immediately, rather than waiting for a report and recommendation from the magistrate judge. Because of such considerations, as 

well as a preference for remaining familiar with a case at all times, some 

judges do not assign the initial scheduling conference to magistrate 

judges. 

2. When should the conference be held? 

The Rule 16(b) scheduling conference should precede issuance of the 

scheduling order so that the order can be informed by the discussion at 

the conference. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires that a 

scheduling order issue as soon as practicable, but in no event more than 

120 days after service of the complaint. Generally, the date of the scheduling conference can be generated or otherwise automatically established 

when the case is filed. The 120-day period provided by Federal Rule of 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

18 

Civil Procedure 16(b) is usually long enough for all defendants to be 

served and for lawyers to complete any necessary preconference disclosure. Some judges hold the conference earlier to get a “feel” for the action, as well as the posture of the parties, as soon as possible. Under some 

circumstances—for example, when all parties have filed an appearance—

an early conference may expedite the case; however, holding two conferences, the first one early in the case and the second after the defendant 

has been served, will increase the plaintiff’s costs, as well as your time on 

the case.18 

3. Where should the conference be held? 

Judges’ arrangements for holding Rule 16(b) conferences vary, but the 

basic choice is between the courtroom and the judge’s chambers. Several 

factors should be weighed when making that decision. 

 Consider 

• how many persons will attend; 

• whether the case will attract public and media interest; 

• the purposes of the conference and the items on the agenda (e.g., 

whether you will make rulings or issue orders); 

• the character, experience, and attitude of the participants; and 

• the nature of the issues. 

 Holding a conference in the informal setting of your chambers can be 

more conducive to achieving the cooperation needed for narrowing issues, making stipulations, and discussing possible settlement. The formality of the courtroom setting, on the other hand, promotes orderly and 

controlled proceedings, leading to a better record if substantive rulings 

will be made. In cases of public interest, members of the public and media representatives may want to attend the conference; their presence is 

more easily accommodated in the courtroom. 

4. Is teleconferencing appropriate? 

Whether teleconferencing is appropriate for the Rule 16(b) conference 

depends in part on what you wish to accomplish. Although a face-to-face 

conference is often the preferred approach, there are cases in which such 

 18. But see MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.22 (discussing the use and scheduling of 

multiple conferences in complex cases). 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

19 

a conference is not necessary or feasible.19 If the conference may be held 

by telephone or in person, consider that 

• telephone conferences, especially with out-of-town counsel, save 

time and money, permit a conference on short notice, and can 

adequately address routine management matters, such as scheduling or discovery issues; 

• face-to-face conferences facilitate the detailed discussion needed 

to clarify and narrow issues, analyze damage claims, explore settlement possibilities, and address contentious matters; such discussion may be sacrificed or minimized in a telephone conference; and 

• a face-to-face conference in the courtroom may be advisable in a 

case with a nonincarcerated pro se litigant, to address concerns of 

the pro se litigant, to avoid misunderstandings that can easily 

arise with such a litigant, and to enable you to emphasize the seriousness of the litigation. 

5. Should the proceedings be recorded? 

The parties are entitled to have all conference proceedings recorded on 

request, but absent such a request, you may exercise your discretion in 

deciding whether to record the scheduling conference. 

 Consider that 

• counsel may speak more freely off the record, but in certain cases 

the attorneys or parties may be so contentious that it is advisable 

to record the proceedings to avoid disputes later about what was 

said; 

• if the case involves a pro se litigant, it is wise to record the conference, whether held in person or on the telephone, to avoid 

misunderstandings and to have a record if disputes arise later; 

• you should state at the outset of the conference whether you are 

having it recorded; and 

 19. The Judicial Conference, in its final report on the CJRA, noted that 

“[c]onducting scheduling and discovery conferences by telephone, when appropriate, also 

saves time for the attorneys and the court as well as expense for the litigants.” JCUS CJRA 

Report, supra note 1, at 22. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

20 

• if you decide the conference should be held off the record, stipulations or rulings can be dictated to the reporter at the end of the 

conference. 

6. Who should attend? 

a. Lawyers 

The utility of the scheduling conference depends on the participating 

lawyers’ understanding of their case, their authority to enter into binding 

scheduling arrangements and stipulations (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)), and 

their familiarity with subjects the court will consider. The lawyers’ participation will depend on your agenda for the conference, which you can 

communicate to the lawyers through your initial scheduling order or 

case-management guidelines (see Chapter 1, sections A.2.a and B.2, supra; see also examples of forms and orders in Appendix A, Forms 3–10, 

13–15, and 25). The lead trial lawyer as well as the lawyer in charge of 

preparing the case during the pretrial phases should attend the conference, since both are important for decisions made about the case and for 

coordinating calendars. 

 Consider that 

• if you plan to work with the lawyers to narrow issues, reduce the 

amount of discovery, or discuss settlement, a lawyer with full 

authority over the case may be needed; 

• in cases in which the United States is a party, you must recognize 

the inherent limitations of settlement authority granted to individual U.S. attorneys; and 

• to save fees and other costs, you can limit the attendance of attorneys at conferences; however, the presence of counsel involved 

in related pending litigation may be helpful. 

b. Litigants 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(1), some judges require litigants to attend or be available for the initial scheduling conference, but 

many judges do not consider it useful in routine cases. Some research 

suggests that having litigants at, or available for, settlement conferences is 

related to reduced time to disposition.20 Litigant attendance had no sig-

 20. See RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 78. 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

21 

nificant effect on cost, however, as measured by lawyer work hours spent, 

leading to a conclusion that “[t]his policy appears worth implementing 

more widely because it has benefits without any offsetting disadvantages.”21 Sometimes it is helpful to have particular types of litigants present at the conference, such as insurance carriers who bear the major risk 

and exercise control in the litigation or litigants pressing civil rights or 

personal injury claims. In cases in which strong emotions may be a factor, an opportunity to “vent” to an impartial listener may help litigants 

become more open to early settlement. Moreover, attorneys do not always know the litigants’ goals in these cases. If you intend to make settlement a central part of the initial scheduling conference, you will want 

the litigants there. In deciding whether litigants or their representatives 

should attend the scheduling conference, you should consider that litigant attendance may 

• give litigants a better understanding of the case problems; 

• give litigants an appreciation of the cost and time involved in litigating the case; 

• facilitate making stipulations; 

• bring to the surface potential disagreements between litigants 

and counsel; and 

• assist litigants in reaching a settlement. 

Of course, litigants’ attendance may also 

• cause attorneys to posture and to maintain positions on which 

they might otherwise yield; 

• make litigants intransigent; and 

• be costly for the litigants, especially if there is little movement as 

a result. 

 If litigants attend the conference, you can avoid problems by excusing them from time to time as needed. 

c. Others 

It has been recommended, and some judges require, that in cases involving extensive electronic discovery the persons most knowledgeable about 

the parties’ computer systems and electronic data storage attend the initial Rule 16 conference.22 Also, to save fees and other costs, judges limit 

 21. Id. at 80. 

 22. See Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, supra note 12, at 5. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

22 

the attendance of attorneys, sometimes to one per party; however, counsel involved in related pending litigation may be helpful at such a conference.23 

7. What can lawyers prepare? 

As with so many other matters, what lawyers can prepare for the conference depends on what you want to accomplish at the conference. The 

more you want to do, the more information you may need from the attorneys. The greatest benefit in asking them to prepare materials for the 

conference is that it will force them to give attention to the case and talk 

to each other. Such a conversation is, in any event, required of counsel by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), which instructs them to meet and 

confer at least twenty-one days before the scheduling conference is held, 

or the scheduling order is issued, to discuss the case and the nature and 

timing of discovery in particular. Within fourteen days of this meeting, 

counsel must submit to each other the disclosures required by Rule 26(a). 

See Chapter 1, section B.2, supra, for a discussion of Rule 26 requirements. 

 The desirability of having counsel talk, not write, to each other about 

the case at the earliest moment cannot be overstated. Too often lawyers 

will not have discussed the case with opposing counsel and will have little 

understanding of the controverted issues, resulting in much wasted time 

and effort. To ensure that meaningful discussions will have occurred, and 

to provide a solid foundation for discussion during the conference, it is 

advisable to notify counsel of the agenda for the conference. You can 

send a statement describing the purpose of the conference and an attached order directing counsel to prepare formal submissions (either individually or jointly) on each of the conference topics (hereinafter referred to as the conference statement/order) and requiring counsel to 

attend the Rule 26(f) conference in person. 

a. The conference statement/order 

To save time at the initial conference and maximize its utility, many 

judges prepare one or more standard forms of the Rule 16 conference 

statement/order and send the appropriate form to counsel in advance of 

 23. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.23. 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

23 

the conference. The order accompanying the statement tells counsel what 

the judge expects and enables counsel to use the conference time better. 

 Consider issuing an order directing lawyers to 

• meet and confer on all subjects that are to be covered at the 

scheduling conference and that are required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(f) and to reach agreement to the extent possible; 

• attempt to define and narrow issues; 

• prepare, exchange, and submit Rule 16 conference statements 

(brief, nonargumentative statements, joint to the extent feasible, 

that summarize the background of the action and the principal 

factual and legal issues); 

• make all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a) and file them with the court by a specified date; 

• outline a discovery plan or program; and 

• address other appropriate subjects for the conference. 

 You should instruct counsel to file a written response to your statement/order ten days before the conference date. For illustrative forms 

and orders for the attorneys’ joint report, see Appendix A, Forms 2, 3, 

and 10–15; for helpful checklists for topics to be addressed at the Rule 

26(f) conference and by the scheduling order, see the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth.

24 See also Chapter 1, section B.2, supra. 

b. Short-form conference statement/order 

While the longer, more formal Rule 16 conference documents referenced 

above may be necessary and helpful, their costs in attorney time, and thus 

fees, should be recognized. Instead of a more formal conference statement/order, a short-form version may be an appropriate alternative in 

less complex cases. Under this alternative, you may require the parties to 

submit a one- or two-page statement in reply to your order. Recognize, 

however, that the parties’ responses may be of little benefit to you because of their brevity. 

 Consider issuing an order requesting submission of a statement containing 

• one sentence on subject matter jurisdiction; 

 24. MCL 4th, supra note 10, §§ 11.211, 22.6. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

24 

• one or two sentences on what the case is about (e.g., “an antitrust 

case for price-fixing”); 

• one or two sentences on motions that are likely to be filed or that 

need your consideration; 

• one or two sentences on the kinds of discovery required and how 

long discovery will take; and 

• one or two sentences on settlement prospects for the case. 

c. Uniform orders 

Many judges have chosen to adopt a uniform order that is used throughout the district. Because a uniform order makes it easier for the attorneys 

to comply with the court’s wishes, it is likely to make your job easier also. 

 A uniform order tells the lawyers which subjects will be discussed at 

the Rule 16 conference and the exact format of any conference statement 

or joint statement that counsel are required to submit before the conference. Such orders, while standardized in general format, usually provide 

spaces (blanks or lines for free-form entries) that permit the judge to tailor the requirements imposed on the particular case. Such an order will 

ensure that the information you want is there, in the same place, for both 

sides. Uniform orders serve other important purposes: to the extent they 

represent the consensus of the bench, they can influence the local legal 

culture and educate its practitioners and litigants about the court’s expectations of those who come before it. For examples of a uniform approach, 

see Appendix A, Forms 8, 9, 16, and 25. 

8. What subjects are covered at the Rule 16 conference? 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) lists subjects for discussion at the 

Rule 16 conference, but that list is not exhaustive. Because Rule 16 conferences may be held not only at the beginning of a case (as a scheduling 

conference), but also later in the litigation, appropriate subjects will depend on the stage of the case. As a supplement to your own ideas, you 

can ask counsel to suggest subjects and then determine which to cover at 

the conference. This kind of controlled discussion of the conference 

agenda can be most helpful in determining what is appropriate and useful to you and the attorneys. Moreover, through discussion, and accommodation when possible, of the attorneys’ preferences, you can hold the 

attorneys to the commitments they make. 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

25 

 Consider the following topics and areas for discussion at the Rule 16 

conference: 

• proposals for identification, narrowing, and reduction of issues 

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(A)); 

• preparation of a joint pretrial schedule or case-management plan 

that includes a separate discovery plan covering all phases of case 

discovery; 

• a schedule for filing all anticipated motions; 

• an agreement on procedures to be followed for determining 

claims of privilege, including claims arising after production of 

privileged information (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(D)); 

• certification by counsel and representatives of each of the parties 

that they have conferred with a view toward establishing a budget 

plan to cover the probable costs their litigation will entail;25 

• a clear identification of, and agreement on, all electronic discovery issues, including issues of preservation, cost, location, and 

format (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C));26

• specific time limitations for the joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(B)); 

• for district judges, referral to a magistrate judge for supervision 

of pretrial proceedings or, with party consent, for all aspects of 

the case (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(H)); 

• prospects for settlement and an assessment of the parties’ present 

settlement posture; 

• adoption of special procedures (e.g., for complex or patent cases, 

or class actions) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L)); 

• control of, limitations on, or potential problems with discovery, 

including the possibility of phased discovery; 

• setting the discovery cutoff date; 

 25. It may be helpful to require attorneys to estimate the hours required to handle 

the case in this budget. See Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee Litigation (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2005) (discussing management of attorney fee litigation). 

 26. A thorough discussion of electronic discovery matters to be considered early in 

the case is contained in Chapter 3, section F, infra. See also Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, supra note 12, and Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s 

Guide to Pretrial and Trial, supra note 12. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

26 

• suitability and appropriateness of the case for ADR, ADR choices 

available (e.g., arbitration, mediation, ENE, judicial settlement 

conference), parties’ preferred ADR option, and parties’ justification if no ADR option is chosen; and 

• attorneys’ estimates of the number of days a trial will take.27 

9. What can you do to monitor the scope of the claims? 

a. Identifying and narrowing the issues 

One of the most important tasks in the initial case-management conference is early identification of the issues in controversy (in both claims 

and defenses) and of possible areas for stipulations as provided by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2).28 Issue narrowing is aimed at refining 

the controversy and pruning away extraneous issues. This effort will provide you and the parties with an assessment of the resources that this case 

warrants, the likelihood of successful dispositive motions, and the issues 

to focus on at trial or in settlement. 

 Consider that issue narrowing 

• forces the lawyers and their clients to analyze their claims and defenses, to focus on the economics of the case, and to define both 

the scope of the litigation and the amount of time and money 

they are willing to expend; 

• is an educational process that enables you to learn the important 

facts and understand the legal principles; and 

• is an educational process for the lawyers, who often know little 

about each other’s case (and sometimes not much about their 

own) and who may discover that the dispute is narrower than 

they supposed, thus leading to stipulations or early settlement. 

 Do not blindly accept counsel’s objections that they lack appropriate 

information for early issue identification. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

11 requires inquiry prior to the filing of an action, and counsel should be 

held to their responsibilities. Moreover, the identification of even formative information is helpful. You can make it clear that information should 

 27. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.21 (suggesting topics for the initial conference). 

 28. See also id. § 11.33. 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

27 

be as specific as currently possible, but that any information developed in 

this process is subject to later clarification. 

 Thus, you will want to ask direct and leading questions, such as: 

“What do you expect to prove and how? How do you expect to defeat this 

claim? What are the damages?” If this process discloses issues apparently 

ripe for dismissal, counsel should be given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before action is taken on the merits. 

 Consider the following additional approaches: 

• urging attorneys to reach agreement on the issues or to clearly 

identify areas of disagreement and narrow those remaining issues; 

• addressing and resolving early any questions concerning subject 

matter jurisdiction, which is a fatal and nonwaivable defect (for 

an example of a jurisdictional checklist, see Appendix A, Form 

17; for an illustrative order to show cause regarding removal jurisdiction, see Appendix A, Form 18); 

• determining which issues are material and genuinely in dispute 

by pressing both sides on this matter in an attempt to avoid 

wasteful litigation activity (such as unnecessary discovery and 

motions) and facilitating settlement (for an order to facilitate issue definition, see Appendix A, Form 12); 

• determining how issues may be resolved, whether by motion (for 

example, motion for partial summary judgment or Rule 12(b) 

motion) or by special procedures (for example, a bifurcated trial 

or consolidation with other cases); 

• determining what discovery is required for resolution of particular 

issues and putting that limited activity on an expedited track; 

• identifying with specificity the amount and computation of damages claimed and other relief sought, the supporting evidence, 

and the basis for establishing causation; and 

• determining whether there are indispensable parties to be added. 

 Remember that while counsel may feel that they lack the information 

needed for meaningful issue identification early in the case, such an objection should not be permitted to stall the process. Issue identification 

should proceed, always subject to later clarification or modification. Establishing what is at stake in the litigation (i.e., plaintiff’s likely gains and 

defendant’s likely exposure) facilitates settlement and gives both the parties and the court a sense of the resources the case warrants. It also serves 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

28 

to make parties and counsel much more realistic about the outcome of 

the case. 

b. Limiting joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings 

Changes in parties (by addition, substitution, or dismissal) and amendments to claims or defenses can affect the issues in the case and cause unnecessary or duplicative discovery and motion activity. Such changes and 

amendments can be avoided by setting a reasonably early cutoff date for 

amendments of any kind (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; local rules may also apply). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) contemplates that such a date 

not be modified other than on a showing of good cause. 

 Consider the following: 

• Leave to join parties and amend pleadings should be liberally 

granted but need not be open-ended. 

• If the parties admit in conference that they may make amendments later, you should set a reasonable time limit for such 

amendments, usually not to exceed sixty days. 

D. The Scheduling Order and Calendar Management 

1. Issuing the scheduling order 

Based on your discussion with counsel and their submissions, you can 

determine what should be included in your scheduling order. A firm and 

unambiguous order is critical to effective case management. It is helpful 

to create standard forms of orders for cases on different management 

tracks; these forms can be readily adapted to meet the needs of the particular case after consultation with counsel. Counsel can also be asked to 

submit proposed forms of the order in advance of the conference, as 

shown in some of the examples in Appendix A. For illustrative scheduling 

orders for general civil cases, see Appendix A, Forms 1–3, 16, and 19–24; 

for orders for Social Security cases, see Forms 26 and 27. 

 Consider including the following items in your scheduling order: 

• a deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings (Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(B)); 

• a date for completion of all discovery or particular phases or 

parts of discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F)) by specifying cutoff dates for noticing depositions, for serving interrogatories and 

document requests, and for filing discovery motions; 
Chapter 2: Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan 

29 

• a deadline for filing dispositive motions; 

• a deadline for identifying trial experts and exchanging experts’ 

materials (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)); 

• a date for further conferences as needed (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(3)(B)); 

• a date for a final pretrial conference (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)); 

• a date for a settlement conference (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)); 

• a date for an ADR process (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(I)); 

• a trial date (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)); 

• a reasonable length of time for the trial; 

• ground rules for continuances; and 

• a procedure for reconciling calendar conflicts with proceedings 

in state or other federal courts. 

When possible, you should accommodate any needs for expedited resolution. Delay can be very costly in some cases, such as bankruptcy appeals. 

 Counsel should understand your position with respect to requests for 

continuances; false expectations can interfere with the progress of the 

case. Generally, requests for continuances should be discouraged.29 

 Consider 

• requiring that stipulated continuances be ruled on by the court; 

and 

• requiring submission of an account of all prior requests for 

continuances with reasons given. 

2. Calendar management considerations 

The ultimate effectiveness and utility of scheduling orders depends to a 

large degree on the state of your calendar. Your time is limited, and good 

case management depends on good time management. If you are a magistrate judge issuing the scheduling order on behalf of a district judge, 

make sure you confer with the district judge to ensure that the order conforms to his or her schedule. 

 29. One of the techniques included in the Civil Justice Reform Act for this purpose 

was the “requirement that all requests for extensions of deadlines, for completion of discovery, or for postponement of the trial be signed by the attorney and the party making 

the request.” Pub. L. No. 101-650, § 103(a)–(b), 104 Stat. 5089. The Judicial Conference, 

however, did not endorse this technique, noting its “almost universal rejection . . . by the 

bar and the courts.” JCUS CJRA Report, supra note 1, at 41. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

30 

 Consider the following: 

• Overscheduling will be counterproductive; keep in mind your 

(and your staff’s) limitations and convenience. 

• Multiple settings are often necessary to avoid loss of productive 

time but should be scheduled in ways that will minimize the resulting burdens on the parties and attorneys. 

• Attorneys should learn to expect that deadlines will be firmly adhered to; you must set the example. 

• Familiarity with the case and good communications with attorneys will enable you to arrive at reasonably accurate time estimates for hearings and trials. 

• Matters such as hearings, conferences, or trials should be limited 

in time; the participants should understand that the business at 

hand should be done with dispatch. 

• Time management is advanced by judges trying whenever possible not to handle a particular matter more than once; for example, referral of dispositive motions to a magistrate judge should 

be carefully weighed (see Chapter 8, section B.2, infra). 

• Parties must not be allowed to stipulate around deadlines or gain 

easy continuances. 

 The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system can 

assist you in managing your cases and your calendar. You should be familiar with the case-management reports available through CM/ECF, 

including reports created locally by your court. Examples of useful 

CM/ECF reports include pending motions reports (indicating time pending and ripeness), docket activity reports (to keep abreast daily of filings 

in your cases), and calendar reports. See Appendix C for samples and descriptions of reports available through CM/ECF. For general tips on using 

technology for case management, see Chapter 9, infra.

30 For case management to be effective, you must maintain the credibility of the calendar 

by holding parties to agreed-on deadlines absent very good cause, as well 

as by ruling promptly on motions and maintaining trial dates. You 

should set your own goals (e.g., to rule on nondispositive motions in 

thirty days) and use electronic calendaring to flag your deadlines (see 

Chapter 9, infra, and Appendix C). 

 30. See also Effective Use of Courtroom Technology, supra note 12. 
31 

Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

A. In General 

B. Specific Techniques for Managing Discovery 

C. Anticipating and Forestalling Discovery Problems 

D. Limiting Discovery 

1. In general 

2. Document requests 

3. Depositions (who, how many, etc.) 

E. Handling Discovery Disputes 

1. Methods for reducing the number of disputes 

2. Discovery motions 

F. Discovery of Electronically Stored Information 

1. Electronic discovery issues 

a. Preservation of data 

b. Form of production 

c. Archives and legacy data 

d. On-site inspection or sampling 

e. Need for expert assistance 

2. Management tools for electronic discovery 

a. Early exchange of computer system information 

b. Rule 16(c) pretrial conference agenda 

c. Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures 

d. Proportionality 

e. Cost allocation 

f. Rule 53 special master or Rule 706 court-appointed expert 

The parties may obtain discovery, by rule or court order, of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” even if 

not admissible at trial so long as the discovery “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1)). While the federal rules limit the frequency, extent, and nature 

of discovery, the judge may expand or limit the amount, frequency, or 

duration of discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(2)) by order in a specific 

case and/or through local rule or standing order. 

A. In General 

Discovery management should be guided by an awareness that you know 

less about the case than the lawyers. This should not deter you, however, 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

32 

from managing discovery, based on your experience and after consultation with counsel. 

 Consider the following general approaches as a discovery management “platform” to be created before or upon your first discussion with 

counsel: 

• advising counsel of your expectations regarding the Rule 26(f) 

“meet and confer” conference and the discovery plan they must 

submit (see Chapter 1, section B.2, supra); 

• arriving at an early (at least tentative) definition of the scope of 

discovery (subject matter, time period, geographical range, etc.) 

based on early identification of issues at the Rule 16 conference; 

• setting a discovery cutoff date as soon as the needs for discovery 

can be assessed, preferably at the Rule 16 conference; 

• evaluating the appropriateness of proposed discovery in light of 

the damages identified and the availability of less expensive and 

more efficient alternatives to conventional discovery (e.g., telephone depositions or interviews) (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)); 

• clarifying the extent of parties’ obligations to supplement and 

update prior and subsequent disclosures and responses (see Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(e)); 

• establishing procedures for resolving discovery disputes 

including ensuring that the parties conferred or attempted to 

confer in an effort to resolve the dispute (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) 

(see Chapter 3, section E, infra); 

• using special masters or liaison counsel to help organize and 

oversee the entire discovery process; and 

• establishing guidelines for handling discovery of electronically 

stored information (see Chapter 3, section F, infra). 

You can ask counsel to review the American College of Trial Lawyers’ 

Code of Pretrial Conduct (2002) and Code of Trial Conduct (1994). Although other professional organizations publish similarly helpful guidelines, these codes expound the principles of civility and fairness on which 

a judge may resolve the typical discovery dispute. 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

33 

 For illustrative orders and forms for management of discovery, see 

Appendix A, Forms 2, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16, 25, and 29. For illustrative procedures, see the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth.

31 

B. Specific Techniques for Managing Discovery 

Discovery influences both the length and cost of litigation.32 Limiting discovery to that appropriate for the case at hand promotes efficiency and 

economy, enables you to avoid disputes by anticipating problems, and 

expedites the resolution of unavoidable disputes.33 A number of techniques can be implemented, both at the Rule 16 conference and subsequently, to advance discovery management. Effective early management 

will reduce discovery problems. 

 Various techniques for management and control are available to you 

and the attorneys. Many districts have local rules that impose detailed 

restrictions and requirements on discovery. In addition, control of discovery always involves issues of timing, such as whether particular discovery actions are likely to be productive earlier or later and in what sequence. Particular kinds of discovery may help in the early evaluation of 

the case (for example, early disclosure of the details of the damage claim 

will indicate the economic stakes of the lawsuit). Specific early discovery 

may also help you determine whether other discovery is needed (for example, an issue may drop out of the case or needed information may become available). Your careful sequencing of discovery may help you 

avoid unnecessary activity. Your success will depend on your ability to 

take the time to key your decisions to specific, subsequent case actions, or 

“next action” dates. 

 31. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.4. 

 32. See RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 67. 

 33. Rule 26(b)(2) provides as follows: 

 The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under 

these rules . . . shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is 

more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has 

had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking 

into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable 

notice or pursuant to a motion . . . . [emphasis added] 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

34 

 Consider 

• encouraging counsel to use requests for admission to help define 

controversial issues and hence the limits of needed discovery—

the judge should closely supervise this process because requests 

for admission, if broadly or contentiously worded, can be a waste 

of time; the most useful requests are narrowly drawn, factual, and 

neutrally worded; 

• calling on attorneys early to prepare and present a proposed discovery plan (including the scope of written discovery and list of 

depositions), agreed upon by both sides to the extent feasible; 

• using phased discovery, including Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, to 

target particular witnesses, issues, and key players for the purpose 

of obtaining information needed for settlement negotiations, to 

address issues regarding electronically stored information, or to 

lay a foundation for a dispositive motion, thereby deferring and 

possibly obviating other discovery; 

• requiring, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), 

exchange of signed reports or statements of proposed testimony 

of experts in advance of their depositions; 

• imposing, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), 

30, 31, and 33, limits on the number of interrogatories, the scope 

of document requests, and the number and length of depositions 

(local court rules may contain or recommend such limits); 

• restricting the use of form interrogatories or interrogatories that 

include, as a preamble, a set of complex definitions that render 

the interrogatories burdensome and objectionable; 

• arranging depositions so as to avoid unnecessary travel; 

• requiring parties to identify all relevant, electronically stored information, distinguish data by ease and cost of accessing information, and identify all types of electronic formats being used by 

the parties; and 

• in complex cases, having attorneys report via letter or teleconference at crucial case junctures on the status of documents, depositions, and settlement prospects.34 

 34. See generally MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.42 (tips for managing complex litigation, including using phased, targeted, or sequenced discovery, or having liaison counsel 

or special masters manage discovery). 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

35 

 Requiring updates either by letter or teleconference has a number of 

advantages: It makes a conference unnecessary; helps you maintain open, 

manageable channels of communication; keeps the case moving to subsequent decision-making points; is a simple, cheap, but critical caseoversight and accountability mechanism; and keeps you informed. Because of the work it imposes on counsel, however, such an updating requirement should generally be used only in complex and protracted 

cases. 

C. Anticipating and Forestalling Discovery Problems 

Discovery disputes sometimes develop into satellite litigation that takes 

on a life of its own. Your case management should help anticipate problems that may grow into disputes and should help deal with disputes so as 

to contain them rather than letting them expand.35 Discovery problems 

can be reduced if attorneys know what you expect of them, what you regard as the limits of acceptable conduct, and how you deal with objections and other discovery disputes. It is therefore imperative for you to 

establish a clear practice, with which the bar can become familiar, and to 

indicate firmly and clearly your expectations of counsel. For examples of 

orders and guidelines, see Appendix A, Forms 4, 8, 16, 25, and 29. 

 To conserve resources, some district judges routinely refer discovery 

disputes and other matters to magistrate judges. The judge should refrain 

from referring all discovery disputes to a magistrate judge; this practice 

wastes time because two judges must become familiar with the case. Also, 

handling a discovery dispute is a good way to take the pulse of a case to 

determine if it is on track. Some larger courts have profitably designated 

a magistrate judge to become an expert in the discovery of electronically 

stored information and to serve as an institutional resource. 

 35. A study of discovery practice in federal courts found that, of attorneys who reported some discovery in their case, 48% reported that they had experienced problems 

with discovery, and about 40% reported unnecessary discovery expenses that were the 

result of discovery problems. Thomas E. Willging, Donna Stienstra, John Shapard & Dean 

Miletich, An Empirical Study of Discovery and Disclosure Under the 1993 Federal Rule 

Amendments, 39 B.C. L. Rev. 525, 532 (1997); this was also published as Thomas E. 

Willging, John Shapard, Donna Stienstra & Dean Miletich, Discovery and Disclosure Practice, Problems, and Proposals for Change: A Case-Based National Survey of Counsel in 

Closed Federal Civil Cases (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1997) [hereinafter FJC Discovery Study]. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

36 

 Consider 

• establishing ground rules for depositions if the nature of the case 

calls for it, such as where and how depositions are taken, who 

may attend, who pays for which expenses, how to comply with 

Rule 30(b)(6) notices, and how to handle documents, objections, 

claims of privilege, and instructions not to answer;36

• if it appears discovery will be contentious, allocating costs of 

compliance with costly discovery demands by issuing a protective 

order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), specifying 

who bears the cost of certain expensive discovery, or conditioning certain discovery on the payment of expenses by the opponent (such as paying for computer runs or copying costs);37

• to the extent the local rules do not do so, establishing (or asking 

counsel to recommend at the Rule 16 conference) procedures for 

claiming privilege; protecting information against inadvertent 

disclosure or other waiver, and making provisions for protecting 

the information if it is disclosed (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5));38 and 

requiring counsel to submit a log of potentially privileged, discoverable documents;39

• if you are a district judge, designating a magistrate judge to supervise discovery; or in complex litigation, when the overall litigation costs justify it, appointing a special master (see Chapter 8, 

sections B and C, infra, for a discussion of magistrate judges and 

special masters); 

 36. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.45. 

 37. Id. § 11.433. When deciding whether to issue a protective order, the court 

should consider not only the rights and needs of the parties but also the existing or potential interests of those not involved in the litigation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders should be issued “for good cause shown.” Federal courts are public courts 

and the business conducted there should be conducted publicly unless there is a specific 

reason to keep certain matters confidential. To be relevant in the modern world, courts 

need to protect the legitimate secrets and private information of litigants and participants 

in the litigation process. 

 38. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 protects the disclosure of attorney work product 

or materials protected by attorney–client privilege if the disclosure was inadvertent and 

steps were taken to prevent disclosure and to correct the error, including complying with 

Rule 26(b)(5) (in which the claim for protection must be expressly stated and the documents described). 

 39. MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.431. 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

37 

• requiring samples of electronic discovery be produced early and 

the data discussed to determine what issues, if any, may arise regarding the nature, location, format, preservation, or other challenges to producing electronically stored information;40

• requiring a conference between counsel before filing a motion in 

addition to the requirement that the parties certify that there has 

been a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute; 

• requiring that counsel present the dispute to you by telephone 

conference before filing a formal motion; 

• setting and enforcing page limits on motions and time limits for 

filing; and 

• awarding costs to the party prevailing on a motion. 

D. Limiting Discovery 

1. In general 

Establishing control early and setting appropriate limits on the timing, 

scope, and methods of discovery can help you to prevent excessive discovery activity, forestall disputes, and increase both fairness and the perception of fairness by not letting the “big guy” paper the “little guy” into 

submission.41 In particular, setting an early and firm discovery cutoff date 

to fit the needs of the case encourages the efficient prosecution and defense of the case, reduces the need for judicial involvement, and is a way 

to shorten overall case disposition time.42 In addition, setting limitations 

on the number of interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33) has been found to 

measurably reduce overall lawyer work hours and shorten overall time to 

case disposition.43 Moreover, handling early any issues or problems with 

 40. Id. § 11.446. 

 41. The FJC Discovery Study found that high levels of discovery problems and expenses were more likely to occur in cases that were complex, contentious, had high stakes, 

or had high volumes of discovery. Problems in these cases were not limited to a particular 

type of discovery, but occurred in all or most aspects of discovery. Attorneys in tort and 

civil rights cases were more likely to report problems than attorneys in other types of 

cases. FJC Discovery Study, supra note 35, at 554–55. 

 42. See RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 16, 26. 

 43. See James S. Kakalik et al., Discovery Management: Further Analysis of the Civil 

Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data 55–58 (RAND Institute for Civil Justice 1998) [hereinafter RAND Discovery Report]. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

38 

the preservation or production of electronically stored information will 

prevent unnecessary and costly disputes.44 

 Consider 

• holding a brief (ten- to fifteen-minute) scheduling teleconference 

in all cases—even if you do not have time to hold a comprehensive Rule 16 conference, it is valuable to touch base with counsel 

at the beginning of the case; 

• asking counsel to make a case for the discovery they expect to 

conduct; 

• requiring the parties in the Rule 26(f) plan to outline the nature, 

scope, duration, and costs of discovery; and 

• phasing discovery, aiming successive stages toward central, potentially dispositive issues, and asking counsel to report back on 

discovery progress, thus permitting you to assess trial and settlement prospects based on the interim discovery findings that result. 

 The principle of proportionality embodied in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b) enables you to take affirmative steps to ensure that there 

is a reasonable relationship between the costs and burdens of discovery 

and what is at stake in the litigation. By taking an individualized approach to each case, you can ensure a fair application of discovery limitations. 

 Consider 

• setting overall time limits and incorporating them into the 

scheduling order; 

• limiting sua sponte the “frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2); 

• stating a clear definition of the substantive scope of permitted 

discovery based on issue identification; 

• if the parties propose early dispositive motions, phasing discovery and shaping it to serve these motions, and staying other discovery until motions-related discovery is complete; 

• ensuring that all early issues regarding discovery of electronic information are addressed, such as whether the material is readily 

accessible; and 

 44. See generally Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, supra note 12. 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

39 

• in the most complex cases, phasing discovery by time period or 

issue and requesting accompanying status reports with the completion of each phase.45 

 You are in a unique position to ensure a fair and open process and to 

prevent unnecessary delay. For illustrative forms and orders setting limits 

on discovery, see Appendix A, Forms 2, 11, 19–21, and 29. The Manual 

for Complex Litigation, Fourth also provides useful advice.46 

2. Document requests 

Unnecessarily broad or burdensome document requests are among the 

most dreaded, expensive, and time-consuming tools employed in the discovery process.47 Moreover, electronic discovery issues need to be discussed early to prevent costly litigation later. By asking direct questions 

and making suggestions regarding the proposed exchange of information, 

you can better focus the request and minimize its impact. 

 Consider the following approach: 

• Ask the plaintiff, for example, at the Rule 16 conference, “What 

can we get without traditional discovery? What do you want 

from the other party? List it.” With this approach you can usually 

get the parties to exchange more relevant information than required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) without further discussion. 

• Record agreements between the parties at conferences and place 

them in the final case-management order: “Plaintiff has agreed to 

produce _____. Defendant has agreed to produce _____.” 

• Address, and have the parties agree on, what electronically stored 

information is accessible and what is too difficult or costly to 

produce, in what form it will be produced, and what information 

needs to be preserved beyond the normal practices of the parties. 

Issue an order if necessary. 

 45. MCL 4th, supra note 10, §§ 11.41, 11.422. 

 46. Id. §§ 11.422, 11.423. 

 47. The FJC Discovery Study found that document production is not only the most 

frequent form of discovery but also the one that generates the highest rate of reported 

discovery problems. FJC Discovery Study, supra note 35, at 530, 532. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

40 

• Ensure the parties reach nonwaiver agreements in the event of 

inadvertent disclosure of privileged information to the other 

party. 

 You can persuade parties to turn over voluntarily much that would 

have been pursued through traditional discovery methods, and you can 

head off many discovery disputes. This approach, as illustrated in Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(3) and 16(c)(2), can also help determine 

the number and types of depositions requested and approved. 

3. Depositions (who, how many, etc.) 

Although depositions are not the most frequent form of discovery, they 

account for by far the greatest proportion of discovery expenses.48 The 

rules limit the parties to ten oral and written depositions, unless they otherwise stipulate (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 and 31), but the court may impose a 

limit on any discovery, including depositions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)). 

You should be assertive in suggesting a course of action that will phase 

depositions to reach important decision-making junctures in a case while 

avoiding unnecessary intermediate conferences or disputes.49 This planning should be an important part of your continuing efforts to refine the 

case into a triable or settlement-ready matter. Naturally, such suggestions 

must be tailored to the individual case. The following judicial guidance to 

plaintiff’s counsel may be suitable, for example, in a discrimination case 

(depending on counsel’s requests and the scope of the claims). 

 Consider the following instruction: 

You may depose the defendant, the defendant’s supervisor, the defendant’s co-worker, and the following witnesses: _____. Then stop. When 

you have completed these depositions, and if you believe you need additional ones, write a letter of no more than two pages, with a copy to 

the defendant, to inform me of your progress, where you feel you are in 

this case, and the settlement prospects at this juncture. 

 Alternatively, consider asking the plaintiff’s counsel to arrange a conference call with you and opposing counsel after completing the initial 

depositions. 

 48. See id. at 540. 

 49. MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.45. 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

41 

E. Handling Discovery Disputes 

1. Methods for reducing the number of disputes 

Discovery disputes, if not controlled early and firmly, will constitute the 

most time-consuming, inefficient, and costly investment of judicial pretrial case-management time. You should consider adopting a formal procedure for discovery motions, clearly stating that, in general, discovery 

motions may not be submitted without a prior telephone conference requesting your permission to file them. Also, you may require that the 

parties attempt to resolve the dispute by letters and/or telephone conference with you before filing a motion. 

 In implementing such a policy, consider the following: 

• requiring counsel to notify the court, by telephone, immediately 

after their “meet and confer” conference if they have a dispute 

they cannot resolve; 

• being firm during the first discovery dispute telephone call in any 

case in which you expect ongoing discovery problems—this will 

often prompt counsel to work out the dispute themselves; 

• if you cannot take the first telephone call when it comes in, having a backup district or magistrate judge who can take the call 

immediately; 

• if the dispute raises complex issues, requiring the attorneys to 

submit letters, no more than two pages in length, describing their 

positions; and 

• permitting the filing of a motion only upon court order. 

 You will substantially reduce disputes by sending the message to 

counsel that (1) you will hear their disputes over the telephone, even during a deposition, (2) you expect professional conduct, (3) as a general 

rule, only work product and attorney–client privilege are valid bases for 

objections, and (4) discovery abuse will lead to sanctions. For an example 

of an order addressing discovery disputes, see Appendix A, Form 25. 

2. Discovery motions 

Many discovery motions are unnecessary and do not warrant the investment of client time and money required to support them. Sometimes, 

however, a fully briefed motion is the only way to resolve important discovery issues (for example, disputes over privilege). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

42 

 When a fully briefed discovery motion is necessary, consider the following approach: 

• Ask counsel to use a letter format of no more than three doublespaced pages with no more than five case cites. This format 

should suffice for the majority of discovery motions submitted, 

as long as the motions are docketed properly by the court. 

F. Discovery of Electronically Stored Information 

The wide array and amount of electronically stored information created 

by individuals and businesses, and that can be involved in litigation, can 

necessitate that you require the parties to identify electronic discovery 

issues early and with possibly greater specificity than is required for paper 

discovery. Handling these issues early can allow the parties to avert discovery disputes and prepare more efficiently for trial. Issues that may 

arise include data preservation, authentication, methods of producing the 

data before and during trial, and whether the costs of producing it are 

prohibitive or can be shifted between the parties.50 

 On the other hand, electronic discovery can greatly reduce cost and 

delay. For instance, the costs of photocopying, storing, and transporting 

data can be reduced dramatically or eliminated altogether, and software 

can assist in organizing, reviewing, and analyzing documents. The cost of 

using a litigation support system is reduced dramatically if the documents are in electronic form from the start and do not need to be 

scanned. Finally, many of the set-up costs associated with electronic 

courtroom presentations can be reduced or eliminated.51 

 Consider 

• encouraging early resolution of electronic discovery issues and 

disputes; and 

• when appropriate, using Rule 706 experts and special masters to 

handle electronic discovery issues and resolve disputes. 

 50. See id. §§ 11.441–11.446. 

 51. For a more detailed treatment of the topic, see Managing Discovery of Electronic 

Information, supra note 12; R.J. Hedges, Discovery of Electronically Stored Information: 

Surveying the Legal Landscape (BNA Books 2007); Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services 

Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008). 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

43 

1. Electronic discovery issues 

Electronically stored information raises many issues that may not occur, 

or occur with less complex challenges, in paper-based discovery. Among 

the most common issues are the following. 

a. Preservation of data 

Electronically stored information can be easily changed, overwritten, or 

deleted, whether it is stored on a computer, a handheld device, the Internet, or an enterprise-wide network. The nature of the electronic data, the 

equipment on which it is created, and the business or personal practices 

for storing the information are all factors in determining the accessibility 

of data for litigation.52

 Consider 

• asking the parties as soon as possible after litigation has commenced to take steps to identify, preserve, authenticate, and segregate relevant data (such as placing relevant data on a separate 

server or secure website); 

• requiring the attorneys to agree on the steps they will take to 

avoid later accusations of spoliation; and 

• issuing a preservation, or “freeze,” order to stop the destruction 

of data in the normal course of business until the attorneys agree 

on steps to preserve certain relevant data. 

 As a practical matter, once a paper document is destroyed, it is no 

longer subject to discovery. However, the deletion of electronic data does 

not necessarily destroy the data. Hitting the “delete” key merely renames 

the file in the computer or network server, marking it available for overwriting if that particular space is needed in the future. The data itself may 

remain available for retrieval for months or years or may be overwritten 

only incrementally. Computer specialists, or computer forensics experts, 

can restore deleted data; but, depending on the circumstances, it may be 

costly and time-consuming to do so. 

 At the earliest possible stage in the litigation, consider 

• asking the attorneys whether they expect deleted data to be subject to discovery; and 

 52. The court cannot impose sanctions on a party for “failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

44 

• determining whether there is a need for an early datapreservation order or agreement. 

 Businesses, as well as many individuals, periodically back up their 

computer data to disks or servers for disaster recovery purposes. Data 

and documents that have been edited, deleted, or overwritten in the 

normal course of business may be recovered from these sources. The 

problem is that backup media are not organized for retrieval of individual documents or files. Special programs may be needed to retrieve specific information. 

 Early in the litigation, consider requiring that the attorneys discuss 

• what backup data may be available and, if available, accessible in 

a usable format for a reasonable cost; 

• whether these data will be subject to discovery; and 

• what the scope of such discovery should be and its estimated 

costs. 

b. Form of production 

Most written information produced in a case is created electronically. 

Electronically stored information is produced on a variety of equipment 

(desktop and laptop computers, personal digital assistants, cellular 

phones) using software (word-processing, database, and Internet applications) that generates data or metadata in a number of different formats 

(text, video, audio). The form and quantity of the data to be produced in 

a case should be addressed early in discovery. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 permits each party to request this 

information in any electronic medium “from which information can be 

obtained.” Unless the requesting party specifies a particular format, the 

producing party must convert the data into “a reasonably usable format” 

or produce it in a way that it is “kept in the usual course of business.” To 

protect the parties from unreasonable burden and cost, electronically 

stored information need not be produced in more than one format (Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)). 

 If discovery disputes arise, the parties must meet and confer before a 

motion to compel the production can be filed (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)), and 

you may order the production of the data in a format requested by either 

of the parties, or in another format. To examine these issues, the parties 

can request, or the court can order, a test or sample of the electronic data, 

or an inspection of the electronic system (Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)). How-
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

45 

ever, you should consider carefully any confidentiality or privacy concerns that may arise from such an inspection, as discussed in the next 

sections. Also discussed below are burdens associated with the time and 

cost of locating and producing the relevant data in a usable form. 

 Consider 

• requiring an early agreement between the attorneys on the format(s) in which electronically stored information will be produced; and 

• asking the parties to give serious consideration to an agreement 

under which neither party waives privilege for inadvertent production of privileged material, if this would reduce the difficulty 

of screening computer-based material for privilege before production. 

c. Archives and legacy data 

As businesses, institutions, and government agencies adopt new computer systems, the data from older systems may be stored in an organized, retrievable fashion, but sometimes older data cannot be easily retrieved or viewed using current software. Older data may be unreadable 

without expensive conversion to modern media formats. Also, much data 

is not preserved in the format it was created—for instance, old e-mail 

may be stored in one combined document, rather than separate documents. The parties and court should consider whether the archived data 

must be produced in a different or more readily usable format, and determine the costs and burdens of doing so.53 

 Early in the litigation, consider 

• requiring the attorneys to come to an understanding on whether 

discovery will be extended into archived material, how it will be 

conducted, and who will bear the costs; and 

• if necessary, requiring the attorneys to survey their clients’ stored 

data holdings and retrieval capabilities. 

d. On-site inspection or sampling 

Electronic discovery makes on-site inspections under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 34(a) problematic. On the one hand, it may be necessary 

to actually view the computer system in operation to make sure the dis-

 53. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.441. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

46 

covery protocols are being performed properly, to check the adequacy of 

security and chain of custody, or to ascertain the provenance of computer 

records. On the other hand, the nature of computer record storage and 

organization may be privileged information or considered a trade secret. 

 Consider 

• encouraging the attorneys, to the extent it is relevant to discovery, to fully explain their computer system operations and storage, the data available, and their data-destruction policies; 

• if necessary, requiring the parties to produce samples of their discoverable electronic data to assist the parties in making a meaningful agreement about data production; and 

• requiring the attorneys to come to an agreement on whether onsite inspection is justified or necessary and, if so, what the protocol will be. 

e. Need for expert assistance 

If electronic discovery will involve any of the technical issues outlined 

above, the parties may need the assistance of electronic data experts. This 

is costly, but in the long run it may save costs and time. Once the experts 

have had an opportunity to assess their respective parties’ computer systems and capabilities, they will be in a much better position than the attorneys to negotiate the technical aspects of conducting discovery, including search protocols, privilege and relevance screening, and production. 

2. Management tools for electronic discovery 

As a judge, it is not your role to dictate solutions to these thorny technical 

problems. Your role should be to make sure the attorneys on both sides 

face these issues early, negotiate solutions, and follow through. You have 

several tools available to help you manage electronic discovery, limit cost 

and delay, and, when necessary, resolve discovery disputes. 

a. Early exchange of computer system information 

At the outset of litigation, before any discovery is initiated, the attorneys 

should be encouraged to exchange information about their clients’ respective computer systems. The information each side needs to know 

includes which computer systems are in place at the moment, which 

computer systems were in place during the period of time relevant to an-
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

47 

ticipated discovery, the extent of the computerized information (including backups and archives) that will need to be searched in the course of 

discovery, the capabilities of each party to perform searches and produce 

material in a usable format, and the measures being taken to secure and 

preserve potential evidence. 

 Consider 

• requiring the attorneys to arrange an informal meeting between 

the parties’ most knowledgeable computer staff, with attorneys 

present, to help lay the groundwork for a workable discovery 

plan; or 

• granting leave for each side to depose the other party’s most 

knowledgeable computer staff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) prior to the start of formal discovery under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d); and 

• requiring the attorneys to discuss these issues at their Rule 26(f) 

meeting and include proposals in their 26(f) plan for inclusion in 

a Rule 16(b) order. 

b. Rule 16(c) pretrial conference agenda 

Perhaps the most important judicial management tool in electronic discovery is the Rule 16 pretrial conference. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

16(c) lists several issues that may be addressed during the pretrial conference, but you may supplement that list with additional points on electronic discovery and issue a memo to the attorneys well in advance of the 

conference, preferably at the outset of the litigation. Topics that might be 

included in such a memo are evidence preservation; the identification of 

a technical expert who knows the party’s computer system; archiving and 

destruction policies; the format and accessibility of potentially relevant 

data; and costs and burdens associated with production. 

c. Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures 

The expected agenda for the Rule 16 pretrial conference sets the tone for 

the initial disclosures, for the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference of 

the parties, and for the parties’ Rule 16 conference statement. The court’s 

local rule or your standing order can require that the parties disclose the 

relevant aspects of their computer systems, and that they come to an 

agreement on electronic discovery matters prior to the Rule 16 pretrial 

conference. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

48 

d. Proportionality 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), you have the power to 

limit discovery “if the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” If extraordinary efforts, such as the recovery of 

deleted data, are not justified by some showing that the efforts are likely 

to result in the discovery of relevant and material information, it is within 

your discretion to limit, even sua sponte, such discovery or shift the costs 

to the proponent. 

e. Cost allocation 

The normal rule in document discovery is that each side bears its own 

costs. Electronic discovery may involve extraordinary costs, however, 

such as legacy data restoration. The court has the power to allocate costs 

equitably, balancing the needs of justice with the resources of the parties 

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)). In some cases, you may find it appropriate to 

condition extraordinary discovery on payment of part or all of the costs 

by the proponent. 

 Factors to consider in apportioning costs include: 

• the specificity of discovery requests; 

• the likelihood of critical information discovery; 

• the availability of information from other sources; 

• the purposes for which the custodial party retains the information; 

• the relative benefit in obtaining the information; 

• the total costs associated with production; 

• the relative abilities and incentives of the parties to control costs; 

and 

• the resources available to each party.54

f. Rule 53 special master or Rule 706 court-appointed expert 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, you have the power to appoint a neutral expert to act as a special 

master (Fed. R. Civ. P. 53) or as an electronic data expert (Fed. R. Evid. 

706). 

 54. See id. § 11.433. 
Chapter 3: Discovery Management 

49 

 If the parties cannot provide their own experts, or if the situation is 

contentious, consider appointing a neutral expert to 

• break an impasse; 

• supervise the technical aspects of discovery; or 

• act as a secure custodian for sensitive or disputed data. 

 Remember, however, that there is no court budget for a neutral expert, so the cost must be borne by the parties. 

 Even the suggestion of bringing in a neutral expert may help bring 

the attorneys to an agreement. See Chapter 7, section B.4, infra, for a discussion of court-appointed experts; and Chapter 8, section C, infra, for a 

discussion of special masters. 

51 

Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

A. In General 

B. Specific Techniques 

1. Pretrial motions conference 

2. Motions screening 

3. Motions timing 

4. Limiting oral arguments on motions 

C. Treatment of Specific Types of Motions 

1. Motions for summary judgment 

a. In general 

b. Specific techniques 

2. Motions for injunctive relief 

3. Motions for remand 

a. In general 

b. Specific techniques 

4. Motions to dismiss 

a. In general 

b. Specific techniques 

5. Motions raising qualified immunity 

6. Motions that remove a case from the schedule set for it 

7. Motions for sanctions 

a. In general 

b. Specific techniques 

Motions practice can be a source of undue cost and delay if misused or 

unmanaged. Research and practical experience show that in the federal 

courts, motions practice increases in intensity as monetary stakes and the 

number of attorneys go up.55 It is therefore important that you seize the 

initiative regarding motions practice in your court, especially in complex 

or large cases.56 

A. In General 

The Rule 16 conference provides an opportunity to set the tone and the 

limits of what is acceptable in both substantive and discovery-related motions using national and local rules, general or standing orders of the 

 55. See RAND Discovery Report, supra note 43, at 28–38. 

 56. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.32. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

52 

court, and your individual preferences. Local custom and practice in the 

district also have a bearing; the bar’s expectations and the benefits of consistency of practice within your district should be considered to the extent that they can be accommodated to the needs of effective case management. This means that the forms and procedures created to meet your 

specific needs should be designed to supplement the national rules and be 

consistent with local district rules and practice to achieve their maximum 

effect. 

 As in all other aspects of dispute resolution, your initiative in establishing the initial focus and tenor of your interactions with counsel is extremely important in maintaining control and direction over the motions 

process. Some routine matters do not require your intervention, nor do 

they benefit from a formal motions process (e.g., an attack on a technical 

pleading defect; joint requests for extensions that do not affect the overall 

case-management plan or schedule; and requests to proceed by videotape 

depositions). Submission of such motions should be discouraged, and 

counsel should be advised to work out such matters or respond to the 

court with joint stipulations or letters when possible. Requiring counsel 

to advise the opponent by a brief letter of any intended motion can be 

helpful. For substantive motions, the issue to be decided should be defined with precision, before filing if possible, to avoid obviously inappropriate motions and to focus the motion papers on that issue.57 

 Consider, as a general approach, 

• requiring that, when counsel meet and confer before filing a motion (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and 26(c)), they specifically state the 

issues to be addressed and the relief requested, and place any 

resolution in writing; 

• imposing page limits on briefs, memoranda, and other submissions, and allowing departures only for good cause; 

• refusing submission of sur-reply briefs; and 

• modifying the order of the filing of supporting and opposing papers to reflect the reality of the burden of persuasion for the particular motion. 

 57. See, e.g., William W Schwarzer, Alan Hirsch & David J. Barrans, The Analysis 

and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1991), reprinted in 139 

F.R.D. 441 (1992) [hereinafter Analysis of Summary Judgment]. See also William W 

Schwarzer & Alan Hirsch, Summary Judgment After Eastman Kodak, 154 F.R.D. 311 

(1994) (overview of case law on summary judgment). 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

53 

 In some cases, the basis for the motion will be so obvious that no 

opening memorandum by the moving party will be needed and the resolution will turn on the opposition and reply. In some situations, concurrent memoranda may be preferable to the usual motion–opposition–

reply format. 

Consider 

• tailoring supporting documentation to the needs of the case, 

omitting affidavits on undisputed propositions, or limiting briefing to core issues; 

• when oral argument is necessary, advising counsel of the particular issues on which you want argument; and 

• barring live testimony except when clearly necessary to resolve issues of credibility. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(c) permits the court to hear a motion partially on oral testimony; that is, the court may call for or permit 

limited oral testimony to supplement written material and clarify complex facts. In lieu of oral testimony, however, the court may permit declarants to be deposed and relevant excerpts from their depositions to be 

submitted. 

 Consider the following approaches: 

• Issue a tentative ruling (proposed or draft order) before the 

scheduled hearing. This practice, used in many state courts, expedites the motions calendar and may obviate a hearing if the 

parties accept the ruling. If they do not, the tentative ruling can 

help focus oral argument and disclose potential errors in the tentative ruling, which, in turn, leads to more accurate minute orders at the hearing, a more accurate final ruling, and a savings of 

time to you and your clerks in the preparation of the final ruling 

and order. 

• When possible, rule on motions from the bench at the close of a 

hearing, and, when this is not possible, minimize the time that 

motions are under submission. 

 Many judges believe they should write no more than necessary. Your 

ruling and supporting reasons can often be stated orally on the record 

following the hearing; however, bear in mind that a clear and complete 

statement is necessary for the appellate record. Delays in issuing rulings 

are a major cause of public dissatisfaction with the courts, and most liti-
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

54 

gants would prefer a timely decision to a perfectly written one.58 Additionally, matters taken under submission rather than immediately ruled 

on can slip through the cracks; in the press of business it may be difficult 

to get around to making a ruling and time-consuming to become reacquainted with the matter. Moreover, your workload can become oppressive when submitted matters accumulate. For illustrative management 

procedures and orders, see Appendix A, Forms 4, 9, 21, 24, and 25. 

B. Specific Techniques 

1. Pretrial motions conference 

Judicial time is often the least available element of the litigation process; 

many procedures have therefore been designed to use judge time efficiently. Toward this end, the recommended approach to controlling the 

timing, organization, and presentation of motions is to center initial motions planning on the Rule 16 conference (see Chapter 2, section C.8, supra). In complex or paper-intensive cases, or when an unexpected crush 

of paper threatens your pretrial schedule, a tailored investment of minimal time in a pretrial motions conference can get you back on track and 

reinforce both your authority and the certainty of your trial date. Alternatively, to save your time and the parties’ expenses, communication by 

telephone conference or letter can reestablish the case schedule. 

 Consider setting a pretrial motions conference to 

• let each side know the other’s general positions; 

• narrow issues; 

• prevent unfounded motions; 

• discuss issues that preclude summary judgment; and 

• regain control over motions activity in the case. 

 The amount of motions traffic and the kind of motions you are facing should determine whether you use this method. You might want to 

use the following cost–benefit analysis: Will your investment of time resolve issues, narrow issues, and prevent nonmeritorious motions? 

 58. The remaining CJRA provision in effect requires a report every six months of all 

civil motions pending in the district courts for longer than six months, by individual 

judge. These reports occasionally become the subject of media attention and congressional concern. 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

55 

2. Motions screening 

Ideally, motions can provide the impetus that moves the case beyond its 

initial pleadings toward more tailored judicial actions and speedier disposition. Unfortunately, the timing and purpose of motions (despite your 

initial efforts to plan motions practice at the initial Rule 16 conference) 

may not always coincide with this ideal. You must therefore be able to 

separate worthy, timely motions from those that are merely tactical, dilatory, or inopportune. Screening motions as they are filed is a technique 

that can help identify those motions you can decide without a hearing or 

by oral ruling. You can then promptly dispose of them so that they will 

not clutter your calendar, impose unnecessary costs, or delay the progress 

of the case. 

 Screening also provides an opportunity to make the initial decision to 

delay a filed (or prospective) motion to the point in the case when it will 

serve a more useful purpose. Although you may not be able to prohibit 

motions, you can refuse to entertain them until you feel the casemanagement process is sufficiently advanced to address the question 

raised. As always, your decision to postpone consideration of a motion 

will be stronger and more easily understood if it is logical and keyed to 

particular case-activity stages. 

 You may wish to do this screening yourself, or you can establish 

screening guidelines for use by your law clerks. These guidelines can incorporate some or all of the considerations listed below. 

Consider 

• delaying (refusing to accept or entertain) a motion until discovery on relevant key questions or issues is complete (i.e., after 

critical discovery is completed); 

• deferring summary judgment motions until the end of the discovery period; 

• deferring sanctions motions until the end of the case; and 

• establishing the general restrictions that Rule 11 and Rule 37 motions cannot be filed without leave of court. 

3. Motions timing 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2) specifically suggests that the 

judge limit the time within which motions may be filed. You can do this 

in discussion with counsel at the initial Rule 16 scheduling conference; 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

56 

the dates can then be incorporated into the scheduling order. The conference can also enable you and counsel to identify issues appropriate for 

resolution by motion, prevent the filing of pointless or premature motions, manage motions that are time sensitive, and establish an appropriate and efficient procedure for filing and hearing motions in the case. 

Local rules and general orders usually provide additional means for regulating motions practice at the Rule 16 scheduling conference. 

Consider 

• discussing contemplated motions with attorneys before the motions are filed; 

• exploring the possibility of resolution of the issue without resort 

to motions; 

• expediting the filing of motions ripe for early disposition, such as 

those directed at personal and subject matter jurisdiction; 

• for motions that may remove a case from normal scheduling 

routines (e.g., motions to stay or to compel arbitration), adding a 

statement to the granting order that counsel shall inform the 

court by letter every sixty days of the status of the case; 

• planning requisite discovery for summary judgment motions; 

• scheduling dispositive motions as early as feasible but not before 

a sufficient record for a decision has been made; and 

• ordering that all motions to dismiss or for summary judgment be 

filed after the end of discovery unless there is a dispositive legal 

issue that may terminate the case or eliminate areas of discovery, 

so that such motions do not needlessly delay the start of discovery. 

 With summary judgment motions in particular, sometimes the parties plan cross motions that one or both parties fully intend to be dispositive. In those instances, agreed-upon dates for motions submission 

should be carefully set. In the event a setting is premature from the 

standpoint of case progress, the parties can be required to meet and confer to arrive at dates and to establish the order of presentation for your 

subsequent approval. Summary judgment motions should not await the 

completion of all discovery, however, if they are to serve to forestall needless expense and trial preparation time. 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

57 

4. Limiting oral arguments on motions 

Oral arguments can serve a variety of purposes for both judges and litigators; most of these purposes are salutary, but not all serve the ends of effective and efficient justice. The need for oral argument is always your 

determination to make and should therefore be based on your needs in 

the particular case. 

 Consider whether oral argument will 

• help you understand the law or facts; 

• help you narrow the issues; 

• open opportunities for settlement discussions; or 

• help you rule. 

 In complicated cases, it might be useful to test your tentative conclusions during oral argument. The focus should remain on what information you will get out of oral argument. A rule of thumb is that if you cannot think of three things you wish to ask attorneys in oral argument, deny 

the request for it. 

C. Treatment of Specific Types of Motions 

1. Motions for summary judgment 

a. In general 59 

Motions for summary judgment should not be filed unless they raise an 

issue that may reasonably be decided by summary resolution. Summary 

judgment motions should be filed at the optimum time. Motions filed 

prematurely can be a waste of time and effort, yet motions deferred until 

shortly before trial can result in much avoidable litigation. Summary 

judgment motions are best filed as soon as the requisite discovery supporting them has been completed and the issue is ripe. A summary judgment motion should also be set far enough in advance of the existing trial 

date to maximize the motion’s case-management and disposition potential. Beware of overbroad motions for summary judgment that are designed to make the opponent rehearse the case before trial. 

 59. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Schwarzer, Analysis of Summary Judgment, supra

note 57, at 441; MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.34 (advising on procedures for the effective 

use for summary judgment). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

58 

Consider 

• requiring a prefiling conference; 

• incorporating any special procedures for summary judgment (or 

any other) motions into your court’s website, local court rules, or 

a standing order; 

• scheduling the filing of summary judgment motions for the appropriate time in the litigation; 

• limiting the length and volume of supporting and opposing papers; and 

• determining whether cross motions are appropriate. 

 Cross motions can convert a summary judgment motion into a 

bench trial on submitted papers, but only if the parties consent to it; in 

that event, the papers could be supplemented with live testimony as 

needed (e.g., when credibility becomes an issue).60

b. Specific techniques 

It is wise to set out for counsel the actual procedural framework you prefer for summary judgment motions. The process should provide you with 

all information, in the most efficacious form, necessary to support your 

decision-making routines. Notice to counsel of the process you prefer can 

be accomplished through local rule, standing order, or chambers-specific 

rules and procedures. 

 Consider the following in setting out your summary judgment process: 

• page limits on submissions by counsel; 

• an instruction to state disputed issues of fact up front; 

• an instruction to state whether there is a governing case; 

• an instruction that all summary judgment motions include full 

pinpoint citations and complete deposition and affidavit excerpts 

to aid in opinion preparation; 

• an instruction that all exhibits submitted in support of a motion, 

brief, or memorandum be noted at the right margin; 

• an instruction that citations to deposition or affidavit testimony 

must include the appropriate page or paragraph numbers and 

that citations to other documents or materials with three or more 

pages must include pinpoint citations; 

 60. See Schwarzer, Analysis of Summary Judgment, supra note 57, at 500. 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

59 

• an instruction that all such motions be accompanied by a form 

order with a brief statement of law to help in writing the decision; 

• notification that you will issue a tentative ruling on the submitted pleadings, to which counsel will respond in oral argument; 

• in lieu of a tentative ruling, a notice that if requests for argument 

are granted, a preargument order will be issued to let parties 

know what points you want addressed and what time limits will 

govern; and 

• after oral argument, your dictation (from a memo prepared from 

the briefs) of a concise opinion or report and recommendation 

from the bench. 

 A concise bench opinion, based on a memo prepared from submitted 

briefs by your law clerk, can save court and litigant time and costs. A 

bench opinion is also generally sufficient for appellate review, but you 

should educate yourself about your circuit’s preferences in this regard. If 

necessary, it can be supplemented by a written opinion at a later date. 

2. Motions for injunctive relief 

Motions for injunctive relief require special attention because they demand prompt decisions on a limited record and have an immediate impact on the parties (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65). The motions 

hearing presents opportunities to achieve a number of important objectives, including deciding whether a temporary restraining order should 

be issued; setting dates for associated motions, depositions, and requested 

actions; and examining and resolving any matters relating to the issuance 

of surety bonds. 

 Consider the following in approaching these and other matters: 

• Insist that a party seeking a restraining order notify the opposing 

counsel or party in advance, unless doing so would cause prejudice (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)).61

• Instead of issuing a conventional order to show cause, call an 

early conference with counsel to identify issues (for example, 

whether irreparable harm can be shown), address bond-posting 

 61. See also Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges § 7.03 (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 5th 

ed. 2007) [hereinafter Benchbook]. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

60 

requirements, schedule written submissions and a hearing date 

(see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) regarding time limits for show cause 

orders), and consider other procedural issues. 

• If an injunction proceeding is required, avoid live testimony unless necessary. Most matters can be adequately presented in writing, so long as the declarant can be deposed on his or her declaration in advance of the hearing. 

• Require counsel to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions 

of law, and forms of order on a computer disk in a chamberscompatible format (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)). 

• Combine preliminary and permanent injunction proceedings 

when possible (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)). Separate hearings 

and proceedings can result in duplication and wasted time, 

whereas an expedited trial can resolve all issues in a single proceeding. 

 The wording of an injunction order can be critical to its enforcement 

and to its fate on appeal. You should ensure that counsel agree as far as 

possible on the order’s form and state any objections clearly on the record. You should be cognizant of the valuable opportunity such a motion 

provides for settlement; in addition, many defendants will gladly agree to 

maintenance of the status quo ante to avoid the potential risks of the 

hearing itself. 

3. Motions for remand 

a. In general 

A motion for remand is appropriate when the case that was the subject of 

the original removal action to federal court (1) fails to state a cause arising under the Constitution or federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1331); (2) is not an 

appropriate federal cause of action as a diversity case (28 U.S.C. § 1332); 

(3) is the subject of an abstention by the court under the inherent powers 

doctrine with regard to claims of equitable relief, discretionary relief, or 

other prudential actions; (4) is barred by statute; or (5) is an otherwise 

appropriate removal case whose original removal action was marred by 

procedural defects. The more common remand actions, for lack of federal jurisdiction or procedural defects, fall under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

You or the parties may raise the subject matter jurisdiction issue or you 

may entertain motions for remand on this basis at any time, but motions 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

61 

based on procedural defects related to the removal action itself (e.g., failure to join all necessary defendants or defective notice of removal) must 

be made within thirty days after the filing of the notice of removal (28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c)). 

b. Specific techniques 

The two most common motions for remand are (1) motions alleging lack 

of federal question jurisdiction (asserting the absence of a substantial federal issue arising under the Constitution or federal law), and (2) motions 

alleging the absence of diversity of citizenship between the parties accompanied by a monetary claim in excess of $75,000.00. These elements 

must appear on the face of the “well-pleaded complaint” to withstand 

challenge. Frequent arguments advanced in such remand motions involve attacks on the basis for federal court diversity jurisdiction (including claims of the fraudulent joinder of parties to create diversity) or on 

damage or monetary claims inflated to reach the monetary threshold for 

federal jurisdiction. You should also be mindful that although these questions should be addressed to the pleadings as they stood at the time of 

removal, legitimate interim changes may have arisen in the facts or parties of the case which may destroy or create diversity (e.g., the death or 

addition of a party). 

 In addressing motions for remand, consider that 

• little or no discovery effort should be required to address these issues; 

• procedural defects are waivable or curable at the discretion of the 

court; 

• you should be cognizant of state statute-of-limitations questions 

in the event of a remand so as not to foreclose relief; 

• the pleadings themselves must speak directly to all jurisdictional 

issues (the “well-pleaded complaint” rule) as presented through 

briefs at a motions hearing; and 

• the court has great power and discretion to retain, remand, or 

dismiss in part. 

 Partial retentions, remands, or dismissals should be avoided whenever possible owing to the potential burdens imposed on the parties to 

proceed in two separate forums. Dismissals, of course, may have terminal 

effects on parties’ claims in the state forum, whereas partial retentions 

risk inconsistent state and federal rulings. You should always address all 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

62 

motions for remand as soon as possible to avoid potentially duplicative, 

costly, and unnecessary federal proceedings. 

4. Motions to dismiss 

a. In general 

The Rule 12 motion is a common “suit killer,” and therefore you must 

safeguard the rights of the plaintiff, whose options for relief on any legitimate portion of the claim as filed will rest on your decision or recommendation. While a range of possibilities exist under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b) for a motion to dismiss, the most common is that 

of subsection (6): failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

Other common grounds are lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rule 

12(b)(1)) or personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)). Venue questions may 

commonly be coupled with the primary motion under either Rule 

12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1404. If jurisdiction is lacking or venue is questionable, the parties must go elsewhere or reform their pleadings. Each of 

these latter two grounds have less potential impact on plaintiff rights but 

will generally appear earlier in the life of the case, as they constitute 

threshold questions for further court action in the case. Again, the most 

common ground is failure to state a cognizable claim for relief (Rule 

12(b)(6)). 

b. Specific techniques 

Bear in mind that a motion to dismiss is often used by one party as a tactical delay weapon, as the defect it alleges is normally and most easily 

cured by amending the original pleadings. At your earliest opportunity, it 

pays to ask whether such motions will be filed, on what grounds, and 

whether such grounds are curable. 

 In addition, consider the following: 

• A motion to dismiss is directed at the pleadings; you must assume the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint. You 

may not look at materials outside the complaint, unless attached 

or referred to in the complaint. 

• You may, on notice to parties, convert the motion to dismiss to a 

summary judgment motion. Conversion may be appropriate 

(with proper notice) if you deem the motion to be substantively 

determinative and, in the interests of justice, think the claim 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

63 

would benefit from the wider pleading latitude summary judgment affords under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

• You should bear in mind the statute of limitations and the 120-

day rule as you contemplate a dismissal without prejudice. If they 

have run, your action may frustrate your intent and result in a 

bar to any further kind of relief. 

 A final caution: Because Rule 12(b) motions come early in the case, 

often before the answer is filed or the Rule 16 conference has been held, it 

may not be as easy to control them as it is to control later motions for 

which time frames have been established by your scheduling order. Resolution of Rule 12(b) motions as soon as possible will keep the litigation 

on track. 

5. Motions raising qualified immunity 

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity will most often be raised in 

a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, but it may also 

be presented as its own motion. Because qualified immunity should be 

pled in the answer, you should be aware of it as a potential issue in the 

case from the outset. If the issue has not already been addressed by the 

time you conduct the Rule 16 conference, you may want to discuss with 

counsel a schedule for briefing the issue. Cases involving allegations of 

qualified immunity often present factually complicated situations that 

require a lot of your time in the form of either reviewing deposition evidence or conducting a hearing. Outlining a schedule for handling these 

complexities may lessen the impact of these cases on your overall workload. 

 It is also important to note that if a motion based on the defense of 

qualified immunity is denied, that denial is the appropriate subject of an 

interlocutory appeal. In this situation, only the qualified immunity issue 

will go to the court of appeals, leaving the remaining issues in the case on 

your docket. You, or a member of your staff, should pay close attention 

to the progress of the qualified immunity issue on appeal so that you will 

be aware of the ruling of the court of appeals as soon as possible. Early 

knowledge of the ruling on this issue will allow you to get the remaining 

issues in the case back on the appropriate litigation track and thereby 

achieve a faster resolution. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

64 

6. Motions that remove a case from the schedule set for it 

When you grant a motion that removes a case from its schedule—for 

example, a motion to stay or a motion to compel arbitration—you run 

the risk that the case will quickly age if you do not require the lawyers to 

keep you informed about its status. 

 Consider, in orders granting motions that remove a case from its 

schedule, adding a statement that counsel must inform the court by letter 

every sixty days of the status of the case. 

7. Motions for sanctions 

a. In general 

Sanctions motions and the satellite litigation they may spawn can represent a large and nagging portion of the motions practice before your 

court. By establishing early control over the case and setting clear limits 

on acceptable behavior, you can limit the number of such motions you 

see and avoid their unnecessary use as tactical tools in highly charged 

cases. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 16, 26, 37, and 41, as well as 28 

U.S.C. § 1927, authorize the imposition of sanctions in connection with 

pretrial proceedings. Sanctions are not a basis for effective case management or a substitute for it; on the contrary, the need for sanctions often 

arises when case management has received insufficient attention, has 

been ineffective, or has broken down. It is equally true, however, that 

good case management cannot anticipate all problematic conduct of attorneys or parties, or always control it when it occurs. Sanctions may 

therefore be necessary, but you should maintain close control over the 

process to prevent the spawning of satellite litigation and the degradation 

of professional standards in the conduct of the litigation. 

 Sanctions can serve several purposes: to protect a party, to remedy 

prejudice caused, to deter future misconduct, to punish the offender, and 

to protect the efficiency of the court’s docket. You should select the least 

severe sanction adequate to accomplish the intended purpose. Moreover, 

you should be aware that sanctions can have collateral effects, including 

the creation of a permanent shadow on the sanctioned attorney’s record 

as maintained by state regulatory and bar authorities. Generally, the 

authority you use to sanction should be limited to the most precise sanctioning tool applicable. 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

65 

 Consider, for example, the following authorities to sanction inappropriate conduct: 

• Rule 11—pleadings unreasonably lacking support in rule, law, 

evidence, precedent, fact, or theory; or filed with frivolous or improper purposes; 

• Rule 16—noncompliance with a pretrial order; 

• Rules 26 and 37—violations, abuses, or impropriety in relation 

to discovery orders or processes; 

• 28 U.S.C. § 1927—vexatious or unreasonable multiplying of proceedings in any case; and 

• the doctrine of inherent judicial powers—contempt citations for 

any kind of sanctionable conduct. 

 More generally, sanctions can be contained in rulings in response to 

motions. Your sanctions, when imposed, should be tailored to the offense 

at hand, within the broad discretion granted to you as judge. What 

should the punishment be? 

 Consider the following: 

• If an attorney has failed to disclose an expert and there is no way 

to avoid prejudice to the opposition, prohibit the expert. 

• If a false affidavit has been made, impose on the offending party 

the costs and fees incurred in the defense against it. 

• If a frivolous pleading has been filed, strike the pleading. 

• If specific remedial action will cure the harm, impose the remedy. 

• To suit the specifics of the individual case, use a combination of 

sanctions (costs, strikes, punishments, and remedial actions). 

 The discretion invested in the judge, as well as the many specific 

remedies enumerated in the rules of procedure, provide the wide latitude 

you need to get your point across. But do remember your purpose—to 

secure just, speedy, and inexpensive dispositions; to stop rules transgressions; and to deter future violators. 

 Consider the following approaches: 

• Set the guidelines for acceptable conduct at your earliest opportunity (printed rules of conduct can help). 

• Deal swiftly and firmly with the transgressors, even if imposition 

of sanctions is to be delayed until the end of the trial (i.e., don’t 

avoid or postpone challenges). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

66 

• Never make empty sanctions threats. 

• Avoid being used by one side in technical, tactical violations contests. 

 It may be necessary, at first, to act aggressively in the area of rule administration as a warning to other potential malefactors. In complex or 

multiparty cases (especially with out-of-state counsel), this is a small 

price to pay, early on, to establish and maintain order. Once developed, a 

reputation for fairness, responsiveness, and certainty in rule administration and motions management can be among your most lasting professional assets. 

b. Specific techniques 

When, despite your careful shaping of motions practice before your 

court, legitimate disputes and sanctionable conduct arise, consider the 

relevant threshold issues and give the parties an opportunity for a fair 

hearing. Remember that different statutes and rules authorize sanctions 

for different kinds of conduct and on different predicates; they are not 

interchangeable. You should make a record indicating clearly the authority relied on and the factual basis for the action. 

 Consider the specific conduct to be sanctioned, asking 

• what prejudice was caused to the opponent; 

• whether the act was deliberate or inadvertent; 

• whether there were extenuating circumstances; 

• what the impact was on the court and the public; 

• whether the offending party has had notice and an opportunity 

to respond; 

• what purpose is to be served by the sanction—protection, remedy, deterrence, or punishment—and the least severe sanction 

adequate for the purpose; 

• whether sanctions should be imposed promptly or delayed until 

the end of trial; 

• on whom the sanctions should be imposed—attorney, client, or 

both; 

• under what legal authority sanctions will be imposed; 

• whether the sanction is authorized by inherent authority or the 

court’s local rules (distinguish between civil and criminal contempt); 
Chapter 4: Pretrial Motions Management 

67 

• what specific sanction will be imposed; and 

• whether the conduct requires reporting to the court’s professionalism committee or the local bar association. 

 In situations in which you address sanctionable conduct, especially 

when acting sua sponte, use a show cause order with its accompanying 

process. 

Consider 

• letting counsel know you are considering sanctions and under 

which rule or statute; 

• giving counsel an opportunity to show why any or all of the possible sanctions are not warranted; and 

• letting counsel demonstrate why the show cause order is a good 

option instead of just imposing sanctions. 

 In short, give attorneys an opportunity to be heard. The process itself 

will insulate you from the danger of a precipitous response; provide time 

for the transgressors to reflect; and, ultimately, force them to help shape 

the remedy you adopt, ensuring a more memorable, larger sense of justice for all concerned. For further discussion of sanctioning, see the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth.62 

 62. MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 10.15. 

69 

Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution 

and Judicial Settlement 

A. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures 

1. Some terms to keep in mind 

2. Authority to refer cases to ADR 

3. Deciding whether to refer a case to ADR, selecting an ADR process, and 

determining the appropriate time for the referral 

a. Mediation 

b. Arbitration 

c. Early neutral evaluation 

d. Summary jury trial, summary bench trial, and mini-trial 

e. Settlement week 

4. Selecting and compensating an ADR neutral 

5. Issuing a referral order 

6. Managing cases referred to ADR 

B. Judicial Settlement 

1. The judge’s role 

2. The timing of settlement discussions 

3. Successful settlement techniques 

4. Recording the settlement 

5. Settlement in cases involving pro se litigants 

6. Ethical and other considerations in judge-hosted settlement negotiations 

Only a small percentage of federal civil cases are resolved by trial.63 Many 

of the remaining cases settle. And many of these cases settle without judicial or other third-party intervention, but some do not. Furthermore, 

many of these cases settle later than they should, unnecessarily absorbing 

both client and judicial resources. Early settlement is therefore one objective of effective litigation management.64 Early settlement can also contribute substantially to the perception by litigants that the court has ful-

 63. Although the trial rate varies from district to district, on average across the federal district courts only about 2.0% of civil cases are tried. See Admin. Office of the U.S. 

Courts, Judicial Business of the United States Courts: 2008 Annual Report of the Director 

171, table C-4A. 

 64. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2)(I) identifies “settling the case and the 

use of special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute” as appropriate topics for discussion at pretrial conferences. Commentary to the rules identifies various alternative 

dispute resolution processes as acceptable special procedures. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

70 

filled its responsibility to help them resolve their dispute and has treated 

them fairly and respectfully. 

 Judges need to keep in mind, however, that settlement is not invariably the preferred disposition for every case. For a variety of reasons—for 

example, the need for a definitive ruling on a matter of law or for a decision on an issue of public interest—some cases should be resolved 

through adjudication. 

 How and when to assist the parties in reaching an early settlement 

depends on the circumstances of each case and the personalities involved. 

Likewise, who can best assist the parties, and by what settlement techniques, will depend on the nature of the case. You can provide settlement 

assistance yourself or turn to a variety of other neutrals (e.g., mediators, 

arbitrators, or early neutral evaluators) to assist you with this task. This 

chapter provides guidance on judicial settlement techniques and on the 

use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques for civil cases. 

 The chapter first discusses the variety of ADR procedures available 

through the U.S. district courts and then turns to the judicially hosted 

settlement conference. The principal reason for this order of presentation 

is that judges who conduct settlement negotiations may use any one of a 

number of techniques, including some of those generally referred to as 

ADR. For that reason, these techniques are defined and discussed first. 

A. Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures 

An important aspect of litigation management is the use of methods 

other than conventional adjudication and traditional judicial settlement 

conferences to resolve cases. These methods are sometimes collectively 

referred to as alternative dispute resolution (ADR), but no single label 

adequately describes the full range of alternatives. During the 1990s, 

many federal district courts established court-annexed ADR programs 

through which they provide one or more procedures, such as mediation, 

arbitration, early neutral evaluation (ENE), or summary jury trial.65

 65. The first federal district court ADR program dates to the 1970s, when the Judicial Conference established three pilot arbitration sites. This program was expanded, by 

statute, to twenty courts in 1988. Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. 

No. 100-702, tit. 9, § 901, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4662 (1988) (amended 1997) (previously codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 (1994)). The greatest development of district court 

ADR was prompted by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471–482 (1990; 

amended 1991, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000). See Elizabeth Plapinger & Donna Stienstra, ADR 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

71 

 The first step you should take in considering whether and how to use 

ADR is to become familiar with your court’s local rules on the subject.66

These rules may, for example, define the types of cases eligible for ADR; 

establish procedures by which cases are referred, including whether the 

judge has authority to order a case to ADR; identify those individuals the 

court has designated as ADR neutrals, including attorneys and the court’s 

judges; and specify how the neutral is to be appointed and whether nonjudge neutrals receive a fee. The local rules may even require that certain 

types of cases routinely go to ADR. 

 Apart from the question of whether your court authorizes referral of 

cases to ADR is the question of whether you, the judge, might use one of 

the court’s authorized ADR procedures in negotiations you yourself conduct. You might do so either because your court has authorized its judges 

to serve as ADR neutrals or because you on your own conduct settlement 

discussions with parties by using ADR procedures such as mediation. To 

consider use of such procedures, you will want to know what procedures 

your court’s local rules authorize and what those procedures entail. 

 This section (Chapter 5, section A) defines and discusses the types of 

ADR in the federal courts and focuses on your role as a judge referring 

cases to ADR procedures to be conducted by a third-party neutral. The 

next section (section B) focuses on your role as a judge conducting settlement procedures yourself. 

1. Some terms to keep in mind 

Although ADR has been used by the federal courts for some time, confusion persists regarding some of the key terms in ADR. Below is a short 

glossary: 

• Mandatory versus voluntary. These terms describe how proceedings enter the court ADR process; they do not describe what 

happens during the process or the nature of the outcome. If ADR 

use is based wholly on the consent of the parties, the referral is 

voluntary. If participation in ADR is required by the court, 

and Settlement in the Federal District Courts: A Sourcebook for Judges & Lawyers (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. & CPR Inst. for Dispute Resol. 1996) (summarizes history of federal court 

ADR developments and describes each district court ADR program). 

 66. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 (1998), 

discussed at Chapter 5, section A.2, infra, requires that each district court provide an ADR 

program and do so by local rule (§ 651(b)). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

72 

whether by an individual judge’s order or by a court rule that 

certain types of proceedings will go to ADR, the referral is presumptively mandatory. In courts with programs that automatically refer some types of cases to ADR, such as the mandatory arbitration programs, the court provides procedures for parties to 

seek exemption from the process. 

• Binding versus nonbinding. These terms refer to the outcome of 

the ADR process. All federal court ADR programs are nonbinding, meaning the parties are not bound by any resolution unless 

they agree to it. For example, an arbitration program may require 

that the parties participate in an arbitration hearing, but the 

hearing produces a nonbinding decision, which the parties may 

reject in favor of a trial de novo or a settlement they negotiate 

themselves. A mediation, whether entered into voluntarily by the 

parties or upon order of the judge, results in resolution only if 

the parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. 

• Court-annexed, court-based, and court-related. The term courtannexed generally refers to an ADR program authorized and 

managed by the court. Originally used to distinguish arbitration 

in the courts from private arbitration, the term is now used for 

any kind of ADR program based in a court. The terms courtbased and court-related have the same meaning as court-annexed. 

Under the ADR Act of 1998, each federal district court must 

authorize the use of ADR and must devise and implement its 

own ADR program to encourage and promote use of ADR.67

• Third-party neutrals. Third-party neutrals are the individuals 

who conduct ADR sessions. Many federal courts have established 

rosters of neutrals who have met qualifications requirements set 

by the court, and the courts encourage parties to use these neutrals. Most members of federal court rosters have training and 

experience in the law. In addition to the rosters, many courts rely 

on their magistrate judges to conduct settlement sessions, and a 

few courts employ mediators on staff. 

 67. 28 U.S.C. § 651(b) (Supp. 1998). Several courts, in lieu of creating and managing their own court-based ADR programs, have arranged for an outside entity, such as a 

bar association, community mediation program, or state court ADR program, to provide 

ADR services to cases referred by the court. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

73 

• Adjudicatory versus consensual processes. Some ADR processes are 

adjudicatory, involving a third-party decision maker who renders 

a decision, albeit nonbinding, based on adversarial presentations. 

Others are consensual—that is, the parties are the decision makers. Arbitration is the classic adjudicatory process, whereas mediation is the principal consensual process. Adjudicatory processes are dominated by the attorneys, focus on facts and rights, 

and result in a winner and a loser. Consensual processes give the 

parties the decision-making role, focus on subjective needs and 

interests, and result in an accommodative resolution. 

• Interest-based versus rights-based processes. Interest-based dispute 

resolution processes expand the discussion beyond legal issues to 

look at the parties’ underlying interests, enhance communications, deal with emotions, and seek inventive solutions or joint 

gains. The focus of these processes—of which mediation is the 

primary example—is on clarifying the parties’ real motivations 

and identifying the interests that must be met to resolve the dispute. Rights-based processes (such as arbitration) narrow issues, 

streamline legal arguments, and predict or render adjudicated 

outcomes based on assessments of fact and law. ADR processes 

may contain both interest-based and rights-based elements, depending on the structure of the process, the style of the thirdparty neutral, and the desires of the parties. 

2. Authority to refer cases to ADR 

The Judicial Conference has twice endorsed the use of ADR in civil cases. 

In the 1995 Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, the Conference 

stated, “District courts should be encouraged to make available a variety 

of alternative dispute resolution techniques, procedures, and resources 

. . . .”68 The Conference reiterated this policy in 1997 when it reported to 

Congress on the courts’ experiences under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 

1990: “The Conference supports continued use of appropriate forms of 

 68. Judicial Conference of the U.S., Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts 70 

(1995). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

74 

ADR . . . . [The Judicial Conference] recommends that local districts continue to develop suitable ADR programs . . . .”69

 With passage of the ADR Act of 1998, all district courts must provide 

at least one form of ADR to litigants in civil cases.70 Furthermore, the 

courts must require litigants to consider using ADR71 and are permitted 

to order litigants to use mediation and early neutral evaluation.72 These 

and other requirements of the Act—for example, that courts adopt procedures for making neutrals available and issue rules on disqualification 

of a neutral73—will affect how you use ADR. Again, you should make 

sure you know your court’s local rules. 

 For an analysis of authority to refer cases to ADR, in both district and 

bankruptcy courts, see Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR, a 

manual written for federal judges.74 This source also examines judicial 

authority to compel ADR use without party consent.75

 69. JCUS CJRA Report, supra note 1, at 37–38. The Conference’s recommendations 

were based on findings from two studies of ADR conducted pursuant to the CJRA. The 

first, a study by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice of six ADR programs, “provided no 

strong statistical evidence that the mediation or neutral evaluation programs, as implemented in the six districts studied, significantly affected time to disposition, litigation 

costs, or attorney views of fairness . . . .” The study found that participants were generally 

satisfied with the procedures, and it concluded that ADR was not a panacea nor was it 

detrimental. James S. Kakalik et al., An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral 

Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform Act xxxiv (RAND Inst. for Civil Justice 1996). 

The second study, of the use of ADR in three demonstration districts, found (1) a significant reduction in disposition time in ADR cases compared to non-ADR cases in one district (data were insufficient in the other two to make a determination); (2) attorneyestimated cost savings in ADR cases in all three districts; and (3) high attorney satisfaction 

with ADR in all three districts. Donna Stienstra, Molly Johnson & Patricia Lombard, A 

Study of the Five Demonstration Programs Established Under the Civil Justice Reform 

Act of 1990, at 16–19 (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1997) [hereinafter FJC Demonstration Programs 

Report]. 

 70. 28 U.S.C. § 652(a) (Supp. 1998). 

 71. Id. Implementation of this requirement may fall to the individual judge; see 

your local rules for your court’s approach to this requirement. 

 72. Id. The ADR Act expressly requires consent of the parties for a referral to arbitration, excepting ten courts authorized in 1988 to compel participation in arbitration in 

certain kinds of cases (28 U.S.C. § 654). 

 73. 28 U.S.C. §§ 653(a) and (b), respectively (Supp. 1998). 

 74. Robert J. Niemic, Donna Stienstra & Randall E. Ravitz, Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR § I.A (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001) [hereinafter ADR Guide]. 

 75. See id. § V.A. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

75 

3. Deciding whether to refer a case to ADR, selecting an ADR 

process, and determining the appropriate time for the referral 

Whether and how you refer a case to ADR will depend on a number of 

factors, including the nature of the case, the availability of ADR procedures, the ADR rules established by your court, and your own views 

about ADR.76 Most federal district courts leave the referral decision to the 

individual judge. Although ADR has been authorized by many federal 

courts since at least the mid-1990s, many attorneys still do not voluntarily use these procedures. That makes the judge a critical element in the 

ADR process—i.e., in many cases, if you do not refer the case, either by 

order or strong encouragement, the parties very likely will not use an 

ADR procedure. 

 If the decision whether to refer a case to ADR remains with the individual judge (i.e., your court does not require ADR in certain types of 

cases), you will have to decide what you want to accomplish through 

ADR. This might be an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

case (which can be obtained through early neutral evaluation), a judgment on the merits of the case (which arbitration would provide), or assistance with settlement discussions (which mediation would provide). 

You will then need to determine when you should refer the case to ADR 

and what type of ADR procedure will accomplish that purpose. 

 The effort to match cases to ADR processes has a long history, which 

we will not discuss here because so much has been written elsewhere. We 

recommend that you consult the Guide to Judicial Management of Cases 

in ADR.

77 That manual discusses the kinds of issues a judge might consider when deciding whether to refer a case to ADR, what type of ADR to 

use, whether to order use of ADR, when in the litigation to make the referral to ADR, and how to appoint a neutral. 

 76. Over the years, both the propriety and efficacy of ADR in the federal courts have 

been vigorously debated. For a discussion of the pros and cons of ADR in the federal district courts, see Donna Stienstra & Thomas E. Willging, Alternatives to Litigation: Do They 

Have a Place in the Federal District Courts? (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1995). See also Wayne Brazil, 

Court ADR 25 Years After Pound: Have We Found a Better Way?, 18 Ohio St. J. on Disp. 

Resol. 93 (2002); Wayne Brazil, Should Court-Sponsored ADR Survive?, 21 Ohio St. J. on 

Disp. Resol. 241 (2006); Ettie Ward, Mandatory Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States Federal Courts: Panacea or Pandemic?, 81 St. John’s L. Rev. 77, 

90–91 (2007). 

 77. See ADR Guide, supra note 74, §§ III, IV. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

76 

 It is important to keep in mind that most district courts are not 

authorized to order parties to use arbitration without their consent. The 

ADR Act of 1998 states that “[a]ny district court that elects to require the 

use of alternative dispute resolution in certain cases may do so only with 

respect to mediation, early neutral evaluation, and, if the parties consent, 

arbitration.”78 Ten districts are exempt from this provision and may retain the mandatory arbitration procedures authorized by statute in 

1988.79

 Among the many case and party characteristics that might affect your 

referral decision (and are discussed in the Guide to Judicial Management 

of Cases in ADR) are the following: 

• whether justice will be served; 

• whether the litigants’ interests will be protected and advanced; 

• whether there are legal issues that must be resolved (such as statute of limitations or jurisdiction) before the case can move forward; 

• whether the parties have already attempted settlement and failed; 

• whether the parties are opposed to ADR; 

• whether any of the parties are proceeding pro se;80

• whether the projected costs of proceeding with litigation are disproportionate to the amount in controversy; 

• whether the case involves few or many issues; 

 78. 28 U.S.C. § 652(a) (Supp. 1998). 

 79. Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, tit. 9, 

§ 901, 102 Stat. 4663 (1988) (amended 1997) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 (1994); 

now codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 (2000)). The ADR Act of 1998 provides that 

“[n]othing in this chapter is deemed to affect any program in which arbitration is conducted pursuant to title IX of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Pub. 

L. No. 100-702), as amended by section 1 of Public Law 105-53.” 28 U.S.C. § 654(d) 

(Supp. 1998). The Judicial Conference has consistently opposed authorizing additional 

courts to make mandatory referrals to arbitration. 

 80. Most federal district courts do not refer to ADR cases that are usually decided 

on the papers, such as Social Security and government collection cases, nor do they refer 

pro se cases. In pro se cases, courts are concerned about the pro se litigant’s need for advice and the potential to compromise the ADR neutral. Recognizing the value of assisting 

these parties, however, some courts have set up procedures for referring these cases to 

magistrate judges, and several courts (e.g., the Northern District of California, the District 

of the District of Columbia, and the District of Idaho) on occasion appoint counsel for 

pro se litigants for the sole purpose of settlement discussions. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

77 

• whether the case involves an issue of public interest; 

• what effect a pending dispositive motion may have; and 

• whether the case is a class action, a mass tort action, or some 

other type of complex case. 

 Your referral decision will depend not only on the case’s characteristics but on the types of ADR available to you. Each of the principal types 

of ADR presently used in the federal courts serves a different purpose. 

One or more may be suitable in a given case or at a particular stage in a 

case. The principal procedures—and thus the ones for which you are 

most likely to find a trained neutral—are mediation, arbitration, and 

early neutral evaluation. 

 Depending on the needs of the particular case, any one of these procedures may be useful. The most frequently used form of ADR is mediation, perhaps because it can be used at most stages of the litigation and 

may require less intensive, and therefore less costly, preparation than 

more adjudicatory types of ADR.81

 The timing of the ADR referral is variable and generally left to the 

judge. For a process like arbitration, where the neutral makes a decision 

on the merits of the case, referral is likely to be later in the case, after 

most evidence has been developed. On the other hand, early neutral 

evaluation is, by definition, a process that occurs early in a case. For mediation, conventional wisdom has held that the process will not be productive until considerable discovery has been completed. Some courts 

have found, however, that parties can benefit from earlier mediation.82

Some courts have also found that mediations are more likely to result in 

settlement if they occur before summary judgment motions are filed, 

suggesting that earlier referrals are more productive. Some federal judges 

order parties to “stage” discovery so that only the discovery needed for 

 81. In statistical year 2009, 28,078 cases were referred to ADR by fifty-one district 

courts. Of these cases, 18,745 (67%) were referred to mediation. Administrative Office, 

internal report. The referral numbers are submitted by district courts that apply for funds 

to support ADR staff in the clerk’s office. Not all courts that authorize mediation submit a 

request for ADR staff funding. 

 82. A study in the Western District of Missouri, where mediation occurred approximately thirty days after answer was filed, found that 11% of attorneys thought the 

mediation occurred too early, compared with 11% and 24% in two districts in which 

mediation occurred near or after completion of discovery. See FJC Demonstration Programs Report, supra note 69, at 238. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

78 

the ADR process is obtained initially, with additional discovery undertaken only if the ADR process is not successful. 

 You should refer a case to ADR at the earliest possible point that 

productive negotiations can occur so as to help parties avoid higher litigation costs and the “digging in” that often results from mounting costs 

and prolonged conflict. 

a. Mediation

Mediation is a flexible, nonbinding dispute resolution procedure in 

which a neutral third party—the mediator—assists the parties with settlement negotiations. The mediator, who may meet jointly or separately 

with the parties, serves solely as a facilitator and does not issue a decision 

or make findings of fact. In the federal courts, the mediator is usually an 

attorney approved by the court, although in some courts magistrate 

judges, and occasionally district judges, bankruptcy judges, and other 

professionals (such as psychologists and engineers), may serve as mediators. 

 Mediation sessions are confidential and are structured to help parties 

clarify their understanding of underlying interests and concerns, probe 

the strengths and weaknesses of legal positions, explore the consequences 

of not settling, and generate settlement options. Mediation is considered 

appropriate for most kinds of civil cases, and in a few courts referral to 

mediation is routine in most civil cases. 

 As mediation has developed, distinct mediation strategies have 

emerged. In classic mediation, the mediator’s mission is purely facilitative—to help the parties find solutions to the problems that led to the 

litigation without giving his or her own view of the case. In this kind of 

mediation, mediator expertise in the process of mediation, rather than 

the subject matter of the litigation, is paramount. On the other hand, in 

the evaluative approach, the mediator is more likely to use techniques 

that include his or her view of the case (e.g., an assessment of potential 

legal outcomes). Evaluative mediation is similar to early neutral evaluation and may be most effective if the mediator is an expert in federal litigation and in the subject matter of the case. 

 Over three-quarters of the ninety-four U.S. district courts have 

authorized use of mediation for civil cases, and by far the greatest num-
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

79 

ber of cases referred to ADR are referred to mediation.83 Not known is 

how many of these districts have also established (as compared to authorized) rosters of mediators and other features of an active mediation program. Nonetheless, in each of these districts, whether a court-based program has been established or not, the judges have been authorized to refer cases to mediation or litigants have been authorized to use mediation. 

And in a number of these districts, the court’s judges have also, or exclusively, been authorized to serve as the court’s mediators. 

b. Arbitration 

In court-based arbitration, one or more arbitrators listen to presentations 

by each party to the litigation, then issue a nonbinding judgment on the 

merits. Witnesses may or may not be called, and exhibits are generally 

submitted. The arbitrator’s decision addresses the disputed facts and legal 

issues in the case, applying applicable legal standards. Either party may 

reject the nonbinding ruling and request a trial de novo. As an adversarial, rights-based process, arbitration may be particularly helpful when a 

decision on the merits appears to be important but the dollar value of the 

case makes trial uneconomical. Arbitration is believed to be particularly 

suited to contract and tort cases involving modest amounts of money, for 

which litigation costs are often disproportionate to the amount at stake. 

 Ten district courts are authorized by statute to order parties to use 

arbitration; in all other districts, referral is permitted only with the consent of the parties. Altogether a little more than a quarter of the ninetyfour district courts authorize use of arbitration.84 Few of the districts 

 83. See supra note 81 for a partial count of the number of cases referred to mediation. According to a Federal Judicial Center review of court local rules, general orders, 

and ADR plans, the following district courts specifically mention mediation as a procedure authorized by the court: AL-M, AL-N, AL-S, AK, AZ, CA-E, CA-N, CT, DE, DC, FLM, FL-N, FL-S, GA-M, GA-N, GA-S, HI, ID, IL-C, IL-N, IN-N, IN-S, IA-N, IA-S, KS, 

KY-E, KY-W, LA-M, LA-W, ME, MA, MI-E, MI-W, MN, MS-N, MS-S, MO-E, MO-W, 

MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY-E, NY-N, NY-S, NY-W, NC-E, NC-M, NC-W, ND, OH-N, OH-S, 

OK-W, OR, PA-E, PA-M, PA-W, PR, RI, SC, TN-E, TN-M, TN-W, TX-E, TX-N, TX-S, 

TX-W, UT, VI, VA-E, VA-W, WA-E, WA-W, WV-N, WV-S, and WI-W. The local rules, 

general orders, and plans in some districts provide information about how the mediation 

process works (e.g., how cases are referred and how neutrals are appointed). Other districts’ documents simply provide a general authorization to use ADR and mention mediation as one possible ADR process. 

 84. The districts that are authorized by statute to mandate arbitration are: Northern 

District of California, Middle District of Florida, Western District of Michigan, Western 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

80 

authorized to mandate use of arbitration have retained their mandatory 

arbitration programs. Some have made the procedure voluntary, and 

some have dropped arbitration from their ADR offerings altogether. Even 

so, a significant number of cases are referred to arbitration each year by 

the districts that still mandate its use.85 The arbitration services are always 

provided by a neutral other than one of the court’s judges. 

c. Early neutral evaluation 

Early neutral evaluation (ENE) is a nonbinding ADR process designed to 

improve case planning and settlement prospects by providing litigants 

with an early advisory evaluation of the likely court outcome. As originally designed by the Northern District of California, the ENE session is 

generally held before much discovery has taken place. Some courts have 

adapted the process for use later in a case and have dropped the word 

“early” while retaining the goal of providing a neutral evaluation of the 

case. 

 In ENE, a neutral evaluator, usually a private attorney with expertise 

in the subject matter of the dispute, holds a confidential joint session 

with parties and counsel early in the litigation to hear both sides of the 

case. The evaluator then helps the parties clarify arguments and evidence, 

identifies strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions, and gives the 

parties a nonbinding assessment of the merits of the case. Depending on 

the goals of the program, the evaluator may also offer case-planning assistance or meet in private sessions with each party to facilitate settlement 

District of Missouri, District of New Jersey, Eastern District of New York, Middle District 

of North Carolina, Western District of Oklahoma, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and 

Western District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 654 (Supp. 1998). See also supra note 78 and accompanying text. Only three of the ten initially mandatory arbitration districts (NJ, NYE, and PA-E) still maintain their mandatory programs. A number of additional districts, 

including several that once mandated arbitration, specifically mention arbitration as an 

ADR option authorized under their local rules, general orders, or ADR plans: AK, CA-N, 

CT, FL-M, GA-M, GA-N, GA-S, ID, KY-E, KY-W, ME, MD, MI-W, MN, NY-W, OH-M, 

PA-W, RI, TN-E, TN-M, TX-S, UT, WA-E, WA-W, WV-N, and WY (based on a Federal 

Judicial Center review of the district court local rules, general orders, and ADR plans). As 

with mediation, the rules, general orders, and plans in some districts provide information 

about how the arbitration process works, while other districts’ documents simply provide 

a general authorization to use ADR and mention arbitration as one possible ADR process. 

 85. In statistical year 2009, 2,464 cases were referred to arbitration out of the 28,078 

cases referred to ADR in the fifty-one districts reporting their referrals to ADR. See supra

note 81. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

81 

discussions. Like mediation, ENE is thought to be widely applicable to 

many types of civil cases, including complex disputes. 

 About a third of the ninety-four U.S. district courts authorize referral 

of cases to early neutral evaluation.86 Whether each of these districts has 

also established a process for providing ENE is unknown, but at minimum, judges in these districts are authorized to refer cases to ENE, and 

each year a number of cases are referred to the process.87 Judges typically 

do not serve as early neutral evaluators in court ADR programs with that 

name, although when mediating a case using a more evaluative approach, 

a judge may look very much like a neutral evaluator. 

d. Summary jury trial, summary bench trial, and mini-trial 

The summary jury trial is a nonbinding ADR process presided over by a 

district or magistrate judge and designed to promote settlement in trialready cases. The process provides litigants and their counsel with an advisory verdict after an abbreviated hearing in which counsel present summary evidence to a jury. Witnesses are generally not called. The advisory 

verdict is delivered by a jury selected from the court’s regular jury pool. 

The jury’s nonbinding verdict is used as a basis for subsequent settlement 

negotiations. If no settlement is reached, the case returns to the trial 

track. 

 Some recommend this resource-intensive process only for protracted 

cases, others for routine civil litigation in which litigants differ significantly about the likely jury outcome. Although the format of the summary jury trial is determined by the individual judge more than in most 

ADR procedures, summary jury trials are thought to be most useful after 

discovery is complete. Opinion is divided on the propriety of using jurors 

 86. A Federal Judicial Center review of district court local rules, general orders, and 

ADR plans found that the following districts specifically mention early neutral evaluation 

or neutral evaluation as an ADR process authorized by the court: AK, AZ, CA-E, CA-N, 

GA-N, IN-N, KY-E, KY-W, LA-M, ME, MS-N, MS-S, MO-E, MO-W, MT, NV, NY-N, 

NY-W, ND, OH-N, PA-W, TN-M, TX-N, TX-S, TX-W, VT, WA-E, WV-N, and WY. As 

with mediation, the rules, general orders, and plans in some districts provide information 

about how the ENE process works, while other districts’ documents simply provide a 

general authorization to use ADR and mention ENE as one possible ADR process. 

 87. In statistical year 2009, 1,209 cases were referred to ENE out of the 28,078 cases 

referred to ADR in the fifty-one districts reporting their referrals to ADR. See supra note 

81. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

82 

without telling them their decision is only advisory—though telling them 

could alter the way in which they hear evidence and reach a verdict. 

 A variant of the summary jury trial is the summary bench trial, in 

which the presiding district or magistrate judge issues an advisory opinion. A third form of summary trial is the mini-trial or mini-hearing, in 

which the attorneys present their case to high-level representatives of the 

parties who have authority to settle the case. The informal hearing may 

be conducted outside the courthouse, and generally no witnesses are 

called. After the presentations, the representatives of the parties meet to 

discuss settlement. The role of the court may be limited, unless the parties wish to have a judge preside over the hearing. Mini-trials are uncommon and are generally used in large cases in which all parties are 

business entities. 

 A little more than a quarter of the district courts authorize use of the 

summary jury trial.88 Most courts simply authorize use of the summary 

jury trial; few spell out procedures for using this ADR process. Nonetheless, few cases are referred to this process.89

e. Settlement week 

In a typical settlement week, a court suspends normal trial activity and, 

aided by volunteer mediators, sends numerous trial-ready cases to mediation sessions held at the courthouse. The mediation sessions may last several hours, with additional sessions held as needed. Cases unresolved during settlement week return to the court’s regular docket for further pretrial or trial proceedings as needed. If settlement weeks are held infrequently and are a court’s only form of ADR, parties who want to use 

ADR may have to look outside the court or to the court’s judges for assistance while awaiting referral to the next settlement week. Only two fed-

 88. A Federal Judicial Center review of district court local rules, general orders, and 

ADR plans found that the following districts specifically mention the summary jury trial 

as a procedure authorized by the court: AK, CA-N, CT, IL-C, IL-S, LA-E, LA-M, LA-W, 

ME, MA, MI-W, MN, NV, NH, NC-E, NMI, OH-N, OK-W, OR, PA-M, TX-N, TX-S, 

TX-W, WA-E, WA-W, WV-N, and WY. 

 89. In statistical year 2009, five cases, all in a single district, were referred to summary jury and summary bench trials out of the 28,078 cases referred to ADR in the fiftyone districts reporting their referrals to ADR. No cases were referred to mini-trials. See

supra note 81. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

83 

eral district courts authorize use of the settlement week process, although 

other districts have used the process on occasion.90

4. Selecting and compensating an ADR neutral 

You may have several options for providing ADR services to civil cases 

you refer to ADR. Your court may, for example, have a panel of noncourt neutrals who are trained in specific ADR procedures.91 Your court 

may also use its Article III judges in rotation as settlement judges; it may 

have designated its district judges or magistrate judges as the settlement 

experts; or your district may be one of the few that has a trained mediator 

on staff. Another option is to refer cases to ADR providers in the private 

sector. 

 Before deciding whether an outside neutral, as compared with an 

internal settlement judge, is the best choice, consult your local rules to see 

if they give you discretion as to how the neutral is selected. If they do, you 

might consider the following issues: 

• Cost. Some districts promote cost savings to litigants by agreeing 

to use district or magistrate judges to lead mediation efforts. This 

effort is often targeted at cases with relatively low dollar values. 

Other districts rely on outside neutrals in order to free in-court 

personnel for other duties. 

• Neutrality. If you are concerned about loss of your neutrality, or 

even the appearance of such a loss, an individual not connected 

with the court may provide the neutrality you want.92

• Expertise. Outside neutrals may be able to provide subject matter 

expertise not available in court. Outside neutrals also are more 

 90. In statistical year 2009, two courts referred 301 cases to settlement week out of 

the 28,078 cases referred to ADR in the fifty-one districts reporting their referrals to ADR. 

See supra note 81. The two districts that specifically authorize settlement week are NY-W 

and WV-S (based on a Federal Judicial Center review of court local rules, general orders, 

and ADR plans). 

 91. Many courts have established such panels, which are usually made up of attorneys from the local bar who have met qualifications requirements set by the court. See

Plapinger & Stienstra, supra note 65, at 29–56, tables 3–7. The ADR Act of 1998 requires 

that a court make neutrals available and ensure that they are qualified in the type of ADR 

procedures offered by the court. 28 U.S.C. § 653 (Supp. 1998). 

 92. See also the discussion in section B.1 of this chapter. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

84 

likely to be trained in the specific ADR techniques you or the 

parties wish to use for the case.93

• Availability. In courts with crowded dockets, outside neutrals 

may be able to give more individual attention to a case, or get to 

it sooner, than court personnel. 

• Time. Some ADR procedures, mediation in particular, can take 

several hours for a straightforward case, one or more days for a 

more difficult case, and many days over a long period of time for 

large or complex cases. Outside neutrals may have more time to 

give unless ADR is a routine part of the responsibilities of incourt personnel. 

 The method of selecting a neutral differs among the districts. As 

noted above, many districts maintain a roster of certified or, at least, registered neutrals, generally possessing a stated minimum of formal training as a neutral. The roster often includes the neutral’s stated preference 

as to subject matter of the case (e.g., employment law, intellectual property, and securities). If your district lacks a roster, you should consider 

either proposing the establishment of a roster of qualified neutrals or informally assembling (and perhaps publishing on your district’s website) 

your own roster. Some judges prefer, after considering the pertinent 

characteristics of the case and the participants, to select a neutral from 

the roster and to issue an order appointing the neutral and fixing a 

schedule for the ADR process (subject to the parties’ objections based on 

a latent conflict, scheduling problems, special subject matter expertise, or 

another sound reason). Some judges prefer initially to solicit the parties’ 

choice of a qualified and capable neutral from the roster (although some 

judges reserve the right, in the event that the parties’ neutral is unsuccessful, to require a later mediation before a court-appointed neutral) and to 

permit the parties to fix a schedule. In any event, the judge should track 

the results achieved by the selected neutrals and remain familiar with 

which neutrals perform most effectively. Appointing neutrals with an 

established record of success and a reputation for excellence precludes 

any appearance of favoritism in the appointment of a neutral. For one 

view of the issues accompanying appointment of a neutral, see the Guide 

to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR.

94

 93. See, e.g., ADR Guide, supra note 74, § VI. 

 94. Id. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

85 

 When an outside neutral is used for dispute resolution, the neutral 

and the parties will have a keen interest in whether the neutral will receive a fee for his or her services. The ADR Act of 1998 leaves to the district courts the decision whether to compensate neutrals, but it requires 

the courts to establish the amount of compensation, if any, in conformity 

with Judicial Conference guidelines.95 The Judicial Conference guidelines 

require all district courts to establish a local rule or policy on compensation, whether neutrals serve pro bono or for a fee.96 You should, therefore, look to your local rules for guidance. You may want to consult, as 

well, the Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR.

97

 Parties will also have an interest in the qualifications and standards of 

conduct expected of court ADR neutrals. The creation of a court panel of 

neutrals is beyond the scope of this manual but is a matter that judges 

should be concerned about if they or the parties need to look to such a 

panel for a neutral. For useful information about designing a sound court 

ADR program and establishing standards for neutrals, see the guidelines 

approved by the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference.98

5. Issuing a referral order 

After you have decided to refer a case to ADR, you should decide how to 

formulate your referral order. Your court may have a standing referral 

order. 

 If you need to prepare your own referral order consider including the 

following items or, where appropriate, citing to the local rule or ADR 

plan where these items are set forth: 

• identification of the type of ADR to be used; 

• identification of the neutral, or a description of the process the 

parties should use to select a neutral; 

• a statement on whether the neutral serves pro bono or for a fee 

and guidelines for compensation of the neutral; 

 95. 28 U.S.C. § 658(a) (Supp. 1998). 

 96. Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol. 4, ch. 5. 

 97. See ADR Guide, supra note 74, § VII. 

 98. Court Administration and Case Management Comm., Judicial Conference of 

the U.S., Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR: Attributes of a 

Well-Functioning ADR Program and Ethical Principles for ADR Neutrals (1997) [hereinafter CACM Guidelines], reproduced infra at Appendix B. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

86 

• instructions on whether the parties must submit materials, such 

as a statement of positions and settlement status, to the neutral 

and whether those statements are to be confidential or to be 

shared with the other party; 

• guidelines on who must attend the ADR session, whether settlement authority must be present, and whether good-faith participation is required; 

• deadlines that must be met for initiating and completing the 

ADR process, as well as instructions on whether other case 

events, such as discovery, must go forward as scheduled or are 

tolled; 

• instructions regarding confidentiality of the proceedings and 

communications between the judge and the neutral; 

• instructions about how to end the ADR process—e.g., where to 

submit a status report, if any, and what papers to submit if the 

case settles; 

• instructions about whom to contact if problems arise during the 

ADR process; and 

• a statement about whether sanctions might be imposed and under what circumstances.99

 For an example order referring cases to ADR, see Appendix A, Form 

31.100

 It is particularly important that all persons involved in an ADR process, including the referring judge, have a clear understanding of two matters: (1) any ADR deadlines and how the ADR process will fit into the 

regular litigation schedule, and (2) what the limits of any confidentiality 

provisions are, including who may speak with you and on what matters. 

The first is for the most part a matter of clarity about deadlines and 

whether other pretrial events will go forward during the ADR process. 

The second is a very important matter for the parties, the neutral, and the 

judge. You should check your local rules, which must, in compliance 

with the ADR Act of 1998, provide for confidentiality in ADR proceed-

 99. For a more extended discussion of the referral order and how it can help forestall problems in cases referred to ADR, see ADR Guide, supra note 74, § X. 

 100. Note that while this referral order does not include a separate section setting 

out confidentiality requirements, it references the court’s local rules, where the court’s 

confidentiality requirements are specified. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

87 

ings.101 Also see the Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR for an 

in-depth analysis of the limits of existing rules on confidentiality in 

court-based ADR programs.102 For a sample form setting out a confidentiality agreement between parties, see Appendix A, Form 32. 

6. Managing cases referred to ADR 

After you have referred a case to ADR, you may need to make decisions 

about a number of issues, such as whether discovery will be stayed or go 

forward; what your role should be in monitoring the ADR process; 

whether you will engage in ex parte communications with the neutral; 

and how the ADR process should be concluded. You may also have to 

resolve issues, such as a party who refuses to attend the ADR session; a 

neutral who has failed to disclose a conflict of interest; a request for public access to ADR sessions; or a motion to admit at trial information disclosed during ADR. These kinds of problems arise infrequently in cases 

referred to ADR, but when they do they can be messy and timeconsuming. For a comprehensive discussion of how to handle such problems, see the Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR.

103 The guide 

is especially helpful in identifying techniques you can use to prevent such 

problems. You should also consult your local rules, which may, pursuant 

to the ADR Act of 1998, have well-established procedures for handling 

some of these matters.104

 101. 28 U.S.C. § 652(d) (Supp. 1998). See also DVD: Communications Between 

Judges, Settlement Judges, and Neutrals: What’s OK, What’s Off Limits? (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 2002) (FJC Media Library Number 4308-V/02). 

 102. ADR Guide, supra note 74, § VIII & app. E. 

 103. Id. § X. 

 104. Issues such as these are generally considered a part of ADR program design. For 

a summary of the rules and procedures of federal district court ADR programs, see Plapinger & Stienstra, supra note 65. A helpful guide for designing court ADR programs is 

Elizabeth Plapinger & Margaret Shaw, Court ADR: Elements of Program Design (CPR Inst. 

for Dispute Resol. 1992). You should also consult the Court Administration and Case 

Management Committee’s guidelines on establishing an effective court ADR program; 

CACM Guidelines, supra note 98. See also James R. Coben & Peter N. Thompson, Disputing Irony: A Systematic Look at Litigation about Mediation, 11 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 43 

(2006) (surveying cases in state and federal courts that have litigated a wide range of issues arising from ADR procedures). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

88 

B. Judicial Settlement 

Judge-hosted settlement negotiations are a long-standing method for 

helping litigants resolve their cases. Nearly all judges play this role at least 

occasionally, and some judges play it frequently, if not routinely. Serving 

as a settlement facilitator in your own cases—even those cases that will be 

tried to a jury—may result in later challenges to your impartiality and 

may result in recusal motions. Judges should only serve as settlement 

judge at the request, and for the benefit, of other judges. In some districts, magistrate judges serve as the court’s primary settlement neutrals. 

 The traditional view of judicially hosted settlement conferences is 

that the judge assists the parties in exchanging settlement offers and very 

likely gives his or her own view of the strengths and weaknesses of each 

side’s case in an effort to find a monetary value that will settle the dispute. 

More recently, the understanding of what judges do when conducting 

settlement negotiations has begun to shift as more judges learn, or bring 

with them into their judicial role, the theory and skills of mediation.105

Use of these skills typically means a commitment of more time to an individual case’s negotiations, a smaller role for the judge’s view of the case, 

and more emphasis on a settlement that meets the parties’ needs beyond 

a monetary settlement. 

 The extent to which you become involved in settlement discussions, 

and the extent to which you use the techniques of mediation, will depend 

on several factors, including the following: whether you have time; 

whether other alternatives are available; whether you feel your involvement could help the parties; whether your involvement could risk perceptions of settlement coercion or perceptions that your impartiality 

might be compromised; and, if you are a magistrate judge, whether the 

court or individual judges refer such matters to you.106 

 105. Since the mid-1990s, the Federal Judicial Center has offered workshops in basic 

mediation skills, initially to magistrate judges, then to district judges, and most recently to 

bankruptcy judges. 

 106. See Wayne D. Brazil, Settling Civil Suits: Litigators’ Views About Appropriate 

Roles and Effective Techniques for Federal Judges 1–2 (Am. Bar Ass’n 1985). In this study 

of litigating attorneys in four districts, Brazil found that 85% agreed that involvement of a 

federal judge in settlement discussions was likely to improve prospects for settlement and 

that a majority thought judges should involve themselves in settlement even when the 

attorneys did not ask for help. However, a substantial majority also preferred that the 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

89 

1. The judge’s role 

Expert commentators differ on whether, and when, it is appropriate for 

judges to participate in settlement negotiations in their assigned cases. 

Because doing so may jeopardize the appearance of impartiality and create a risk of recusal, many judges will not do so unless the parties specifically request it and waive recusal. Other judges believe their familiarity 

with the case makes them the most effective neutrals and the one best 

able to focus on the issues and evaluate the parties’ positions. Some draw 

a distinction between bench and jury trials, feeling freer to participate in 

settlement negotiations when the facts in the case will be determined by a 

jury. Another consideration in determining your proper role in settlement discussions is to ask whether the parties might interpret your participation as pressure to settle the case.107

 Local custom and practice may provide guidance, but generally you 

should be cautious about participating in settlement discussions if you 

are the finder of fact, unless the parties have asked you to and have 

waived recusal.108 The safest stance, if you wish to host settlement discussions in your own cases, is to limit your participation to cases that will be 

tried to a jury and only those cases in which case-dispositive motions 

have been decided. This advice is even more pertinent if you are likely to 

become deeply involved in the case—for example, by helping the parties 

explore their underlying interests, which is an essential element of the 

mediation process. The more you learn about the parties—their positions, concerns, strategies, views of their opponents, and so on—the 

more difficult it will be for you to remain impartial or to sustain, for each 

settlement judge not be the judge who will try the case, especially if the case is a bench 

trial. 

 107. See Commentary to Canon 3(A)(4), Code of Conduct for United States Judges 

(“A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner 

that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the 

courts.”). 

 108. See Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Judicial Conference of the U.S., Code of 

Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(4)(d) as revised July 2009 (“A judge may 

. . . with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in 

an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.”). See also Admin. Office of the U.S. 

Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol. 2, Ethics Advisory Opinions, Advisory Opinion 

No. 95, June 2009 (“Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have 

not only on their own objectivity and impartiality but also on the appearance of their 

objectivity and impartiality.”). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

90 

party, the appearance that you can be impartial if you have to rule on 

motions or the final outcome of the case. 

 If you prefer to have little role in settlement negotiations in your own 

cases, consider establishing a relationship with another judge for exchange of cases that would benefit from settlement assistance. Or consider referring your cases to your court’s ADR program (see supra Chapter 5, section A). 

 In any event, you can always serve as a catalyst by opening the door 

to negotiations and helping the parties evaluate the case. Because many 

attorneys and their clients are reluctant to make the first settlement 

move, fearing their overture may signal a weak case, you can be especially 

important in breaking down barriers to negotiation by suggesting that 

they seek the assistance of a third-party neutral, whether from another 

judge or through your court’s ADR program. You will be most effective if 

you develop credibility and a reputation for candor and fairness, giving 

counsel and litigants confidence that they will be fairly treated in the negotiation process. 

2. The timing of settlement discussions 

As a practical matter there are three logical points in a lawsuit where settlement efforts are optimal. The circumstances of each case dictate 

whether settlement efforts are most productive when: (1) no discovery 

has yet occurred and cost savings are significant, (2) discovery has been 

completed, but dispositive motions have not been filed, or (3) after discovery and after dispositive motions have been ruled upon. You should 

evaluate whether, in the case at hand, the apparent purposes of the parties favor one time period over the others for pressing settlement talks. 

 Although conventional wisdom has held that productive settlement 

discussions cannot be held until substantial discovery has been completed, many cases defy this truism. Before counsel embark on extensive 

briefing schedules or extended rounds of discovery (i.e., before their clients have sunk large sums into the case and become hardened in their 

positions), you should open the door to settlement discussions. Try not 

to put yourself and the parties in the position of preparing for trial, with 

all the resources that requires, and then having the case settle. 

 You should raise the settlement question not only early but regularly, 

first at the initial conference with the parties, at subsequent conferences, 

after dispositive motions (which tend to change how parties view their 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

91 

case), and before attorneys start the task of preparing the final pretrial 

order. Don’t wait until just before trial to raise settlement for the first 

time, because by that time the parties have already invested heavily in the 

case and may be unable to move from their positions. But if you have not 

raised settlement before, by all means do so then. Moreover, some cases 

settle during trial. Raising the issue at that time may help the parties 

gracefully cut their losses. Generally you should not permit the attorneys 

to ask for delays of the trial date to settle the case. If you have encouraged 

and assisted settlement discussions all along, you should rarely, if ever, 

find yourself in this position. 

 To help parties enter into serious settlement discussions, you might 

do a number of things in connection with the first or any appropriate 

Rule 16 conference. 

Consider

• asking counsel for an oral or written report on whether settlement negotiations are in progress or contemplated, what the 

prospects are, and how settlement may be facilitated (for an example of a case-management form requiring information about 

settlement efforts, see Appendix A, Form 8). 

• having counsel identify, and then complete, only targeted discovery necessary to evaluate the case for settlement, leaving until 

later any discovery needed for purposes other than settlement 

discussions; 

• assisting counsel, without participating in merits discussions, in 

developing a format or procedure for negotiations, including arranging for exchange of demands and offers through a neutral 

third party (preferably someone other than yourself if you are the 

fact finder); 

• requiring counsel to discuss with their clients the anticipated 

costs of litigation; 

• requiring counsel in fee-shifting cases to disclose to you and opposing counsel any anticipated fees and costs; 

• referring the case to a mediator, special master, settlement judge, 

magistrate judge, or, if all counsel request it, to yourself to conduct negotiations (again, preferably someone other than yourself 

if you are the fact finder); and 

• referring the case to ADR procedures provided by your court’s 

local rules or general orders or agreed to by the parties, such as 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

92 

arbitration, mediation, or early neutral evaluation (see supra

Chapter 5, section A). 

 As important as settlement is, you should not consider it necessary to 

delay the progress of the case for the sake of settlement. For example, you 

should not feel compelled generally to stay discovery or other pretrial 

proceedings, or to postpone the trial, because of settlement discussions. 

The momentum of the pretrial process can in itself be an important impetus to settlement. For an example of an order of referral to settlement 

conference, see Appendix A, Form 30. 

3. Successful settlement techniques 

If the parties agree that they want you to serve as the settlement neutral, 

or if you are serving as such on a case for another judge, you will need to 

decide how to conduct the discussions and how to lower barriers to settlement. Your choice of settlement techniques will be influenced by the 

nature of the case, the history of the litigation, and the personalities and 

needs of the participants. There is no single way to assist settlement negotiations, but whatever techniques you use, two things are fundamental: be 

prepared and listen carefully. Much relevant information is communicated by the participants in subtle ways. Understanding the parties’ 

thinking and feelings is as important as analyzing the issues; the parties’ 

real objectives in the litigation may not always be what they seem to be on 

the face of the pleadings. The parties may also take a long time to reach 

settlement as they reluctantly come to grips with their case and their feelings. You can help them start this process by asking the plaintiff to state 

simply what he or she wants from the defendant. 

 Assisting in settlement can require great patience. Negotiating a settlement, however, may lead to a far better outcome for the parties and 

may take less time than trying the case. 

 You can facilitate settlement negotiations by your actions and decisions in setting up the process and by the steps you take during the settlement session itself. 

In setting up the settlement process, consider

• asking the parties at the first opportunity what information they 

need to evaluate the case and to reach supportable damage estimates (e.g., personnel files in a discrimination case or the medical file in a personal injury case), ordering them to produce the 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

93 

necessary items, and asking them to write you about the results 

of subsequent settlement talks; 

• directing attorneys participating in any settlement conference to 

be prepared regarding the factual and legal issues and their clients’ positions; 

• ensuring that the attorneys and other party representatives have 

adequate authority to settle the case or at least have immediate 

access to the final authority, including access to insurers, senior 

government officials, and top management when necessary; 

• requiring the attendance of parties in any case in which you suspect the attorneys, rather than the parties, are standing in the way 

of settlement;109

• requiring the attendance of parties in any case in which you think 

the case cannot be resolved without giving the parties an opportunity to “tell their story” to the judge, such as discrimination 

and personal injury cases;

• suggesting, if counsel in the case are antagonistic or unskilled in 

negotiation, that one or more parties employ special counsel for 

the purpose of conducting settlement discussions; 

• setting a firm and credible trial date to keep pressure on the parties; and 

• having counsel submit to you confidential memoranda, outlining 

the pivotal issues, the critical evidence, and counsel’s settlement 

positions. 

 Over the years, judges have developed and refined a number of ways 

of helping parties settle their cases. To assist negotiations during the settlement conference itself, consider the following approaches: 

• discussing with the participants the issues and the probable risks 

each party faces, without taking a position on the merits; 

• asking the attorneys, in front of their clients, how much it will 

cost to litigate the case through trial and then suggesting to their 

clients that they put this sum toward settlement; 

 109. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) authorizes the court to require a party or 

its representative to be present or available by telephone at pretrial conferences “to consider possible settlement of the dispute.” 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

94 

• helping parties focus on their underlying interests (e.g., resuming 

a profitable business relationship) rather than on disputed facts 

or legal principles; 

• meeting separately with each side (parties and counsel) for candid evaluations of the parties’ prospects and the costs of continuing the litigation—but keep in mind that while these meetings 

often become essential to the successful conclusion of settlement 

negotiations, you should have the parties’ consent to them or 

they may preclude you from presiding at trial; 

• suggesting that the corporate principals meet without counsel to 

reach an agreement as business people; 

• delaying having parties state their “bottom lines” so as to keep 

the negotiating positions flexible; 

• directing attention to damages, including possible tax consequences, instead of emphasizing liability issues, since in many 

settlements it is money rather than principle that ultimately matters—i.e., if it becomes clear to the parties that a settlement on 

financially acceptable terms is possible, there is little point in 

continuing to debate liability; 

• severing one or more issues for a separate trial if doing so will 

provide the basis for settlement of other issues; 

• looking for imaginative and innovative solutions, such as structured payouts, payment in kind, future commercial relations, 

concessions, apologies or admissions, establishment of a training 

or recruiting program, or correction of a defect; 

• discussing settlement in the parties’ language (e.g., with two 

business litigants, ask “How many widgets will the litigation costs 

buy? What are your daily profits against the costs of this case?”); 

• providing a structure, when the parties are dug in, to help them 

exchange offers (e.g., asking the plaintiff to “come up with the 

next offer,” asking the defendant to make a counteroffer, and 

asking them to continue exchanging offers until settlement or 

impasse is reached), which can force movement but takes the 

burden off the parties to make the first move; 

• injecting realities, such as the risk of bankruptcy or the difficulties of collecting a judgment from a financially strapped defendant; 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

95 

• recommending or encouraging the parties to exclude punitive 

damages as an element of the claim for settlement purposes; 

• encouraging the defendant to make a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment, carefully drafted to avoid later disputes; such an offer can be helpful in cases in which attorneys’ 

fees can be awarded by the court, since the offer can cover all liability, but it must be unambiguous to enable the parties to determine whether the final judgment is more favorable; 

• deferring any judicial recommendation of potential settlement 

figures until the outlines of a probable settlement become apparent; 

• settling only some issues in the case, or the claims of some but 

not all parties;110 and 

• keeping the negotiations going despite lack of agreement. 

 Some judges find they are most effective if they try to move the parties within range of settlement (i.e., if they establish a “ballpark”). To do 

that, you may need to remain noncommittal on the merits for some time. 

If you do not make a recommendation too soon, you may also find that 

your credibility and effectiveness are enhanced, and you may avoid having to backtrack later if discussions take an unanticipated direction. On 

the other hand, a study done some years ago found that many attorneys 

preferred a judge who was actively involved in settlement discussions, 

who knew the facts and law in the particular case, who offered explicit 

assessments of party positions, and who made specific suggestions for 

resolution, provided the judge was not going to be the fact finder in the 

case.111 These preferences varied by location, which suggests that you 

should try to understand your local culture in deciding the approach you 

will use in settlement discussions. 

4. Recording the settlement 

In the end, it is not the judge who settles the case, but the parties, and 

their decision does not ordinarily require your review or approval. To 

forestall future disputes over the settlement, it is generally wise nonetheless to record the settlement in writing. You should consider dictating the 

 110. But see MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 13.21, for a discussion of the risks of partial 

settlements. 

 111. Brazil, supra note 106, at 1–2, 5–6. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

96 

complete terms of the settlement into the record in the presence of counsel as soon as agreement is reached. If the agreement requires ratification 

or approval by a board of directors, the Attorney General, or some other 

higher authority, set a date certain by which counsel must file a written 

agreement with the court. If the agreement is to be filed later, it is wise to 

get at least an outline of the settlement terms on paper on the spot, particularly if individuals rather than corporations are involved. Ask counsel 

and all parties to affirm, by signature or on the record, the terms of the 

agreement. 

 Even if the agreement is on the record, disputes may arise later about 

the form of the agreement. Therefore, have counsel state on the record 

that if there are arguments later about the form of their agreement, the 

form, not the underlying settlement, may be discussed. Make it clear, on 

the record, that if the parties cannot agree on the form, the court will decide it. 

 If you have given counsel leeway to file the agreement by a specified 

later date, you will undoubtedly find that some parties are tardy in meeting that date. When you set a date certain and put it on the record, make 

certain counsel know you expect them to keep that date. When they do, 

you can dismiss the case (see Appendix A, Forms 33–34 for examples of 

orders dismissing a settled case). If they do not, you can move to dismiss 

the case or, if you prefer, ask the parties to show cause why you should 

not dismiss the case. 

 In some cases, such as class actions and some antitrust cases, you are 

required to review and approve the settlement. You can find a helpful 

discussion of this responsibility in the Manual for Complex Litigation, 

Fourth.

112

5. Settlement in cases involving pro se litigants 

Cases involving a pro se litigant seem to be obvious candidates for disposition by settlement, but you should not assist in settlement negotiations 

in pro se cases on your docket. Pro se litigants will very likely turn to you 

for advice, and you may be tempted by their sometimes extreme neediness to help them. Within bounds, it is your responsibility to ensure that 

justice is done for these litigants, just as it is for those who can hire the 

finest counsel, but you must also protect your impartiality on behalf of all 

 112. MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 13.14. 
Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Settlement 

97 

litigants in the case. Because this is a difficult line to walk, the better approach is simply to forego any involvement in settlement discussions in 

these cases. This is unfortunate, as early settlement would benefit many 

of these litigants. Pro se cases present a very good opportunity to turn to 

one of your colleagues for assistance. 

 Consider 

• referring cases with pro se litigants to another district judge or 

magistrate judge for settlement assistance; and 

• establishing a regular exchange relationship with another district 

judge or magistrate judge to provide settlement assistance in pro 

se cases. 

6. Ethical and other considerations in judge-hosted settlement 

negotiations 

Whatever your approach to settlement discussions, you should ensure at 

all times that your impartiality and the court’s credibility are not compromised. To preserve the integrity of the process, you may also have to 

monitor the conduct of counsel and their clients. Party efforts to seal 

documents as part of the settlement agreement, for example, will require 

your close attention, especially in cases that involve public safety. Counsel 

may also try to enter into side agreements that are not disclosed to other 

parties in the case. Negotiations regarding attorneys’ fees may require 

your attention as well, especially in civil rights cases, in which the losing 

side is liable for the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees. These and other 

problems are given careful attention in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth.

113

 113. Id. §§ 13.22–13.24. 

99 

Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial 

Planning 

A. Planning the Final Pretrial Conference 

1. Timing and arrangements 

2. Preparation for the final pretrial conference 

3. Subjects for the conference 

a. In general 

b. Preliminary considerations 

c. Expert witnesses 

d. Exhibits 

e. Jury issues 

f. Scheduling and limiting trial events 

4. The final pretrial order 

B. The Trial Phase 

1. Jury trials 

a. In general 

b. Techniques for trial management 

c. Assisting the jury during trial 

2. Bench trials 

a. In general 

b. Techniques for trial management 

c. Deciding the case 

The final pretrial conference provides yet another opportunity for you to 

manage and shape the case. This conference (also known as a “docket 

call” in some districts) can help you to improve the quality of the trial by 

• reminding counsel of your procedures and expectations; 

• stimulating counsel to prepare for trial; 

• reducing the length of the trial by eliminating unnecessary 

proofs; 

• avoiding surprise; 

• ensuring the orderly and succinct presentation of the case; and 

• anticipating and resolving potential trial problems. 

Moreover, disclosure of trial evidence at the final pretrial conference 

helps promote settlement. 

 Some judges dispense with the final pretrial conference and order in 

routine cases. Some treat it as little more than a scheduling event. Others 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

100 

use it as a thorough rehearsal for the trial. However, because even seemingly simple cases can get out of control, resulting in avoidable cost and 

delay, you should consider holding a final pretrial conference unless there 

is clearly no need for one. More broadly, you may view this pivotal casemonitoring point as a necessary final review for ensuring that your policy 

and procedural guidance, designed to serve your particular management 

and information needs, has been followed. 

A. Planning the Final Pretrial Conference 

The final pretrial conference is intended to “improv[e] the quality of the 

trial through more thorough preparation” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(4)) and 

to facilitate settlement (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5)). To those ends, Rule 

16(e) provides that 

• any pretrial conference must be held as close to the time of trial 

as is reasonable under the circumstances; 

• the judge may require the participants to formulate a plan for 

trial, including procedures to facilitate the admission of evidence; 

and 

• the conference must be attended by at least one of the attorneys 

who will conduct the trial for each of the parties. 

 If the purposes of the conference are to be achieved, it is critical that 

trial counsel, and preferably lead trial counsel, attend and participate. 

The Rule 16 topics previously discussed (see Chapter 2, section C.8, supra) provide a general frame of reference for the final pretrial conference. 

The conference’s scope will depend on the nature, number, and complexity of the issues; the number of witnesses and volume of documentary 

evidence; and the experience and competence of the attorneys—in short, 

on what is needed under the circumstances to ensure a fair and efficient 

trial. 

1. Timing and arrangements 

In planning the final pretrial conference, consider 

• setting the conference date sufficiently in advance of the trial date 

to allow for the possibility of at least one more final conference, 

in the event it is needed; 

• holding the conference when discovery is substantially completed 

and a firm trial date has been set and is near; 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

101 

• requiring the parties to be present; 

• holding the conference where it is likely to be most productive 

(either in chambers or in open court); and 

• having a transcript made of the conference for future reference in 

guiding the course of the trial. 

2. Preparation for the final pretrial conference 

Adequate preparation by the judge and counsel is necessary for the final 

pretrial conference to be productive. Pretrial preparation requirements 

should be adapted to the needs of the particular case to ensure full exchange of relevant information and to improve the quality of the trial 

without imposing undue burdens. You should consult local rules for applicable provisions, realizing that modifications may be desirable to meet 

the particular needs of the case. For examples of pretrial orders, see Appendix A, Forms 9, 24, and 35–40. 

 Consider requiring a preconference meeting of counsel for the purpose of preparing a joint pretrial statement covering an agenda of key 

issues to assist you in conducting the conference. 

 Consider having counsel exchange and submit the following: 

• requested jury voir dire questions; 

• lists that identify all witnesses and the subject matter of the witnesses’ testimony and that separately identify those witnesses the 

parties will definitely call and those they may call only if needed; 

• lists that identify each exhibit the parties will definitely offer and 

those exhibits they may offer only if needed; 

• copies of all proposed exhibits; 

• brief memoranda on critical legal issues, as needed; 

• statements of facts believed to be undisputed; 

• motions in limine and any opposition thereto; 

• deposition and discovery excerpts and any opposition thereto; 

• proposed jury instructions that define the issues—that is, that 

state the elements of each claim and defense; and 

• proposed verdict forms, including special verdict forms or juror 

interrogatories if requested (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49), and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in nonjury cases. 

 While each of the above suggestions may not be important in every 

case coming before you, the suggestions regarding jury instructions and 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

102 

verdict forms are more generally useful. Preparing jury instructions and 

verdict forms is a useful discipline for attorneys, requiring them to analyze their case and, more critically, the sufficiency of the available proof. 

3. Subjects for the conference 

a. In general 

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), the court may hold a 

final pretrial conference to “formulate a trial plan, including a plan to 

facilitate the admission of evidence.” Rule 16(c) offers a checklist of relevant subjects appropriate for consideration at the final pretrial conference; you may also want to consult the Manual for Complex Litigation, 

Fourth.

114 You or counsel may suggest other subjects. The final pretrial 

conference is a significant stage of pretrial case management and a significant monitoring point for you to ensure that the case is trial or settlement ready. Your order imposing on the parties the burden to prepare 

and to appear to discuss the case at this final stage should also provide 

notice to the parties (through the order itself or attached casemanagement guidelines) as to what you wish them to prepare and the 

level of detail you require. The final pretrial conference is as significant as 

the initial Rule 16 conference; your scheduling order for this conference 

should reflect its importance. For illustrative procedures and orders, see 

Appendix A, Forms 9, 24, and 35–40. 

 For additional matters worthy of suggestion to counsel and emphasis 

in your final pretrial conference order, consider the following approaches: 

• Arrive at a final and binding statement of the factual and legal issues to be tried, and encourage stipulations. 

• Exclude evidence bearing on uncontested matters and evidence 

that is cumulative or unnecessary. 

• Distribute your own rules of courtroom decorum, including 

your preferences on the use of wireless communication devices 

(e.g., laptops, cellular phones, and personal digital assistants) in 

the courtroom by attorneys, parties, witnesses, and jurors. As legal practice has become more technology-driven, and professional courtroom courtesies have declined, many judges have developed their own rules of courtroom decorum or adopted those 

 114. Id. § 11.6. 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

103 

of others in their district. You may distribute such rules at the final pretrial conference or post them on your district’s website. 

• Inquire whether the parties still want a jury trial. Some jury demands are filed perfunctorily early in the case; the parties may in 

the meantime have changed their minds without having advised 

the court. 

b. Preliminary considerations 

A primary task that confronts you in organizing a successful pretrial conference is deciding how you will address a number of procedural considerations that will arise at the start of or during the course of the conference. As has been emphasized already, your early decisions on and notice 

to counsel regarding how these preliminary matters will be dealt with will 

save time and expense and will promote effective control of both the conference and trial proceedings. 

 Consider the following approaches: 

• Hear already-submitted motions in limine and make rulings at 

the conference, when possible, on the admissibility of evidence, 

the qualification of expert witnesses, claims of privilege, and 

other threshold matters (see Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)). The presubmission of motions in limine for rulings at the final pretrial conference can save time and provide another opportunity to set the 

stage for and pace of subsequent pretrial activities. Consider an 

admonition to counsel that any later motions in limine are considered waived without a strong showing that the matter was not 

one counsel would have known of in advance. 

• Receive exhibits into the record. 

• Receive and rule on matters concerning the mode or order of 

proof (see Fed. R. Evid. 611(a)). 

• Identify potentially dispositive issues. 

• Review the numbers and purposes of proposed witnesses within 

the triable issue framework of the trial, challenging as necessary 

for redundancy or duplication, and imposing limits on the total 

number of witnesses each side may offer. 

• Require agreement by counsel (to be included in your final order) that all documents are considered authentic if produced by 

parties, unless a specific document is objected to, to avoid unnecessary custodial witnesses or certification of authentication. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

104 

• Require narrative written statements, subject to crossexamination, for presenting the direct testimony of certain witnesses in bench trials and of expert witnesses in jury trials and 

avoiding the use of depositions in trial (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 43 and 

Fed. R. Evid. 611(a)). Many judges feel that joint statements by 

counsel as to what a particular witness would say under oath are 

preferable, in terms of trial time, to depositions in trial. 

• Have counsel list, by page and line for review, depositions to be 

used (i.e., when narrative written statements of testimony cannot 

be used). 

• Entertain motions for postponing the trial date only if submitted 

with a certification of client consent. Trial date continuances can 

have a severe impact on a judge’s calendar, and trial date certainty gives credibility to your calendar and has been shown to 

reduce overall case disposition time.115 

• Explore the possibility of settlement once more. The final pretrial 

conference presents one last opportunity to discuss settlement 

with counsel and the parties, who may now realize for the first 

time the actual burdens of going forward. For those cases that do 

not settle, actual trial time may be shortened as a consequence of 

frank settlement discussions at this time. 

• Clarify other procedural matters, such as (1) using video depositions (edited to limit playing time) and deposition summaries (in 

lieu of reading the transcript) at trial; (2) using advanced 

technologies in the presentation of evidence; (3) preinstructing 

the jury; and (4) approving forms and procedures for return of 

the verdict. 

c. Expert witnesses 

Management of expert witnesses presents another opportunity to avoid 

the often excessive reliance on redundant or duplicative expert testimony, 

which not only wastes trial time but can represent an extremely expensive 

portion of the parties’ litigation budget. As the trial judge, you are 

uniquely placed to question expert witness justifications in an area in 

which the parties themselves may be technically unprepared to challenge 

their own counsel. 

 115. RAND CJRA Report, supra note 4, at 89–90. 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

105 

 In connection with the final pretrial conference, consider 

• ruling on the qualifications of expert witnesses, the admissibility 

of particular expert evidence, the use of hypothetical questions, 

and the requisite evidentiary foundations (see Fed. R. Evid. 

104(a)); 

• entering a final pretrial order barring experts not previously 

identified and expert testimony at variance with that expert’s 

prior deposition testimony, written report, or statement, unless 

preceded by proper notice and prior court approval; 

• establishing procedures to enhance jury comprehension (see 

Chapter 6, section B.1.c, infra); 

• determining whether to appoint an expert witness (see Fed. R. 

Evid. 706); and 

• limiting the number of experts permitted to testify. 

 While it may appear easier to defer to the judgments of counsel regarding experts, it is important to reemphasize that you are the guardian 

of economy and efficiency in the use of public trial resources. Consider 

whether more than one expert per side is needed and should be permitted to testify with respect to any single scientific discipline; different disciplines may require different qualifications and therefore may call for 

different experts. See also Chapter 7, section B, infra, for a discussion of 

expert witnesses generally. 

d. Exhibits 

Limiting the number of exhibits and shaping those ultimately presented 

at trial is an important part of structuring an effective trial and preserving 

juror (and judge) patience. Duplicative, redundant, or unclear exhibits 

not only waste limited trial time, but may also prejudice the case of the 

presenter, who is often the last to recognize this. 

Consider 

• controlling the volume of exhibits by limiting their number and 

forcing counsel to justify each exhibit’s independent utility with 

regard to specific issues or proofs (see Fed. R. Evid. 403, 611(a));

• having counsel redact voluminous exhibits; 

• asking counsel to premark exhibits and provide copies of them to 

the court; 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

106 

• insisting that counsel rehearse their handling of visual and other 

aids to ensure their dexterity with such aids in the courtroom; 

and 

• identifying special or potentially prejudicial exhibits and developing protocols for their presentation. 

e. Jury issues 

Jurors are too often the forgotten actors in the litigation process. While 

no one consciously wishes to offend or abuse them, they are often subjected to seemingly arbitrary and unexplained delays, excluded from private sidebar discussions, and presented with confusing or arcane instructions in the course of trial. You are their only consistent champion and 

defender. You should highlight for trial counsel the risks they face in not 

considering juror needs from their first contact with a trial panel at voir 

dire through the trial stages, when fatigue and impatience can set in. 

 Aside from these general admonitions, consider 

• screening prospective jurors by having them complete questionnaires in advance in cases in which a large jury pool is necessary 

and voir dire could be lengthy (see, for example, Appendix A, 

Forms 42 and 43); 

• clarifying voir dire procedures generally (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 47; 

see, for example, Appendix A, Forms 41, 44, and 45); 

• establishing procedures for jury selection, including the number 

of jurors to be seated and the number of peremptories per side, 

as well as the procedure for their exercise (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 48; 

see, for example, Appendix A, Forms 44–46); 

• clarifying that all jurors remaining at the end of the presentation 

of evidence will deliberate (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 48); 

• determining how complex evidence will be presented to enhance 

jury comprehension; 

• scheduling the final submission of jury instructions; 

• drafting brief, well-organized instructions using clear and plain 

language to maximize jury comprehension (for guidelines, see 

Appendix A, Form 47); 

• in unique situations, whether to approve a stipulation by the parties that a nonunanimous verdict may be returned by a specified 

number of jurors (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 48); and 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

107 

• preparing special verdict forms and considering whether to use 

seriatim verdicts (jury decides one issue at a time), general verdicts with interrogatories, or special verdicts (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

49). 

 In discussing juror-related issues, you can probe to determine if 

larger juror panels must be summoned for voir dire owing to the nature 

of the case or its complexity. Special precautions may be necessary to 

qualify a larger number of expected panelists. If many prospective jurors 

are likely to be ineligible, or lengthy voir dire may be necessary, juror 

questionnaires can be mailed to the venire in advance with the assistance 

of the clerk’s office. Whether the questionnaires are completed and returned in advance or completed at the courthouse, sufficient time needs 

to be allowed for their review and screening by counsel before voir dire.116 

 Special verdicts and interrogatories can be useful devices to reduce 

the risk of having to retry the entire case. You can, with counsel, make 

the initial determination that complex issues raised and addressed in the 

proposed instructions lend themselves to special verdicts. Such verdicts 

also make possible alternative outcomes in cases in which the law is not 

settled or the law has changed but its retroactive application is in doubt 

(e.g., as under the Civil Rights Act of 1991). Because the preparation for 

special verdicts and interrogatories requires care to avoid inconsistencies 

or conflicts, however, you should obtain the attorneys’ approval as to 

form.117 

f. Scheduling and limiting trial events 

One of the most direct and important ways your leadership can be exercised in the course of the final pretrial conference is in discussions of 

scheduling of trial events and the actual trial time likely to be required by 

the case. Scheduling trial events and limiting trial time through consultation with counsel is an exercise of authority well within the traditional 

discretion of the trial judge.118 Counsel should be forced to estimate, and 

 116. The juror questionnaire form has become automated and is submitted in advance of trial in many courts using the Juror Management System software. 

 117. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.633. 

 118. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2) (trial time limits are a proper topic for pretrial conferences); Fed. R. Evid. 403, 611; Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Gen. Signal v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1508–09 (9th Cir. 1995)); Deus 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

108 

you can subsequently hone and accede to, time necessary for each major 

trial event from opening statements through closing arguments. In addition, the scheduling and timing of many other subevents can come into 

play. 

 Consider the following for discussion: 

• the overall scheduling of the trial and of each trial day; 

• the length, scope, and content of opening statements; 

• the length, scope, and content of closing arguments; 

• the number of hours each side may have to conduct examination 

and cross-examination; 

• the order of cross-examination and designation of crossexaminers in multiparty cases; and 

• the order of final arguments and jury instructions (see Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 51).

 Setting time limits requires careful consideration of the views of 

counsel (who know the case), of the allocation of burdens among the 

parties, and of how the respective cases will be presented (e.g., one side 

may depend on cross-examination of the opponent’s witnesses to present 

much of its case). Naturally, this should be done in full consultation with 

counsel. 

 You may begin the process by reaching consensus on the total time to 

be consumed, in days and hours. The starting point for that figure should 

be the original estimates presented by counsel on the cover sheet accompanying the original filing or at the earlier Rule 16 conference. From that 

total figure (further refined in the course of the discovery and pretrial 

process), time can be assigned to the various events of the trial process: 

opening statements, testimonial and exhibit presentation, direct and 

cross-examination, closing statements, and so forth. You may also consider specifying that any sidebar conferences (if they are allowed) will be 

charged against the time of the requester. It may be helpful to divide each 

day of counsel’s time estimate into two sessions (morning and afternoon) 

on forms representing each trial day and have counsel plan their daily 

events and the divisions of total trial time between them; the results can 

be made part of the final pretrial order (see, for example, Appendix A, 

Form 44). 

v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 (1994); M.T. 

Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F.2d 1404, 1408 (7th Cir. 1991). 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

109 

4. The final pretrial order 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d) suggests that the court issue an order reciting all actions and rulings at the final pretrial conference. The 

order, which “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies 

it,” should be clear and comprehensive, covering all important matters 

(as discussed above). Trial counsel should understand that no deviation 

or modification will be permitted except “to prevent manifest injustice.”119

 You may dictate the order on the record at the end of the conference, 

or you may direct counsel to prepare it on the basis of the record of the 

conference. For illustrative final pretrial orders, see Appendix A, Forms 9, 

24, 35–40, and 44. 

B. The Trial Phase 120

1. Jury trials 

a. In general 

Although case management tends to focus on the pretrial phase of litigation, management of the trial is equally important. Excessively lengthy 

and costly trials can deny parties access to civil justice, clog the court system, impose undue burdens on jurors, and diminish public respect for, 

and confidence in, the justice system. Judges have broad inherent discretion to manage the trial of the cases assigned to them. The following section addresses management techniques at trial. Not all of them will be 

appropriate for any given trial, but all are worthy of your consideration in 

the process of arriving at a suitable trial-management plan. For illustrative trial guidelines and orders, see Appendix A, Forms 4, 44, and 48. For 

a discussion of high-visibility trials, see Chapter 7, section C, infra. 

b. Techniques for trial management 

The lawyers, not the judge, must try the case, but there is much you can 

do to improve the quality of the trial and reduce its length and cost. 

 119. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). See also MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.67. 

 120. See Judicial Demeanor and Courtroom Control Practices (filmed by the Federal 

Judicial Center and American College of Trial Lawyers in 2009) (video on file with the 

Federal Judicial Center) (FJC Media Library No. 5077-V/09) (for discussion of difficult 

situations arising in the courtroom and suggestions on handling them). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

110 

Consider 

• streamlining voir dire procedures generally;121

• establishing procedures for conducting voir dire, for exercising 

peremptory challenges, and for giving opening statements; 

• having counsel submit proposed voir dire questions for use by 

the judge and preparing for the voir dire examination in advance 

to ensure that all important points will be covered; 

• conducting short daily conferences with counsel to identify 

upcoming witnesses and exhibits, to anticipate problems (such as 

objections to evidence, witness unavailability, or other potential 

causes of interruption or delay of the trial), and to assess the progress of the case generally;122

• controlling the volume of exhibits (e.g., by using summaries or 

redacted documents or imposing limits on the number of exhibits); 

• limiting the reading of depositions by use of a stipulated summary or agreed-on statement of the substance of a witness’s testimony;123

• avoiding unnecessary proofs by narrowing disputes or by encouraging stipulations to such matters as the foundation for exhibits; and 

• minimizing or avoiding sidebar conferences, arguments, and 

other proceedings that disrupt the trial day. 

 You should let counsel know in advance the procedures you use for 

conducting voir dire and exercising challenges. Because lawyers tend to 

attach more importance to voir dire than judges do, you should consider 

allowing counsel a reasonable but limited time to supplement judgeconducted voir dire. 

 Presenting deposition testimony by reading depositions can save litigant costs, but it can bore jurors, so readings should be limited to key 

testimony. This practice should also be balanced against the reasonable 

desire on the part of counsel to allow a key witness to “speak the case” to 

a jury (at least in part through deposition testimony). Requiring that 

 121. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 12.412. See Benchbook, supra note 61, § 6 (discussing general civil trial management). 

 122. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, §§ 12.13, 12.23. 

 123. See id. § 12.331. 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

111 

counsel, in advance of trial, designate or stipulate to summaries or depositions to be offered at trial can promote the effective and efficient use of 

these materials at trial. 

 For additional suggestions for streamlining trials, see the discussion 

of the pretrial conference in Chapter 6, section A.3, supra. 

c. Assisting the jury during trial 

Sound trial management will improve jurors’ performance, promote juror satisfaction with their service, and enhance the court’s public image. 

In conducting the trial, you should ensure that jurors are treated as important participants in the trial and assist them in carrying out their functions.124 

Consider 

• giving a preliminary instruction that identifies the sequential 

stages of a trial and provides a generic statement of the issues;125

• permitting jurors to take notes; 

• permitting jurors to ask questions (in writing, submitted through 

the judge) when appropriate, under adequate safeguards (this is a 

topic of debate and the subject of varied practice among judges—

proponents argue that permitting questions helps to maintain juror focus and job satisfaction; opponents fear that juror questions can result in needless distractions and threaten juror impartiality during the taking of evidence);126

• discouraging or delaying sidebars whenever possible until the 

next recess; 

• encouraging the parties to stipulate to the use of techniques to 

enhance jury comprehension,127 such as (1) jury notebooks listing witnesses and containing, for example, critical exhibits and 

 124. See generally William W Schwarzer, Reforming Jury Trials, 132 F.R.D. 575 

(1991). See also Called To Serve (filmed by the Federal Judicial Center in 2005) (video on 

file with the Federal Judicial Center) (FJC Media Library No. 2980-V/05). 

 125. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 12.43. 

 126. See id. § 12.42. See also Federal Trial Handbook: Criminal § 17:13 (Thompson/West 2009) (the considerations discussed in the criminal handbook apply equally to a 

civil trial); Federal Trial Handbook: Civil § 16:15 (Thompson/West 2009); United States 

v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285, 1289, 1294–95 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing practices of various 

circuits in allowing juror questions, and a discussion in the concurrence regarding the 

problems and issues associated with juror questions). 

 127. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 12.31. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

112 

glossaries; (2) courtroom technology (e.g., using computers and 

video to display evidence to the jury);128 (3) pictures of witnesses 

or evidence; (4) summaries of exhibits; (5) the use of plain English by lawyers and witnesses; (6) interim summations (or supplemental opening statements) by counsel; and (7) interim explanations of legal principles (with counsel comment or objection) to prepare jurors for closing instructions (N.B.: the use of 

interim summations or explanations by counsel is appropriate 

for more lengthy and complex cases but not efficient in a typical 

case);129

• giving jurors a copy of your charge; 

• determining whether to instruct jurors before or after closing 

arguments (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)); and 

• permitting reasonable read-backs of trial testimony when requested by the jury during deliberations. 

 Many judges believe that the jury can make better use of closing arguments after having first heard the judge’s instructions. Note also that 

some judges have gained valuable insights from exit questionnaires completed by jurors, enabling them to improve their trial-management techniques.130 

 The comfort of sitting jurors affects their performance, and there are 

ways you can easily enhance their comfort. For example, you should 

avoid calling jurors prior to the time they are to sit, explain any delays, 

and observe break times, recesses, and adjournments. You can also reinforce the importance of jurors’ service by thanking them for their time 

and sacrifice at the end of trial. 

 Counsel may request to speak to the jurors after the verdict. While 

such contacts may be prohibited for cause (e.g., posttrial motions), they 

may also be controlled (or denied entirely) by local rule. If such contacts 

are neither controlled nor prohibited, your decision whether to permit 

them should be guided by the jurors’ comfort and the circumstances of 

the case; you should caution jurors that they may refuse any requests. 

 128. See Natl. Inst. for Trial Advocacy, Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A 

Judge’s Guide to Pretrial and Trial (edited by Fed. Judicial Ctr., 2001). 

 129. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 12.43. 

 130. See generally D. Brock Hornby, How Jurors See Us, 14 Me. B.J. 174 (1999). 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

113 

2. Bench trials 

a. In general 

Avoiding cost and delay is no less important in bench trials than it is in 

jury trials, even though the absence of a jury eliminates some requirements. However, the lesser formality of bench trials should not be allowed to lead to casual proceedings and a cluttered record, which will 

make the case more difficult to decide and more difficult to review on 

appeal. 

b. Techniques for trial management 

Many of the trial-management techniques applicable to jury trials are 

relevant to bench trials as well. 

 In addition, consider the following approaches: 

• Have direct testimony of witnesses under the parties’ control 

submitted and exchanged in advance in narrative statement form 

(see Fed. R. Civ. P. 43; for examples of instructions regarding 

submission of direct testimony in writing, see Appendix A, Form 

49).131

• Impose limits on testimony and exhibits to avoid creating an excessively long record that will make the case more difficult to decide. 

• Adopt trial procedures to ensure that you understand the evidence as it comes in rather than leaving it to be studied after the 

case is submitted. Such procedures include asking questions of 

witnesses to enhance understanding, having opposing witnesses 

appear in court at the same time for back-to-back questioning, 

and having opposing experts confront each other to identify and 

explain the bases of their differences of opinion. 

 Although exclusionary rulings are of less importance in bench trials 

than in jury trials, receiving evidence into the record indiscriminately 

may result in a record that is difficult for you to manage and digest in the 

decision-making process. 

c. Deciding the case 

Bench trials can be more burdensome than jury trials because judges may 

have trouble finding time to decide the case once it is submitted, and 

 131. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 12.333 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B), 32(c)). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

114 

cases become more difficult to decide as they grow cold with the passage 

of time. Many judges follow the practice of taking a case under submission only if it cannot be decided from the bench and then setting a deadline on their calendar for its decision. A prompt decision saves resources, 

increases the parties’ and public’s satisfaction with the court, and eases 

the judge’s burden.132 

Consider 

• having counsel submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law before trial begins, enabling you to accept or reject findings as the trial progresses (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52); 

• having counsel argue the case immediately following the close of 

the evidence (as in a jury trial) instead of using posttrial briefings; 

• if briefing is needed, having briefs submitted before trial rather 

than after; 

• deciding the case, whenever possible, promptly after the closing 

arguments by dictating findings of fact and conclusions of law 

into the record; and 

• adopting your own time standards for reaching decisions (e.g., 

within 120 days of the close of evidence). 

 Your fact-finding can be greatly aided by the use of counsel-prepared 

materials, such as findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as 

through trial briefs. With regard to the former, you may find it helpful to 

require that each finding be brief, noncontentious, and limited to one 

fact. Some judges also require that counsel mark their opponent’s proposals to indicate which ones are contested and which are not (for an example of this approach, see Appendix A, Form 9). 

 Whatever you decide about the adoption of time standards for reaching decisions in bench trials, you should be aware that under the Civil 

Justice Reform Act of 1990, the director of the Administrative Office 

must prepare semiannual reports listing, by judge, all bench trials sub-

 132. See generally id. § 12.52 (“Decisions become more difficult as the record grows 

cold, and a long-delayed decision undermines public confidence in the justice system and 

must be included in the public reports required by 28 U.S.C. § 476 [bench trials submitted for more than six months, or any civil case pending more than three years].”). 
Chapter 6: Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning 

115 

mitted for more than six months and all civil cases that have not been 

terminated within three years of filing.133

 133. 28 U.S.C. §§ 476(a)(2), (3); see Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol. 18. These semiannual reports also list, by judge, all civil motions pending for more than six months. 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1). 

117 

Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

A. Mass Tort, Class Action, and Other Complex Cases 

1. Complex cases generally 

2. Mass tort cases 

3. Class action cases 

B. Management of Expert Evidence 

1. Early pretrial evidence 

2. Daubert hearing; final pretrial evidence 

3. Trial evidence 

4. Court-appointed experts 

C. High-Profile Cases 

1. Making a plan and assigning responsibilities 

2. Planning for the presence of the media 

3. Interacting with the media 

a. Court interactions with the media 

b. Attorney interactions with the media 

4. Protecting the jurors, facilitating their attention, and providing for their 

comfort 

5. Planning for security 

6. Managing the courtroom 

7. Managing the case and the rest of your docket 

D. Pro Se Cases 

1. Early screening 

2. In forma pauperis status 

3. Securing counsel for pro se litigants 

4. Scheduling and monitoring the pro se case 

5. Holding settlement discussions and conducting the trial 

Although most of the cases on your docket are likely to be of the routine 

sort that are the subject of this manual, you will undoubtedly be assigned 

cases whose demands on you and others will go well beyond those of the 

ordinary case. In this chapter we discuss some of these types of cases, including class actions and cases that attract intense attention from the media and public. Our goal in these discussions is not to give a full treatment of complex or unusual litigation, but only to offer some basic casemanagement guidance, with the expectation that you will turn to other 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

118 

readily available sources, such as the Manual for Complex Litigation, 

Fourth,

134 for more information. 

 In this chapter we also discuss two kinds of cases—prisoner litigation 

and pro se cases—that appear much more frequently on your docket and 

can be managed with many of the principles and techniques discussed in 

the preceding chapters. In some important ways, however, these cases are 

different from the ordinary case; those differences and some suggestions 

for managing them are discussed below. 

A. Mass Tort, Class Action, and Other Complex Cases 

The principles and techniques set out in the previous chapters are meant 

to apply to ordinary litigation. Management of complex cases often requires additional procedures and special techniques. The Manual for 

Complex Litigation has served since 1960 as the judiciary’s primary source 

of innovative ideas about managing complex litigation.135 We do not attempt to duplicate that source, and we refer the reader to that manual 

when appropriate. 

1. Complex cases generally 

Given that factors other than subject matter may determine a case’s complexity, how can you distinguish ordinary cases from complex cases? 

Consider some of the signs that a case will need extensive management: 

• Number of parties. When a complaint lists dozens of plaintiffs or 

defendants or your courtroom is full of lawyers at the first pretrial conference, you can be pretty sure that the case is complex 

and will require some of the techniques discussed in the MCL 

Fourth, such as organizing counsel, adopting standard motions 

and responses, coordinating discovery, and establishing fair and 

efficient approaches to trial.136

• Number of similar or related cases. The answers to some pivotal 

questions asked at a pretrial conference or listed on a form to be 

completed by counsel before the conference may reveal a sub-

 134. See MCL 4th, supra note 10. 

 135. Id.

 136. See id. §§ 10.2 (role of counsel), 11.32 (motions practice), 11.4 (managing discovery), 12.0 (managing the trial). 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

119 

stantial number of cases involving the same or similar transactions and legal claims in your court or in other federal or state 

courts. Under a system of random assignment of cases, you may 

not even know that your colleagues have a large number of similar cases, but clerks of court often have this information and 

should be encouraged to look for trends. Sometimes, as with 

mass tort litigation, different attorneys may represent individual 

plaintiffs, and those attorneys may not initially be aware of the 

full scope of the litigation. The same defendants, though, will be 

named in most related cases, and the defendants’ attorneys can 

often give precise information about the number and location of 

similar cases. Some judges routinely ask counsel to identify all 

similar cases, even though such cases may not be technically “related to” each other as that term is used in local rules. 

• Multiple transactions. A warning sign that multiple cases may be 

filed sooner or later is the filing of a claim that is based on an intrinsic characteristic of a mass-produced substance (e.g., a products liability claim). A claim that a widely marketed pharmaceutical product, for example, is associated with a particular disease 

should alert you to the likelihood that similar claims will be filed. 

• Competing experts. A leading indicator of case complexity is that 

the parties have experts who propose to testify to opposing conclusions about a central issue in the case, such as the capacity of a 

chemical or pharmaceutical product to cause the injuries plaintiffs allege. (Management of cases with competing experts is discussed infra Chapter 7, section B.) 

• Complex subject matter. The subject matter of a claim can suggest 

complexity without other indicators being present. Patent law 

cases, for example, often involve disputes about highly technical 

and complex matters. On the other hand, complex subject matter 

does not necessarily mean that case management will be complex. A case with complex legal issues, for example, might be 

managed and resolved by a ruling on a motion for summary 

judgment or some other straightforward procedure. 

• “Maturity” of the litigation. If the dangers of a product that is the 

subject of a liability suit are clear from prior litigation (as with 

asbestos), past decisional history will have diminished much of 

the case’s complexity. If, however, a case involves liability for a 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

120 

product that has never been found to cause the type of injury the 

plaintiff alleges, you can assume that it will be complex because 

of the parties’ disputes over the scientific basis for causation.137

• Class action allegations. Managing a putative class action imposes 

additional responsibilities on a judge. You may have to control 

the parties’ and their attorneys’ communications with the putative class, designate counsel, rule on class certification, rule on 

the fairness of any proposed settlement or dismissal, and provide 

for the administration of an approved settlement.138

• Volume of discovery and evidence. Cases that revolve around standard transactions, such as the use of a form contract or a public 

forecast of corporate earnings, will undoubtedly involve less factual complexity and hence require less management than cases 

arising from a host of individualized transactions, such as claims 

of product liability and personal injury arising from the manufacture of, say, an automobile. Cases involving extensive electronic discovery may also signal a need for greater judicial management.139

 If you conclude that the case before you is complex, consult the appropriate section of the MCL Fourth for the specific type of case. Additional resources on specific topics include guidance for judges and clerks 

handling multidistrict litigation;140 a pocket guide on managing patent 

litigation and several other resources on management of intellectual 

property cases;141 and a report on two judges’ use of expert science panels 

 137. For a discussion of applying the maturity factor to mass torts, see MCL 4th, 

supra note 10, § 22.344. 

 138. See id. § 21.0. 

 139. See Emery G. Lee III & Thomas E. Willging, National, Case-Based Civil Rules 

Survey: Preliminary Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009) (presenting findings from a national survey of attorneys, including findings on the incidence and cost of cases with electronic discovery). 

 140. Ten Steps to Better Case Management: A Guide for Multidistrict Litigation 

Transferee Judges (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litig. & Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009); Ten 

Steps to Better Case Management: A Guide for Multidistrict Litigation Transferee Court 

Clerks (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litig. & Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008). 

 141. See Complex Litigation Committee, American College of Trial Lawyers, Anatomy of a Patent Case (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009); Peter S. Menell et al., Patent Case Management Judicial Guide (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009); Herbert F. Schwartz, Patent Law and 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

121 

in complex cases involving scientific evidence.142 For cases involving 

complex scientific evidence, consult the Reference Manual on Scientific 

Evidence.

143

2. Mass tort cases 

Mass tort claims will call for you to make a number of discretionary decisions at the outset of the litigation. These decisions, which will affect the 

direction of the litigation and may contribute to its complexity, center on 

one key question: whether to aggregate the individual claims for pretrial 

or trial purposes. Even the seemingly simple and straightforward act of 

consolidating cases within your district should be considered only after 

consulting the MCL Fourth and looking for the characteristics described 

above. As an alternative to aggregating similar claims, you should think 

about whether pursuing one or more test cases—or a sample of cases—

would be the most efficient way to proceed.144

3. Class action cases 

Management of class actions should be governed by principles discussed 

in the MCL Fourth. Prompt consultation of the MCL will aid you in making the critical decision about when to rule on the certification issues and 

actions that might be considered before ruling on a motion to certify a 

class, such as whether to allow preliminary discovery on class issues. Efficient management of class action litigation is especially important as 

more such cases are filed in or removed to federal courts in response to 

Practice (BNA Books 6th ed. 2008); and Robert A. Gorman, Copyright Law (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 2d ed. 2006). 

 142. Laural L. Hooper, Joe S. Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Neutral Science Panels: 

Two Examples of Panels of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product 

Liability Litigation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001). 

 143. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2000). Each 

chapter in the manual discusses a different science topic. See infra Chapter 7, section B. 

Publication of a third edition is forthcoming. 

 144. For a discussion of whether, when, and how to aggregate mass tort cases, see 

Thomas E. Willging, Mass Torts Problems and Proposals: A Report to the Mass Torts Working Group, 187 F.R.D. 328, 348–77 (1999). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

122 

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.145 The pocket guide Managing Class 

Action Litigation offers a concise resource for managing these cases.146 

B. Management of Expert Evidence 

Experts are used in civil litigation with increasing frequency to testify on 

a variety of subjects, including economic, scientific, technological, medical, and legal subjects. Persons with qualifications across a broad spectrum of disciplines and experience may qualify as experts. Once they are 

so qualified, experts’ forensic purpose is to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” (Fed. R. Evid. 702). 

In light of three now well-known Supreme Court decisions,147 management of expert evidence is an integral part of proper case management. 

Under those decisions, the district judge is the gatekeeper who must determine whether the proffered evidence is sufficient to meet the test under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Your performance of the gatekeeper 

function will be intertwined with your implementation of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16.148

 To further your own understanding of expert evidence, you can use 

several sources, beginning with the parties’ experts. You may also appoint 

your own expert, as discussed below. Refer also to the Reference Manual 

on Scientific Evidence, which, in addition to an introductory essay on how 

science works, offers a tutorial in each chapter on a different science area, 

 145. Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). See also Emery G. Lee III & Thomas E. 

Willging, The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on the Federal Courts: 

Fourth Interim Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008). 

 146. Barbara J. Rothstein & Thomas E. Willging, Managing Class Action Litigation: 

A Pocket Guide for Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2009). 

 147. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Gen. Elec. v. Joiner, 

522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 

 148. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 149 (Breyer, J., concurring): 

[J]udges have increasingly found in the Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure ways to 

help them overcome the inherent difficulty of making determinations about complicated 

scientific, or otherwise technical, evidence. Among these techniques are an increased use 

of Rule 16’s pretrial conference authority to narrow the scientific issues in dispute, pretrial hearings where potential experts are subject to examination by the court, and the appointment of special masters and specially trained law clerks. 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

123 

including DNA evidence, medical evidence, toxicology, and estimations 

of economic loss in damages awards.149

1. Early pretrial evidence 

Effective management of expert evidence begins at the pretrial stage. 

Rules 16(c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(G), (c)(2)(L), and (c)(2)(P) authorize you to 

require identification of witnesses and documents, avoid unnecessary or 

cumulative evidence, adopt special procedures for cases presenting difficulties or complexity, and take other action to aid in the disposition of 

the case. Resolving scientific evidence issues is often a prominent aspect 

of cases that involve expert testimony. Consequently, motions in limine 

and motions for summary judgment are likely to play a role in these 

cases. 

Consider the following approaches: 

• Require identification of expert witnesses, by area of expertise if 

not by name, at an early Rule 16 conference to further the process of defining and narrowing issues, to focus discovery, and to 

facilitate settlement. In cases in which expert evidence is the 

predicate of the claim (e.g., medical malpractice), identification 

of an expert qualified to supply such evidence may be required 

before the case is permitted to proceed. 

• Ask the parties to identify the issues that will be addressed by expert testimony and to make sure their experts address the same 

issues, allowing you to clearly see where the differences and conflicts lie. 

• Attempt to identify the specific bases for the differences between 

opposing experts. The utility of expert evidence can be enhanced, 

and issues can be more easily decided, if the basis for the difference between opposing expert evidence, not merely the difference, is identified as early in the pretrial process as possible. This 

may be done by determining whether the experts’ disagreement 

is over data, interpretation of data, factual or other underlying 

assumptions, applicable theories, risk assessments, or policy 

choices.150

 149. See supra note 143. 

 150. Id.
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

124 

• Limit the number of experts who will testify on a given issue. 

Some courts’ local rules limit the number to one expert per subject, for example.151

• Set deadlines for opposing parties’ mutual disclosure of expert 

reports or narrative statements of testimony, underlying data, 

and curricula vitae in appropriate sequence. Although Rule 26 

provides for interrogatories to obtain the experts’ facts and opinions,152 predeposition exchanges of the proposed testimony and 

access to underlying data may be more efficient and can even 

make depositions unnecessary. 

• Explore the possibility of joint expert reports. 

• Establish a procedure for discovery (including ground rules for 

time, place, and payment of costs and fees).153 

• Provide for video depositions, including cross examination, to 

avoid the need for expert witnesses to appear at trial. 

• Use confidentiality orders to protect information produced from 

further dissemination.154 Confidentiality orders can expedite and 

simplify discovery of sensitive matters, but they can also raise issues concerning future release of data from protection. 

2. Daubert hearing; final pretrial evidence 

When expert evidence is anticipated at trial, a Daubert hearing should 

address issues and potential problems related to such evidence, particularly rulings on expert qualifications and the admissibility of expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a). (See also Chapter 6, section 

A.3.c, supra, where we discuss use of expert evidence in the context of the 

final pretrial conference.) 

 Distinguish rulings on admissibility under Rule 104(a) from motions 

for summary judgment under Rule 56. Ordinarily an evidentiary ruling 

should not be regarded as the vehicle for adjudicating a claim or defense, 

 151. See, e.g., Western District of Washington Local Rule 43(j). 

 152. Rule 26(b)(4)(B) prohibits interrogatories or depositions of experts employed 

only for trial preparation without a showing of exceptional circumstances in which it is 

impracticable for the party to obtain the information by other means. 

 153. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.48, for a discussion of discovery and disclosure of expert opinions. 

 154. See id. § 40.27 for a sample confidentiality order (Form A). 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

125 

unless it is clear that no admissible evidence can be offered. However, an 

early Daubert hearing can be helpful for distinguishing admissibility issues from dispositive issues and may in some cases lead to a summary 

judgment motion. 

Also consider:

• having counsel identify specifically those parts of the opposing 

experts’ reports and testimony with which they disagree and 

those parts that are not disputed; 

• directing the parties, when the expense is warranted, to have the 

experts submit a joint statement specifying the matters on which 

they disagree and the basis for the disagreement; 

• directing the parties, when the expense is warranted, to have their 

experts present at the pretrial conference to facilitate identification of the issues remaining in dispute; 

• clearing in advance all exhibits and demonstrations to be offered 

by the experts at trial and giving opposing parties an opportunity 

to review exhibits and raise objections; 

• encouraging joint use of courtroom electronics, models, charts, 

and other displays; 

• encouraging stipulations on relevant background facts and other 

noncontroverted issues; and 

• having the experts and lawyers prepare a glossary of technical 

terms to be used at trial with definitions in understandable language.155

 The admissibility of expert evidence is much litigated, and a substantial body of appellate law is evolving with variations from circuit to circuit. Particularly when you face questions of admissibility, weight, and 

credibility, you should consult circuit law. 

3. Trial evidence 

If expert testimony is to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue” (Fed. R. Evid. 702), the trial should be 

managed so as to enhance the trier of fact’s comprehension. 

 155. The source for these suggestions is William W Schwarzer & Joe S. Cecil, Management of Expert Evidence, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra note 143, at 

57. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

126 

Consider the following approaches: 

• have a tutorial for the jury or the judge before the trial begins, 

conducted by a neutral expert or experts chosen by the parties, to 

explain fundamentals of complex scientific or technical matters; 

• exclude undisclosed experts and evidence from the trial: few 

things are more disruptive at trial than the appearance of undisclosed experts or the offer of expert evidence at variance with 

prior testimony or reports; 

• have experts testify back to back to facilitate clarification of the 

extent and basis for their disagreement (if the extent and basis 

have not been previously established, see Chapter 7, section B.2,

supra); 

• assist the jury by giving preliminary and interim instructions, 

permitting note taking, and permitting jurors to ask questions 

(see Chapter 6, section B.1.c, supra, for a brief discussion of the 

issues involved in permitting juror questions); and 

• use narrative written statements or reports for presentation of 

experts’ direct testimony. 

4. Court-appointed experts 

Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides a detailed procedure for the selection, appointment, assignment of duties, discovery, report submission, 

and compensation of court-appointed experts. That procedure, however, 

does not preclude the use of other approaches, either by stipulation of the 

parties or by exercise of your inherent management power. Courtappointed experts may be used in various ways and for various purposes. 

They may, for example, serve as witnesses, consultants, examiners, fact 

finders, or researchers. 

 If you are considering appointment of an expert, make sure you consult with counsel and determine before making an appointment exactly 

what purpose the expert is to serve, how the expert is to function, and the 

extent to which the expert will be subject to discovery. You also need to 

address the potential for what may be considered ex parte communications. Arrangements for compensation of the expert should be made in 

advance and should define clearly the potential liability of the parties. 

Because of the time involved in identifying and appointing an expert, try 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

127 

to determine early in the case whether you will appoint an expert.156 Academic departments and professional organizations can be a source for 

such experts. 

 You should appoint the expert through a formal order, after the parties have had an opportunity to comment on it. 

Consider including in the order: 

• the authority under which it is issued; 

• the name, address, and affiliation of the expert; 

• the specific tasks assigned to the expert (e.g., to submit a report, 

to provide background material for the court, to advise the 

court); 

• the subject on which the expert is to express opinions; 

• the amount or rate of compensation and the source of funds; 

• the terms for conducting discovery of the expert; 

• whether the parties may have informal access to the expert; and 

• whether the expert may have informal communications with the 

court and whether those communications must be disclosed to 

the parties.157

 Whether or not the expert you appoint is new to litigation, consider 

giving the expert written information about what to expect procedurally 

and what kinds of contacts he or she may and may not have with the parties and other experts. 

C. High-Profile Cases 

High-profile cases occur infrequently in most districts, but if you are assigned such a case you will face a number of management problems you 

usually do not encounter. Anticipating and then planning carefully for 

the needs and problems of these cases will be critical. A very useful guide 

to such planning is the manual Managing Notorious Trials, which was our 

 156. See generally MCL 4th, supra note 10, §§ 11.51–11.54. See also, for guidance on 

appointment of court-appointed experts, Joe S. Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Accepting 

Daubert’s Invitation: Defining a Role for Court-Appointed Experts in Assessing Scientific 

Validity, 43 Emory L.J. 995 (1994). Also see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which was 

recently revised to provide more explicit guidance on appointment of special masters, and 

Chapter 8, section C, infra, on appointment of special masters. 

 157. The source for this checklist is Schwarzer & Cecil, supra note 143, at 63–64. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

128 

source for the discussion that follows.158 Although we have tried to capture the central issues and a range of procedures for handling high-profile 

cases, we suggest you consult that manual as well. You should also read 

the guidelines prepared by the Administrative Office on managing cases 

that attract a high level of media attention (the guidelines are available 

online at http://jnet.ao.dcn/highprofiledc/index.htm). In the discussion 

that follows, the focus is on criminal cases, as these are the type of case 

most likely to attract media and public attention. 

1. Making a plan and assigning responsibilities 

Your primary goal in preparing for a high-profile case will be to protect 

the integrity of the judicial process at every stage. To realize that goal you 

will need to: 

• protect yourself, the jurors (if any), and court staff from 

improper influences; 

• provide security for parties, witnesses, jurors, and other trial participants; 

• give the public reasonable access to the trial and any events and 

materials that would be available to the public in other cases; 

• maintain efficiency of the pretrial and trial processes; 

• provide for the jurors’ comfort, especially if they are sequestered; 

and 

• minimize disruption of other court functions. 

 One of the greatest challenges of a high-profile case is simply the 

sheer number of entities, beyond the court and parties, that may be involved. You will be very dependent on court staff for management of all 

these entities and the activity generated by the case. Thus, you should 

include staff early in planning for the case, keep them informed as the 

case progresses, and give them discretion over their areas of expertise. 

 To use staff effectively, you and your clerk of court (or other designated coordinator for the case) should begin by identifying each of the 

requirements of the case and developing a plan to address them. 

 158. Timothy R. Murphy, Paula L. Hannaford, Genevra K. Loveland & G. Thomas 

Munsterman, Managing Notorious Trials (Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts. 1998). 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

129 

Consider including the following requirements in the plan: 

• security; 

• media relations; 

• crowd control inside and outside the courtroom; 

• inquiries by the public; 

• management of case documents and their availability to the media; 

• jury selection; 

• management of the jurors; and 

• attention to the needs of court staff. 

 In preparing the plan, consider: 

• identifying who will be responsible for each of the requirements 

listed above; 

• preparing a description of the duties and responsibilities of each 

person; 

• clarifying where responsibilities overlap and how the staff involved should proceed if conflict or uncertainty arises; and 

• meeting with staff at the outset to go over their responsibilities 

and meeting as needed for updates. 

 Your goal in taking these steps is not only to make sure there are no 

gaps in managing the events that swirl around a high-profile case, but 

also to foster cooperation and minimize conflict and confusion. You 

should, if at all possible, build your list of tasks and assignment of responsibilities using the court’s existing organization rather than disrupting the court’s normal procedures and staff assignments. 

 Make sure the court’s planning for the case involves everyone who 

may have an interest in the case or whose help you may need in managing the case. For example, the court is in control of the physical space in 

the courthouse and up to a certain boundary outside the courthouse. The 

U.S. Marshals Service will be part of your planning for security in those 

areas. Beyond that, other authorities will have responsibility, and therefore your planning may need to include local entities as well. 

 Perhaps your most valuable resources in planning for a high-profile 

case are the judges and staff who have already handled such cases. For 

guidance on how to handle various aspects of planning for a high-profile 

case, contact the Administrative Office’s Office of Public Affairs at (202) 

502-2600. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

130 

2. Planning for the presence of the media 

As soon as you are assigned a high-profile case, you should make plans 

for managing the media. The most intense visibility and scrutiny will occur if the case goes to trial, but interest can spike at other times, too, such 

as when you issue important rulings and hold key hearings. 

Consider the following in your planning: 

• Which member of the court’s staff will handle inquiries from the 

media? What instructions should that person, and other staff, be 

given for interactions with the media? 

• How will the court determine who is a legitimate member of the 

media (e.g., through applications, background checks, passes)? 

• What arrangements must be made for routine updates of schedules and case status (e.g., recorded phone messages; written notices posted at designated locations; and postings on the Internet, 

such as a case-specific site on the court’s website)? 

• What arrangements must be made for providing the media with 

copies of case documents, exhibits, and rulings (e.g., ask parties 

to file two sets of papers so that one can be provided to the media; post all written documents, including rulings, on a casespecific site on the court’s website)? 

• What will the media be permitted to know about the jury? 

• Is the courtroom large enough to hold attendees, or will you 

need an overflow room with closed-circuit television? 

• Is the courtroom located in a place where the presence of the 

media will interfere with other court business as little as possible? 

• How many of the seats in the courtroom should be allocated to 

the media and by what procedure should those seats be allocated 

(e.g., one pass per media organization, permanent or daily 

passes, forfeiture of a seat if it is not occupied within ten minutes 

before trial starts)? 

• Where will sketch artists be seated to provide an unobstructed 

view? Will they be permitted to sketch victims, children, or the 

jury? 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

131 

 Keep in mind that Judicial Conference policy does not permit the use 

of television cameras or other recording devices in the courtroom.159

3. Interacting with the media 

a. Court interactions with the media 

It is essential to maintain clear and reliable channels of communication 

between the court and the media. At the outset of a high-visibility case, 

you will want to take steps to gain the media’s cooperation and goodwill. 

Above all, you want to make sure all media members are treated fairly 

and have the same level of access to information. 

Consider: 

• establishing clear rules about media conduct and procedures for 

access to information; 

• providing all essential information the media need, including 

schedules for hearings and the trial; 

• asking the media to designate spokespersons or liaisons for 

bringing media inquiries to the court so that communications 

are more efficient; and 

• emphasizing that you are in control of the case and courtroom 

and that you expect the media’s cooperation and observance of 

your ground rules. 

 Some of the questions the media pose will be directed to you. If you 

do not want to answer media questions directly, make sure the person 

you select as your spokesperson is someone in whom you have complete 

confidence so that you do not risk errors in transmission. When responding to media inquiries, you should keep the following principles firmly in 

mind: 

• Think through each question or issue carefully. Be aware that 

you will be held responsible for everything that has happened, 

even if someone else has handled a particular matter. 

• Do not foster or appear to have an especially close relationship 

with any member of the media. You will be charged with favoritism at the least hint of special treatment. 

 159. Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol. 10, ch. 4 [hereinafter Judicial Conference Cameras Policy]. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

132 

• Avoid the appearance of withholding information or excluding 

the media. 

• Do not make rulings from the bench unless your decision is carefully scripted and delivered. 

• Do not become the focus of media attention yourself. Be careful 

about your words and actions on and off the bench.160

b. Attorney interactions with the media 

One unfortunate but real possibility in a high-profile case is that the attorneys will use the media to convince the public (and potential jurors) 

of their view of the case. If at all possible, you should avoid imposing gag 

orders on the attorneys, as such orders can heighten animosity and also 

are difficult and time-consuming to enforce. A much better approach is 

to sit down with the attorneys early in the case and tell them what your 

expectations are for their conduct. You can ask them for their agreement 

to observe limits on what is said to the media, and you should remind 

them of any disciplinary rules you intend to apply. 

4. Protecting the jurors, facilitating their attention, and providing 

for their comfort 

There will be great public and media interest in the persons who are selected for the jury in a high-visibility case. There will also be much written about the case that could affect the jurors. One of your key responsibilities in protecting the integrity of the trial is protecting the jurors from 

improper influences. If the trial is very long or the media and public are 

very aggressive, you will also need to give greater attention than usual to 

the jurors’ concentration on the case and their personal comfort and 

sense of safety. 

Consider taking the following steps: 

• withholding from the public and media the addresses of jurors; 

• during voir dire, asking prospective jurors whether the presence 

of the media makes them uncomfortable, will distract them, or 

will prevent them from deciding the case impartially; 

 160. For a useful discussion of the benefits and risks of electronic communication in 

the context of high-profile trials, see Quintin Cushner, Roger Hartley & Darrell Parker, 

Spreading the News: Communicating with the Media During High-Profile Trials, 93 Judicature 52 (Sept.–Oct. 2009). 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

133 

• inquiring at voir dire and periodically thereafter whether any juror has been approached by the media or publishers with offers 

to purchase his or her story and if so, determining whether this 

may bias the juror or affect how the juror listens to the evidence; 

• ensuring that jurors can enter and leave the courthouse safely 

and without interaction with the media or public; 

• if jurors must walk through or eat in public spaces, cordoning off 

space for them and making sure they are accompanied by a 

member of the court staff; 

• instructing the jurors daily not to watch television coverage of 

the trial, read press accounts, or talk with anyone about the trial, 

and promising to provide jurors with a scrapbook of media coverage at the end of the trial; 

• providing the jurors with daily newspapers, with articles about 

the trial removed; 

• keeping the jurors well informed about the daily schedule (e.g., 

when breaks will be taken) and about the overall trial schedule 

(e.g., approximately how much longer the case will continue); 

• permitting the jurors to use such aids as note taking and notebooks (prepared by the court or parties under your supervision 

and containing, for example, lists and pictures of witnesses and 

copies of key documents or evidence); 

• instructing the media that they are strictly forbidden from interviewing jurors during the trial; 

• advising the jurors that the decision whether to be interviewed at 

the end of the trial is theirs alone and asking them, if they do 

choose to speak with the media, to be sensitive to the privacy of 

fellow jurors; 

• determining how the jurors will be dismissed when the trial ends 

so that they are not mobbed by the parties, public, or media and 

determining whether and how they will meet the media and the 

parties’ attorneys; 

• meeting informally with the jurors after the trial to thank them, 

answer their questions, and explore whether they have any remaining needs; and 

• determining what posttrial arrangements can be made, if needed, 

to deal with any psychological trauma felt by the jurors. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

134 

 Your planning and thoughtful consideration of the jurors should be 

evident from voir dire through posttrial events. The more rapport you 

can develop with the jurors, the more likely they will be to alert you to 

any problems or interference they experience. Make sure, however, that 

you plan for the extra time it will take to select the jurors and ensure their 

comfort and security in a high-profile case. 

5. Planning for security 

Like all other aspects of managing a highly visible case, you should make 

plans early in the case for meeting its security requirements. Very likely 

the U.S. Marshals Service will come to you with a plan already worked 

out, which you should review and approve when you are satisfied with it. 

Any entities likely to be involved in security, such as the U.S. marshals 

and local authorities, should be consulted, and each entity’s responsibilities should be clearly outlined. 

 When reviewing the Marshals Service’s plan, consider asking the following questions: 

• Is security needed only to control crowds, or could there be 

threats to the safety of participants in the case, including yourself 

and court staff? 

• Is the case of local or national interest? 

• Is security needed both inside and outside the courthouse? 

• Are demonstrations or protests likely? 

 Answers to these questions will help your security coordinator determine how many security personnel are needed and where. 

 Some additional steps you should consider are to 

• make sure the courtroom is large enough to accommodate additional security personnel if higher levels of security are needed 

for the jurors, witnesses, or yourself; 

• make sure security is provided for exhibits during trial and when 

court is not in session; 

• confer with the media to ensure that media equipment will not 

compromise security or safety; 

• determine what kind of security, if any, is needed outside the 

courthouse (e.g., roadblocks, a parking ban, outside guards, or 

surveillance) and confer with local authorities as needed; 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

135 

• determine who should be permitted access to the courthouse, 

when (e.g., evenings), and to what parts of the courthouse; 

• if access is restricted to certain parts of the courthouse, make arrangements for barriers, signs, and so forth; 

• determine how the media, the public, the parties, witnesses, jurors, and court staff will enter the courthouse and how they will 

be screened for entry; 

• provide security (e.g., escorts) for the jurors if they must walk 

through public areas or must otherwise be protected; and 

• determine what level of security is needed and where security is 

needed (in the courtroom, outside the courthouse) when the verdict is announced. 

6. Managing the courtroom 

A high-visibility trial will bring the media and the public to your court in 

numbers and moods you may not have encountered in other cases. You 

should make your expectations for their conduct very clear. You might 

want to set out your rules and expectations in a decorum order. 

Consider including the following in your decorum order: 

• how persons will be screened for entry into the courtroom (e.g., 

using color-coded, photo-ID passes); 

• the time seating will begin each morning and afternoon; 

• seating arrangements in the courtroom for the media, the public, 

and those involved in the case who need reserved seating; 

• entry and reentry rules while court is in session; 

• the appropriate location for interviews (never in the courtroom); 

• media equipment permitted in the courtroom (as noted earlier, 

cameras and recording devices are prohibited in district courts by 

Judicial Conference policy);161

• how questions from the media and public will be handled; 

• how the media and public can obtain copies of exhibits and other 

case documents; and 

• a clear prohibition against media communicating with jurors 

during the trial. 

 161. See Judicial Conference Cameras Policy, supra note 159. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

136 

7. Managing the case and the rest of your docket 

Because the spotlight will be on you and the court during the litigation of 

a high-profile case, you should use all of your most effective casemanagement skills with even greater consistency and dedication than you 

usually do. As emphasized in earlier chapters, you should set a realistic 

schedule for the case, in consultation with the attorneys, and then hold 

the attorneys and yourself to that schedule. 

 Whether you will need assistance with the rest of your docket will 

depend on the nature of the high-profile case. If it is not a complex case 

and the media and public interest in it is most manifest at the time of the 

trial, you may be able to manage your other cases as well. But if the highvisibility case is both complex and intensely followed even in its earliest 

stages, you may find you need help keeping your other cases—

particularly your criminal cases—on schedule. You should speak with 

your chief judge about your needs. At minimum, you should arrange for 

another judge to handle matters in your other cases during the trial itself. 

D. Pro Se Cases 

Parties in the federal courts may plead and conduct their cases personally 

(28 U.S.C. § 1654), and they are doing so in increasing numbers. Many, 

but not all, pro se litigants are plaintiffs; many, but not all, are also prisoners. Cases involving a pro se litigant present special challenges for several reasons, not the least of which is your obligation to ensure equal justice for litigants who may have little understanding of legal procedure or 

the law. At each stage in the case, you may need to take actions not required in cases in which all parties are represented by counsel. 

 The burden for managing pro se cases falls heavily on court staff as 

well as on the judge. Pro se litigants tend to have many needs and questions and are likely to press court staff for assistance. Court staff are usually acutely aware that they should be helpful but must not give legal advice to any litigant.162 At the same time, there are many actions court 

staff, especially pro se law clerks, can and must do. A very helpful manual 

for staff, as well as for judges, is the Resource Guide for Managing Prisoner 

 162. Useful articles on this subject are John M. Graecen, “No Legal Advice From 

Court Personnel,” What Does That Mean?, Judges’ J., Winter 1995, at 10; and John M. 

Graecen, Legal Information vs. Legal Advice: Developments During the Last Five Years, 84 

Judicature, Jan.–Feb. 2001, at 198. 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

137 

Civil Rights Litigation,

163 prepared in response to passage of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Although the resource guide was 

published in the mid-1990s, neither the PLRA nor the basic advice of the 

resource guide have changed. Therefore, we have relied on the guide for 

the discussion below, and we encourage you to consult it for prisoner pro 

se cases on your docket. In some districts, guidance is also available for 

the pro se litigants through manuals or booklets written by the courts and 

disseminated to pro se parties or through other services provided to pro 

se litigants, such as volunteer attorneys who advise on federal court procedure and preparation of pleadings.164

1. Early screening 

Techniques appropriate for the management of pro se litigation vary 

from case to case and may be affected by special procedures in place in 

your district. Many courts, for example, have pro se law clerks to screen 

these cases; some have special rules governing the assignment of successive cases brought by a pro se litigant. In addition, the PLRA governs 

many aspects of cases brought by incarcerated parties.165

 Some judges direct the clerk’s office staff to bring cases by pro se litigants to their attention immediately after filing so that they can review 

 163. Resource Guide for Managing Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 1996). Additional useful sources for court staff and judges include Committee to 

Increase Access to the Courts, Proposed Protocol to be Used by Idaho Judges During Hearings Involving Self-Represented Litigants (Idaho Court Assistance Offices Project 2002); 

Proposed Best Practices for Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants (Am. Judicature Soc’y 

2005); Cynthia Gray, Reaching Out or Overreaching: Judicial Ethics and Self-Represented 

Litigants (Am. Judicature Soc’y 2005); and Honorable Beverly W. Snukals & Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., Pro Se Litigation: Best Practices from a Judge’s Perspective, 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 93 

(2007). 

 164. See, e.g., United States District Court for the Central District of California (Filing a Pro Se Action (2009) and the Federal Pro Se Clinic); United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California (Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer (2006)); 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Filing a Civil Case 

Without an Attorney: A Guide for the Pro Se Litigant (2009)); and United States District 

Court for the Northern District of New York (The Pro Se Assistance Program). 

 165. Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 

Stat. 1321, Title VIII of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 

1996. The PLRA amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624, 3626; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1346(b), 1915; and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a); it adds new sections 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1932. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

138 

the documents. In fact, you have a special obligation under the PLRA to 

screen cases filed by prisoners even before they are docketed. 

 With regard to cases filed by prisoners, you must: 

• prohibit filing of an action unless available administrative remedies have been exhausted (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)); 

• prohibit filing of an action for “mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury” (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)); 

• prohibit filing of an in forma pauperis (IFP) action if the prisoner has had three or more actions or appeals in federal courts 

that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or if the action fails 

to state a claim on which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is in imminent danger of physical injury (28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g)); and 

• dismiss a case at any time if you find that an IFP petitioner’s 

allegations of poverty are untrue, the action fails to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted, or the action seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant immune from such relief (28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)). 

 Nonprisoner pro se cases will also benefit from your early review. 

You and the parties may be saved considerable time later if you take a few 

minutes early in the case to start it down an orderly path.

 Consider generally the following approaches: 

• provide standard forms, through the clerk’s office, for pro se filers; 

• review the pleadings as soon as they are filed; if pleadings fail to 

meet technical requirements, inform the parties and give them an 

opportunity to cure defects (actions brought by pro se litigants 

must be liberally construed and generally may not be dismissed 

before service unless legally frivolous—however, sanctions may 

be imposed on vexatious litigants, including an order directing 

the clerk to file no further documents without prior court order); 

• check promptly for threshold issues, such as subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue; 

• use routine show cause orders to trigger dismissals under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if service of the complaint is not effected within 120 days; and 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

139 

• consolidate related cases, such as cases involving similar claims 

arising in the same institution. 

2. In forma pauperis status 

In forma pauperis (IFP) cases filed by incarcerated parties are also governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Prisoners with 

any monetary assets at all may not file a case without paying a filing fee. 

 Under the PLRA, the court must: 

• require a prisoner seeking IFP status to include in an affidavit “a 

statement of all assets [the] prisoner possesses” and “a certified 

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . .” (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)); 

• require prisoners who are granted IFP status to pay the filing fee, 

by a partial initial payment from funds available and through 

monthly payments forwarded by the institution based on the balance in the prisoner’s account (28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)); 

• permit prisoners with no assets and no means to file at no cost 

(28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4)); and 

• require prisoners against whom judgment is entered to make full 

payment of any costs ordered (28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)). 

 With regard to non-incarcerated pro se parties, you will have to decide how deeply to probe into their affidavit in support of IFP status. 

 In reviewing pro se filings, consider 

• asking for W-2 forms, pay stubs, tax filings for the past year, and 

credit checks, if any; and 

• alerting pro se parties to fee shifting and other possible costs if 

they are unsuccessful in their suits. 

3. Securing counsel for pro se litigants 

Pro se litigants in civil cases have no constitutional right to counsel. The 

decision whether to appoint counsel in these cases is in your discretion 

and should be made on a case-by-case basis. The exercise of your discretion should, however, be guided by both statutes and case law. Under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the “court may request an attorney to represent any 

person unable to afford counsel.” Because this language differs little from 

the pre-PLRA language, your decisions on when to grant and when to 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

140 

deny requests for counsel should be guided by case law developed both 

before and after the adoption of the PLRA. 

 Because no public funds are available (except under the Criminal 

Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, for representation of habeas corpus petitioners), appointment of counsel can present substantial difficulty. Many 

judges, however, attempt to find counsel for nonfrivolous cases because 

the need to protect the rights of an unrepresented party not only places 

additional burdens on a judge but generally will also be better met by 

counsel. Even if attorneys are unwilling to take full responsibility for litigating a case, they may be willing to advise the plaintiff, or they may be 

willing to be appointed for a specific limited role, such as to assist the pro 

se litigant during trial. Sometimes, consolidating related pro se cases can 

make the litigation of sufficient public interest to attract counsel. 

 You should take care, nonetheless, to appoint counsel only when a 

case warrants it. A high percentage of pro se cases do not have the merit 

to be worthy of a volunteer lawyer, and you should not call on attorneys 

to represent such cases, as attorney time is a valuable resource not to be 

wasted by the court. The truth of the matter is that in most of these cases 

you will be on your own. When you decide that appointing counsel is 

warranted, you should call on resources available locally. Some courts, by 

local rule, require pro bono service as a condition of admission to the 

bar. A number of districts have civil pro bono panels of attorneys who 

have volunteered to represent indigents; some bar associations also provide such panels. Some volunteer programs include a screening process 

to identify meritorious cases. 

 Although there may be no ready source to cover attorneys’ fees, there 

is generally some relief for expenses incurred. Although appointed counsel are typically responsible for initially paying reasonable expenses, such 

as those for transcripts and experts’ fees, many districts have some arrangement for reimbursing these expenses through use of nonappropriated funds. The PLRA also provides for certain expenses, such as those 

for printing the record on appeal, to be paid by the Administrative Office 

once the prisoner has paid the partial filing fee. 

 In some cases filed pursuant to specific statutes—for example, 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and other civil rights statutes—there is a possibility that 

attorneys’ fees could be awarded. Attorneys’ fees might also be recovered 

in cases in which there is a contingency fee arrangement and the plaintiff 

prevails. In prisoner cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, however, the 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

141 

PLRA prescribes that fees may not be awarded unless they were directly 

and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s 

rights that are protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be 

awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the fees are proportionately related 

to court-ordered relief for the violation or were directly and reasonably 

incurred in enforcing relief ordered for the violation (42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(d)). The PLRA also limits the hourly rate and provides that when 

a prisoner is awarded monetary damages, a portion of the judgment must 

satisfy the award of attorneys’ fees. 

4. Scheduling and monitoring the pro se case 

Many judges do not believe that pretrial conferences are appropriate in 

most pro se cases involving an incarcerated pro se litigant. Thus, most 

courts, by local rule, exempt such cases from the requirements of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Rule 16 conferences can, however, be a useful 

tool in pro se cases in which the pro se litigant is not in custody, particularly for identifying and narrowing issues and for establishing your control over the case. A conference with the judge can also send a powerful 

message to pro se litigants that their cases are receiving the court’s attention. 

Consider holding an early conference in cases with nonincarcerated 

pro se litigants and doing the following: 

• explain the procedural requirements in straightforward terms; 

• point out resources available, such as court-developed forms or 

instructions; 

• discuss a schedule for the case; 

• enter a procedural order to ensure that the case moves to prompt 

resolution and include dates for cutoff of discovery, for submission by the defendant of all relevant records and documents, and, 

in appropriate cases, for the filing of a motion for summary 

judgment and the response (because the relevant facts usually are 

in the defendant’s control, early disclosure will facilitate resolution of the action); 

• establish the least disruptive discovery method adequate to the 

task (a deposition with written questions may be preferable, for 

example, to a live deposition conducted by an unrepresented 

party); 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

142 

• tell the pro se litigant that the case will be closely monitored, and 

identify a person the litigant can contact should problems arise; 

• explicitly require the pro se litigant to maintain a current address 

and telephone number on record with the court; and 

• make clear to the pro se litigant the obligation to serve copies of 

all communications with the court on all opposing parties. 

 Many cases involving incarcerated pro se litigants can be decided on 

the papers, after the prisoner is required to respond to an order for a 

more definite statement or after the defendant has filed a motion for 

summary judgment. A few cases, however, may involve allegations that 

appear to warrant the time and effort of a pretrial hearing (see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B): authority to hear “prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement”). In some districts, magistrate judges have been 

assigned this responsibility. 

 If a hearing is warranted, consider the following approaches: 

• conferring by telephone conference; or 

• using, if available in your courthouse, videoconferencing technology to conduct hearings in prisoner cases. 

 Many courts use a Spears hearing for cases involving an incarcerated 

pro se litigant.166 The purpose of the hearing, which is “in the manner of a 

motion for a more definite statement” and is usually conducted by a 

magistrate judge, is to determine whether a prisoner can allege facts that 

will support a colorable claim. Hearings can be held at the prison, by 

telephone, or by videoconference. Many cases can be resolved through a 

Spears hearing, either by dismissal or by prison officials agreeing to solve 

a problem. 

 Many courts also use a Martinez report,167 which requires prison officials to investigate the prisoner’s complaint, to report the findings of the 

investigation, and to supply certain standard information. A Martinez

report can help you and the institution determine whether a case is frivolous and can be disposed of by motion or whether there are problems the 

institution can address informally. 

 166. The hearing is named after the case Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 

1985). The Spears approach has been recognized by the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)) and is used in many courts. 

 167. The report is named after the case Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 

1978). See also Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987). 
Chapter 7: Special Case Matters 

143 

5. Holding settlement discussions and conducting the trial 

Many cases involving a pro se litigant are appropriate for resolution by 

settlement rather than judgment or trial. At the same time, anyone who 

assists the parties in such cases with settlement negotiations runs the risk 

of being pressed by the pro se party to give legal advice. This is one reason 

why most federal courts exempt pro se cases from their ADR programs. 

Likewise, you as the judge should be cautious about assisting with settlement, since your assistance will very likely be misunderstood by the pro 

se litigant. Many commentators worry, nonetheless, that it is unfair to the 

pro se litigant for courts not to provide settlement assistance. To address 

this problem, you might consider appointing counsel for the limited purpose of representing the pro se litigant during settlement discussions (see

supra Chapter 5, sections A.3 and B.5).168

 If the case proceeds to trial, you will want to make a serious effort, if 

you have not already, to appoint counsel. Should you fail to find counsel, 

or should the pro se litigant refuse counsel, you will need to provide 

guidance as the pro se party attempts to handle the trial alone. You can 

also provide sample documents and forms (e.g., forms for witnesses and 

exhibits) before trial to help the pro se litigant complete the necessary 

preparations. However, you will undoubtedly need to personally instruct 

the pro se litigant as well, while carefully maintaining your impartiality. 

 Before the trial begins and then again on the record, you may want to 

tell the pro se litigant, with the other party present, what the trial will entail.

Consider: 

• verifying that the party is not an attorney and chooses to proceed 

pro se; 

• explaining the trial process (e.g., that you will hear the plaintiff 

first, then the defendant; that interruptions will not be permitted; 

that a record is being made); 

• explaining the elements of the case (e.g., that the plaintiff is asking for _____; that this can be granted if the plaintiff shows 

_____); 

 168. See also U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., Settlement Assistance Program for Pro Se Litigants (Amended General Order, Nov. 6, 2006, available at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov 

/press/sap2006.html). 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

144 

• explaining that the party bringing the action has the burden to 

present evidence in support of the relief sought; 

• explaining the kind of evidence that may be presented (e.g., testimony from witnesses and exhibits) and that everyone who testifies will do so under oath; 

• explaining the limits on the kind of evidence that may be considered (e.g., describe hearsay evidence and explain that it may not 

be admitted at trial); 

• asking both parties whether they understand the process and the 

procedure; and 

• permitting a non-attorney advocate to sit at the pro se party’s 

counsel table, and explaining that this advocate may provide 

support but will not be permitted to argue on behalf of the party 

or to question witnesses.169

 If you need to question the pro se litigant during the trial (or at any 

other time) make sure you use questions that seek to obtain general information so as to avoid the appearance of advocacy on behalf of the pro 

se litigant. When the trial concludes, decide the matter promptly, if at all 

possible, and enter your decision. 

 169. These suggestions are taken from Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges, Protocol To Be Used by Judicial Officers During Hearings Involving Pro Se Litigants (adopted 

1998). 
145 

Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation 

Management 

A. Court and Chambers Staff 

1. Law clerks 

2. Secretary/judicial assistant 

3. Courtroom deputies or case managers 

B. Magistrate Judges 

1. Referral of nondispositive matters 

2. Referral of dispositive matters 

3. Referral of trials 

4. Other referrals 

5. Method for assigning matters to magistrate judges 

C. Special Masters 

1. Authority to appoint a special master 

2. Reasons for appointing a special master 

3. Selecting and appointing a special master 

4. The special master’s report 

5. Compensating the special master 

Chambers staff, personnel in the clerk’s office, and a number of other 

individuals play important roles in case management. In the preceding 

chapters we noted the roles they play in specific stages or events in litigation. In this chapter we discuss more extensively the kinds of assistance 

chambers staff and others can provide. 

 As a general matter, district and magistrate judges should consider 

delegating those tasks that may be performed by others consistent with 

federal law, the rules of procedure, and their court’s operating procedures, while retaining tasks that only a judge may perform. In deciding 

what to delegate and to whom, analyze each task, asking whether it is 

worth doing at all, how it can be done most effectively, and whether it 

can be done by someone other than you. 

A. Court and Chambers Staff 

1. Law clerks 

Law clerks have no statutorily defined duties, and therefore you have 

great discretion in what you assign to them. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

146 

 Consider having your law clerks 

• research or brief any issues raised by your review of the file in 

preparation for the Rule 16 conference; 

• screen pro se and other pleadings for jurisdictional and other defects (if your court does not have a pro se law clerk);170 

• research motions and evidentiary issues and prepare proposed 

rulings; 

• review and annotate proposed jury instructions, findings of fact, 

and conclusions of law; 

• review and annotate trial exhibits and the trial transcript; 

• maintain a watch on current court of appeals decisions on points 

bearing on pending matters; and 

• draft opinions. 

 Remember that most law clerks have little or no relevant casemanagement experience. It is therefore necessary to provide them with 

specific instructions, to plan their work, and to oversee them sufficiently 

to ensure that their time will be used most productively. 

 Several resources are available to help you hire and train law clerks 

effectively. The Online System for Clerkship Application and Review 

(OSCAR), available on http://www.uscourts.gov, allows you to conduct 

the hiring process electronically by assisting with sorting and reviewing 

clerkship applications. You can also consult Conducting Job Interviews: A 

Guide for Federal Judges, which identifies desirable law clerk skills and 

provides sample interview questions for assessing those skills.171 You may 

find additional help on the Human Resources page of the J-Net including 

policies regarding salary, terms of service, background investigations, and 

other hiring information. You should also contact your court’s human 

resources specialist, and the human resources professionals at the Administrative Office, to assist you with judiciary hiring and employment 

policies.172

 170. See Chapter 7, section D, supra, for a discussion of managing pro se cases. 

 171. David K. Hendrickson, Conducting Job Interviews: A Guide for Federal Judges 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1999). 

 172. See Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

Sept. 1991, at 66 (district judges); Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States, Mar. 1993, at 16 (magistrate judges); and Report of the Proceedings of 

the Judicial Conference of the United States, Mar. 1999, at 26 (magistrate judges). Remember that, in hiring your law clerks, each judge is limited to one “elbow” or career law 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

147 

 When you are training new law clerks, you will want to have them 

read the Law Clerk Handbook, which covers every aspect of the law clerk’s 

role.173 You should have them watch the FJTN broadcast, Orientation 

Seminar for Federal Judicial Law Clerks, which focuses on ethics and legal 

writing.174 It is advisable that you and your law clerks periodically review 

the Federal Judicial Center website for new publications, broadcasts, or elearning opportunities. You may also find it helpful, if you have two or 

more law clerks, to stagger their starting dates so that the experienced law 

clerk can train the novice, thus relieving you of this responsibility. You 

might also urge your district to have an annual daylong training session 

for law clerks, if it does not already, to orient them to clerk’s office operations and other procedures that are unique to your district. 

 In orienting law clerks to your chambers procedures, you might consider advising them to speak with attorneys and other case participants 

only about routine administrative and scheduling matters, avoiding discussion of substantive legal issues. You also might consider reminding 

your law clerks that their use of the Internet, including social media, is 

governed by both the judiciary’s policy on personal use of government 

equipment as well as the prohibitions in the Code of Conduct for Judicial 

Employees, which covers many areas including confidentiality, political 

activities, and activities that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety.175

clerk, unless the judge or the law clerk is grandfathered in under this 2007 policy. See

Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Sept. 2007, at 

26–27. 

 173. Law Clerk Handbook: A Handbook for Law Clerks to Federal Judges (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2007); see also Barbara J. Rothstein, Chambers and Case Management 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009) (discussing case management from a law clerk’s perspective); D. 

Brock Hornby, Working Effectively with Your Judge: An Outline for Remarks (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008); Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2002). 

 174. Your law clerks may view the broadcasts on the Federal Judicial Center’s website in streaming video. Other broadcasts are available for viewing on the Federal Judicial 

Center’s website, or by ordering the materials; these programs address substantive areas of 

law, ethics, and a summary of decisions of the Supreme Court’s previous terms. Your law 

clerks may be able to obtain continuing legal education credit for viewing some of these 

videos. Your law clerk may contact the Federal Judicial Center, and his or her state bar 

association, for more information. 

 175. See supra note 172. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

148 

2. Secretary/judicial assistant 

Because you and your law clerks will generally be occupied with substantive legal work, it is helpful to have a staff member who is a skilled manager and who can interact effectively with other court officers and attorneys. These duties often fall to a judge’s secretary (also referred to as a 

judicial assistant). Under Judicial Conference policy, however, district 

and magistrate judges may choose to hire another law clerk in lieu of a 

secretary. While technology has eliminated some administrative tasks in 

chambers, many judges rely on their secretaries to assist with the many 

duties that remain or have changed. How you delegate the many routine 

administrative chambers tasks—whether to a secretary, law clerk, or 

courtroom deputy—may change as the demands of your workload and 

your available personnel change. 

 Consider whether a secretary might 

• handle scheduling and organize your calendar; 

• answer routine electronic or paper mail; 

• use the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system to file opinions and orders prepared by you, and run daily 

calendar, docket, or motions reports to check for new filings or 

motion ripeness; 

• maintain chambers paper and electronic records and files; 

• handle your and your staff’s travel arrangements and travel 

vouchers; 

• maintain supplies, equipment, and furniture; 

• maintain the chambers library; 

• assist you in filing required reports (non-case-related travel, private seminar attendance); 

• assist you in preparing for official meetings; 

• help you write speeches and special letters; 

• compile a file of standard orders, letters, and forms, and/or create 

electronic forms (e.g., macros in WordPerfect) for standard 

documents regularly used or generated by chambers staff; and 

• manage the law clerk application process. 

 If you decide to use your secretarial position to hire another law 

clerk, these duties will, of course, have to be performed by someone else. 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

149 

3. Courtroom deputies or case managers 

Although their titles vary, in every court there are clerk’s office staff who 

play a central role in assisting judges with managing cases. In some courts 

they are organized as teams; in other courts individual staff members are 

assigned to individual judges. Although their duties and how they are 

organized vary from court to court and judge to judge, these staff members play a vital role in case management as the judge’s calendar manager, 

administrative assistant, and contact with the attorneys. Appropriately 

trained and instructed, and given the necessary authority, these staff can 

become key players on your case-management team. 

 Consider the following approaches: 

• Designate the courtroom deputy176 as the exclusive communication channel between the judge and the attorneys. While some 

judges prefer using their secretary or law clerks for this purpose, 

others use the deputy, who is not so close to the judge as to imply 

an improper ex parte communication. Using a single channel for 

communicating with the judge should also help the attorneys 

avoid confusion. 

• Have the courtroom deputy monitor the status of all cases 

through CM/ECF and ensure that you receive current information. The courtroom deputy should know the status of all cases 

on your docket and should be able to provide up-to-date reports 

about them and any matters (such as motions) needing your attention. The courtroom deputy can also prod lawyers in slowmoving cases and bring stalled cases to your attention. 

• Have the courtroom deputy do all of your case calendaring 

(according to your directions). You should meet regularly with 

the courtroom deputy to go over the status of cases and to plan 

your calendar. Your instructions and preferences—for example, 

on the length of a motions hearing—will guide the courtroom 

deputy in setting events on the calendar. 

• Have the courtroom deputy prepare or supervise preparation of 

notices and orders. 

 176. For simplicity’s sake, we refer to this staff member by the most common term, 

courtroom deputy. If a court organizes its courtroom deputies in teams, a judge may work 

with more than one courtroom deputy, but the more common practice is to assign a single courtroom deputy to a single judge. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

150 

• Have the deputy maintain liaison with the jury administrator to 

ensure the orderly and efficient use of prospective jurors. 

• Encourage the courtroom deputy to stay current on the latest 

courtroom technology, developments in CM/ECF, and other 

electronic organizational tools to facilitate document and exhibit 

handling and presentation, electronic calendaring, and electronic 

organization of case files and other documents. (See Chapter 9, 

infra, for a discussion of using information technology for case 

management.) 

 Although the courtroom deputy or case manager is assigned to assist 

you, this staff member is supervised by the clerk of court. Different districts use different models when developing the job description for a 

courtroom deputy. Some districts emphasize the responsibility to court 

chambers while others place greater emphasis on the work done in the 

clerk’s office. Because of the deputy’s dual responsibilities—to you and to 

the clerk of court—you will want to be alert to any difficulties and maintain good communication between your chambers and the clerk’s office. 

B. Magistrate Judges 

The jurisdiction and powers of a magistrate judge are defined at 28 

U.S.C. § 636.177 In addition to those statutory duties, the district court 

may assign magistrate judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”178 To that end, 

the district court must “establish rules pursuant to which the magistrate 

judges shall discharge their duties.”179 Thus, a district judge’s utilization 

of magistrate judges will be guided not only by statute, federal rules, and 

his or her own preferences, but also by the district’s decisions about magistrate judges’ role. In making such decisions, a court may wish to consider advice from the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, contained in the committee’s Suggestions for Utilization of magistrate judges, available on the Judges’ Corner of the J-Net, on the magistrate judges page.180 

 177. See also Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72 & 73. 

 178. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

 179. Id. § (b)(4). 

 180. See Comm. on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, Judicial 

Conference of the U.S., Suggestions for Utilization of Magistrate Judges, available online 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

151 

1. Referral of nondispositive matters 

Any nondispositive pretrial matter may be referred to a magistrate judge 

for hearing and determination.181 These matters include conducting Rule 

16 conferences, supervising discovery, resolving discovery disputes, and 

ruling on motions that do not dispose of claims or defenses (for examples 

of referral orders, see Appendix A, Forms 50 and 51). The magistrate 

judge to whom a matter is referred is to conduct any required proceedings promptly and, when appropriate, to issue a written order.182 Keep in 

mind, however, that you should assess whether the referral would cause 

undue delay in a case. Moreover, some district judges prefer to keep nondispositive matters, rather than refer them, so that they may exercise 

greater oversight and better familiarize themselves with the attorneys and 

parties in the case. 

 Within ten days of service of the order, the parties may serve and file 

an appeal of the magistrate judge’s decision. The district judge “must 

consider timely objections” filed by a party and should “modify or set 

aside any part of the [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous 

or contrary to law.”183 If a district judge delegates such nondispositive 

pretrial matters, the judge should adhere strictly to this narrow standard 

of review. Routinely second-guessing the magistrate judges will reduce 

the time savings you might have gained and very likely will encourage 

future appeals. (For sample language of a judge’s guidelines for counsel, 

see Appendix A, Form 7.) 

 Increasingly, many magistrate judges conduct settlement conferences 

or serve as mediators in court-based ADR programs. You might consider 

referring cases to magistrate judges for these purposes. 

at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Judges/Magistrate_Judges/Utilize.html. This document, along with 

other assistance on utilization issues, including sample local rules concerning proceedings 

before magistrate judges and advice on facilitating parties’ consent to a magistrate judges’ 

case-dispositive authority, is also available at that site. For additional assistance, contact 

the Magistrate Judges Division of the Administrative Office at (202) 502–1830. 

 181. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

 182. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

 183. Id. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

152 

2. Referral of dispositive matters 

District judges “may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings,” on dispositive matters.184 These 

matters may include motions for injunctions, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, or to certify a class, as well as appeals from 

the Social Security Administration seeking disability benefits, petitions 

for habeas corpus, and petitions challenging conditions of confinement. 

Unless the parties have consented to full jurisdiction by the magistrate 

judge, the magistrate judge is limited to making recommendations, including findings where appropriate, after a hearing on the record or a 

review of the case file and motions.185 You should exercise care in deciding which dispositive motions to assign to magistrate judges because the 

referral of dispositive motions can lead to wasteful duplication of judicial 

and attorney time and effort, especially when the motions involve primarily questions of law. 

 A party may file written objections within ten days of service of the 

recommended disposition, and the opponent may respond within ten 

days. If you are the district judge receiving the appeal, you must perform 

a de novo review, which may be based on the record below or upon additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which objection has been made and then enter an appropriate 

order.186 

3. Referral of trials 

With the consent of the parties, a magistrate judge “may conduct any or 

all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of 

judgment in the case” when “specially designated” to do so by the district 

court.187 If consent is for all aspects of the case, the magistrate judge conducts all proceedings, including a jury or nonjury trial if necessary. Or, 

parties may consent to have a magistrate judge rule on a specified case-

 184. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). 

 185. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); see generally MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.53. 

 186. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (3). 

 187. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Every United States district court has designated its fulltime magistrate judges to exercise this authority. Assignments of such authority to parttime magistrate judges are subject to certain limitations. For additional guidance, contact 

the Magistrate Judges Division of the Administrative Office at (202) 502-1830. 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

153 

dispositive motion. Consent should be given in writing and can be recorded in several ways, including in the attorneys’ Rule 26(f) report to 

the court or on a specialized consent form. (See Appendix A, Forms 13 

and 14, for examples in the context of the Rule 26(f) report; see Appendix 

A, Forms 52 and 53, for specialized consent forms.) 

 Section 636(c)(2) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code directs the clerk of 

court to notify the parties, on filing of the action, of the availability of a 

magistrate judge to try cases on consent. The district judge or magistrate 

judge may thereafter again advise the parties of this availability, as well as 

of their right to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.188 The Rule 16 conference is an appropriate occasion to inquire 

of the parties whether they are willing to consent to a final disposition, 

including trial—jury or nonjury—before a magistrate judge. 

 A number of districts place magistrate judges on the assignment 

wheel to receive a portion of newly filed civil cases. In these districts, the 

parties are informed that their case will be assigned to a magistrate judge 

for all proceedings if the parties consent to it. The parties usually are 

given a specified amount of time to consent to this assignment; if consent 

is not given, the case is reassigned to a district judge. 

4. Other referrals 

Section 636(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code grants the courts broad 

authority to assign “additional duties” to magistrate judges not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. For instance, 

magistrate judges may preside while a jury deliberates, may receive jury 

verdicts, and may conduct postjudgment proceedings. You also should 

consult circuit law on the limits of the authority granted under 

§ 636(b)(3).189 

5. Method for assigning matters to magistrate judges 

In making referrals to magistrate judges, district judges need to take into 

account the assignment procedures their districts use, which may include 

one or more of the following methods: 

 188. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 

 189. See Inventory of United States Magistrate Judge Duties (2009) (on the magistrate 

judges page of the Judges’ Corner on the J-Net), at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Judges/Magistrate 

_Judges/Authority/Inventory.html. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

154 

• Standing order or local rule. A standing order or local rule directs 

that magistrate judges have responsibility for certain categories of 

pretrial matters or for pretrial matters generally, with the possible 

exception of dispositive motions. They then routinely receive all 

such matters from the clerk’s office, subject to adjustment from 

time to time. 

• Inclusion on the wheel. The entire civil docket is divided among 

all the district and magistrate judges as cases come in. Magistrate 

judges are then responsible for their dockets, just as the district 

judges are. If the parties in an individual case do not consent to 

case assignment to a magistrate judge, the case is reassigned to a 

district judge, although the magistrate judge may continue to 

handle some or all pretrial matters. 

• Referral by case. District judges refer individual cases to magistrate judges for some or all pretrial proceedings. Unless the referral is withdrawn, the magistrate judge conducts all matters up to 

a specified point, such as the final pretrial conference. 

• Pairing. A magistrate judge is paired with one or more district 

judges and automatically conducts those judges’ pretrial matters 

as designated. 

• Issue-by-issue assignment. District judges assign particular motions, such as summary judgment motions, or matters to magistrate judges but otherwise retain complete control over cases for 

all other matters. 

C. Special Masters 

Special masters can be a critical asset in some cases. Appointment of special masters is generally limited to large, complex cases and is therefore 

infrequent.190 Because the use of special masters is well covered in the 

Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth and the Reference Manual on Sci-

 190. Thomas E. Willging, Laural L. Hooper, Marie Leary, Dean Miletich, Robert 

Timothy Reagan & John Shapard, Special Masters’ Incidence and Activity 15–21 (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2000) (a report to the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil 

Rules) [hereinafter Special Masters Study]. 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

155 

entific Evidence, we discuss only some basic issues here, drawing on those 

two publications.191 

1. Authority to appoint a special master 

Appointment of special masters is governed primarily by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 53.192 Unless provided otherwise by statute, a master may 

be appointed only in exceptional circumstances (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(a)(1)(B)(i), (ii)). The 2003 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, however, expand a master’s permissible duties to pretrial and 

posttrial proceedings, limiting duties to nonjury proceedings, unless the 

parties consent otherwise. The conditions of appointment are (1) to perform duties by party consent; (2) to conduct a nonjury trial in the event 

of an “exceptional condition,” or a “need to perform an accounting or 

resolve a difficult computation of damages”; or (3) to “address pretrial 

and posttrial matters” when a district or magistrate judge cannot “timely 

or effectively” do so (Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(A)–(C)). 

 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5), the judge may also appoint a 

master under Rule 53 to hear Title VII cases, without a showing of exceptional circumstances, if the case has not been set for trial within 120 days 

after issue is joined (subject to the parties’ right to a jury trial under the 

Civil Rights Act of 1991). 

 In the absence of consent by the parties, the district judge may designate a magistrate judge as special master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 53 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2). When the parties consent to it, 

the district judge has authority to designate a magistrate judge as special 

master under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), bypassing the limitations of Rule 

53(b). 

 Although judges have authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to make an appointment sua sponte, most judges prefer to act 

only with the parties’ consent.193 

 191. See MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.52; Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 

supra note 143, at 59–66. 

 192. Inherent authority may also support appointment of special masters, and a 

number of statutes and rules touch on the subject. See Special Masters Study, supra note 

190, at 31–35. 

 193. See id. at 28–30. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

156 

2. Reasons for appointing a special master 

Masters can be useful adjuncts for a variety of tasks in the management of 

complex or large-scale litigation: supervising discovery, finding facts in 

complicated controversies, performing accountings, organizing and coordinating mass tort litigation, mediating settlements, and monitoring 

compliance with complex remedial orders. The decision whether to appoint a master will involve weighing the extra expense imposed on the 

parties against potential benefits. A master may be useful where “the financial stakes justify imposing the expense on the parties and where the 

amount of activity required would impose undue burdens on a [district 

or magistrate] judge.”194 Special masters are also relied on if they have 

special expertise in a particular field such as patent cases, or cases involving science, business, or technology.195

 Judges have at times delegated extensive duties to masters, which, 

though subject to the court’s de novo review, has generated controversy 

and raised questions about the extent of judicial referral authority. Unless 

the parties affirmatively seek an appointment and explicitly waive the 

limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, you should limit your appointments to exceptional cases or conditions. 

 Within that general guideline, consider appointment of a special master to 

• assist in pretrial proceedings, such as to control massive discovery requests, rule on claims of privilege, and make factual determinations on the admissibility of expert evidence; 

• develop a case-management plan, under your supervision, when 

a case involves hundreds or thousands of claims; 

• evaluate the extent and size of damages; 

• facilitate settlement; 

• administer a class settlement; 

• make recommendations regarding the facts that are necessary to 

determine liability or damages; 

• allocate damages to individual litigants; and 

• frame or monitor remedial decrees. 

 194. MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.52. 

 195. Id.; see also Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra note 143, at 59–66; 

Jay P. Kesan & Gwendolyn G. Ball, A Study of the Role and Impact of Special Masters in 

Patent Cases (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009). 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

157 

3. Selecting and appointing a special master 

In selecting a special master, you will want to ensure that the master has 

two important qualifications: expertise in the matters for which you are 

appointing him or her, and the full trust of you and the parties. There are 

a number of ways in which you can identify candidates to serve as special 

masters. 

Consider 

• asking the parties to nominate candidates; 

• appointing a magistrate judge;196

• appointing someone because of his or her service in another case; 

or 

• asking someone else, such as another master or an outside 

agency, to recommend suitable candidates. 

 The method most frequently used by federal judges is to ask the parties to nominate candidates for appointment.197 If you use this method, 

you may want to ask the parties to provide information about the candidates’ qualifications and, if appropriate, for the parties to discuss the candidates with you or to participate in your interviews with the candidates. 

To avoid later problems, you and the parties should make certain the 

master has no conflicts of interest.198 

 An order appointing a master should specify what the master is to do 

and what the master’s authority is. Under Rule 53(c), a master, unless 

you direct otherwise, may “regulate all proceedings” and “take all appropriate measures to perform the assigned duties fairly and efficiently,” including “conducting an evidentiary hearing” and “compel[ling], tak[ing], 

and record[ing] evidence.” Special masters may also impose noncontempt sanctions on a party under Rule 37 or 45, or recommend contempt 

sanctions. 

 Rule 53(b)(2) requires that the referral order “direct the master to 

proceed with all reasonable diligence” and to include several matters: 

 196. Magistrate judges not serving as special masters are properly and routinely 

referred duties that some courts have assigned to a special master. These include managing the pretrial phase of civil cases, crafting and monitoring remedial decrees, and facilitating settlement. 

 197. See Special Masters Study, supra note 190, at 35–40. 

 198. For guidance in avoiding conflicts and other ethical problems, see Reference 

Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra note 143, at 66. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

158 

• the special master’s duties, including any investigation or enforcement duties, and any limits on the master’s authority under 

Rule 53(c); 

• the circumstances, if any, in which the master may communicate 

ex parte with the court or a party; 199

• the nature of the materials to be preserved and filed as the record 

of the master’s activities; 

• the time limits, method of filing the record, other procedures, 

and standards for reviewing the master’s orders, findings, and 

recommendations; and 

• the basis, terms, and procedure for fixing the master’s compensation under Rule 53(g). 

 It is recommended that you consider including in the referral order 

the following: 

• procedures for the special master to obtain information from the 

parties; 

• discovery rights to evidence supporting the special master’s findings; 

• disclosure of conflicts of interest; 

• periodic reporting, and the timing and method of delivering reports of activity; 

• duration of appointment; 

• standards of performance; 

• the allocation of costs among the parties; and 

• liability and immunity of the special master.200

 You may consider appointing a special master as early as the initial 

scheduling conference.201

 199. For a discussion of federal court experiences relating to ex parte communications between special masters and the parties or the judge, see Special Masters Study, supra note 190, at 46–52. 

 200. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2); MCL 4th, supra note 10, § 11.52. For a summary of 

the contents of special master referral orders, see Special Masters Study, supra note 190, at 

44–45. 

 201. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(H). 
Chapter 8: Personnel Resources in Litigation Management 

159 

4. The special master’s report 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e) requires special masters to prepare 

a report and, if required by the judge, make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The master may submit a draft of the report to counsel for 

suggestions. In all cases, a party may serve objections to the report no 

later than twenty-one days after a copy is served, unless you set a different 

time. You decide “de novo all objections to findings of fact” by the master, unless the parties stipulate, with your approval, that “the findings will 

be reviewed for clear error; or . . . will be final.”202 You may “adopt or 

affirm, modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse, or resubmit” the matter 

to the master with instructions.203 In jury cases, the master’s findings are 

admissible in evidence. 

5. Compensating the special master 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(g), compensation of special 

masters is to be set by the court. In practice, most judges rely on the parties and the master to negotiate the rate, usually the master’s hourly rate; 

typically, the parties share the cost of the master on an equal basis.204 You 

will want to keep a watchful eye on the compensation paid to masters, as 

the costs can be quite high in some cases. Your referral order can set a 

timetable for periodic submission of bills (at least quarterly) and can 

specify what information you wish to see to monitor fees and costs. 

 202. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2), (3). 

 203. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1). 

 204. See Special Masters Study, supra note 190, at 42. If a special master is appointed 

in a case subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, compensation and costs are 

to be paid from funds appropriated to the judiciary. Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 

of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, § 802(f)(4). The PLRA 

amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624 and 3626; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 1915; and 

11 U.S.C. § 523(a); it adds new sections 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1932. 

161 

Chapter 9: Using Information Technology for 

Litigation Management 

A. Training for Judges and Court Staff 

1. National workshops for all judges 

2. Workshops for newly appointed judges 

3. Online training for judges 

4. Training for court staff in support of judges 

B. Using CM/ECF to Manage Cases 

1. Case-management reports 

2. Statistical and conflict-checking reports 

C. Case Management Outside Chambers 

Understanding the technology available to you and how you can tailor it 

to your needs is essential to effective case management. The judiciary 

provides you with both equipment and training opportunities so that you 

can use technology to your greatest advantage. Information technology (IT) training is offered in five areas: case management, writing and 

tracking opinions, working remotely outside chambers, keeping a calendar, and trial technologies.205 

 The primary case-management tool for federal judges is the Case 

Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. It is used in every 

district court by judges, attorneys, and others to file documents or create 

docket entries in the system. This system, and other software, can be used 

to manage your calendar, assist your opinion writing, organize your 

documents, and ease work flow in your office. This chapter reviews many 

of the solutions and training programs available to you. 

A. Training for Judges and Court Staff 

The Federal Judicial Center and Administrative Office have collaborated 

to offer judges a variety of in-person training programs during the year 

 205. In 2004, the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology determined that judges’ IT training should “focus more specifically on judges’ tasks and 

functions” and on the use of technology to accomplish those tasks and functions. The 

committee identified these five functional areas on which to focus IT training for judges. 

See Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology, Sept. 2005, 

pp. 2–3. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

162 

and online training resources that can be found at the FJC’s website, 

http://www.fjc.gov. 

1. National workshops for all judges 

The Federal Judicial Center offers a series of national workshops each 

year for appellate, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. These oneand-a-half-day workshops are designed by judges for judges and will give 

you hands-on experience on how to use computer software, such as 

Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect, Lotus Notes,206 and 

CM/ECF, to accomplish typical chambers tasks. 

2. Workshops for newly appointed judges 

The Federal Judicial Center also now provides more extensive IT training 

to magistrate judges as a part of their New Magistrate Judge Automation 

Orientation program, and will develop similar training to add to the orientation programs for newly appointed appellate, district, and bankruptcy judges. This enhanced IT curriculum consists of three modules: 

case management, remote connectivity, and desktop management. 

 In the case-management module, you will learn to 

• use JPort207 to make a connection to the judges’ chambers computer; 

• log onto CM/ECF to retrieve a motion; 

• extract text from a PDF208 motion; 

• paste extracted text into a WordPerfect “note holder” document; 

• create a PDF document from a WordPerfect document; 

• perform find and search functions in a PDF document; and 

• grant a routine motion and file a formal opinion in CM/ECF. 

In the remote connectivity module, you will learn to 

• customize features on your BlackBerry phone; 

• review and manage your e-mail with greater efficiency; 

 206. Lotus Notes (or “Notes”) is the judiciary’s official electronic mail software. 

 207. JPort allows you to remotely access the judiciary’s software applications, and 

your electronic data, as if you were in chambers. 

 208. Portable Document Format, commonly called PDF, is the type of document 

produced by Adobe Acrobat software. 
Chapter 9: Using Information Technology for Litigation Management 

163 

• enter orders and delegate tasks directly using the CM/ECF Notice 

of Electronic Filing report; and 

• create an abridged CM/ECF docket sheet. 

In the desktop management module, you will learn to 

• sort e-mail; 

• identify sole-recipient e-mail; 

• color-code incoming e-mail; 

• manage e-mail using Notes Folders; 

• calendar a meeting; 

• communicate instantly with chambers staff; 

• set Notes to give you directions to meetings and events away 

from the court; and 

• set up an RSS feed to automatically notify you of the latest circuit 

opinions. 

3. Online training for judges 

Judges seeking online discussion forums, training modules that can easily 

fit within your schedule, and regularly updated best-practice tips can use 

the Federal Judicial Center website “Judges’ IT: Ideas and Best Practices 

for Chambers Automation.”209 

 At the site’s online library, you can view demonstrations and run tutorials written or suggested by judges. The tutorials include topics such as 

creating CM/ECF reports (discussed below), docketing orders, managing 

pleadings, maintaining a calendar, using courtroom technology, and using technology in opinion writing. Future online training opportunities 

will include a live Web-based monthly workshop of IT tips and techniques prepared for judges by judges. 

4. Training for court staff in support of judges 

While training is offered at the national level for judges and court staff, 

you should also turn to your local IT professional for support to best suit 

your needs. The Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office 

provide workshops to train the trainers within your court. Court employees learn how to plan, develop, and deliver judge-oriented IT train-

 209. The Federal Judicial Center and Administrative Office partnered to create the 

website, located at http://cwn.fjc.dcn/. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

164 

ing programs in their districts. These workshops for staff are offered two 

or three times per year and include topics such as “How Judges Work,” 

“Conducting Training Needs Assessments,” “Structured Writing,” 

“Communicating Effectively with Judges and Chambers,” and “Using 

Educational Technologies.” 

B. Using CM/ECF to Manage Cases 

CM/ECF can be modified to reflect your court’s local practices. From 

customized docketing and case-reporting capabilities to twenty-fourhour remote accessibility, the system securely maintains all pleadings 

filed in a case, as well as other information. Significant features of 

CM/ECF include 

• notices of electronic filings to judges, court staff, and other case 

participants; 

• up-to-the-minute reports, queries, and docket sheets for individual cases; 

• electronic delivery of documents to, from, and within the courts; 

• electronic retrieval of case documents and dockets by the public, 

and court users;210 and 

• electronic document management, storage, security, and archiving. 

 The CM/ECF system is modified regularly largely based on suggestions from judges and court staff. The courts are given regular software 

releases and informed about the modifications. Administrative Office 

staff can assist your court with technical help, and the Federal Judicial 

Center provides judges and staff with training on CM/ECF, as discussed 

above. The judiciary also has undertaken a process to create a new version of CM/ECF that is proposed to be more fully aligned with the work 

of judges and the courts, integrating more easily with other judiciary software and databases.211

 210. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system provides electronic access to the federal courts’ case-management systems. PACER allows the public to 

electronically access court filings and dockets, except those that are sealed. PACER users 

cannot file in CM/ECF. Instead, attorneys or parties may access a court’s CM/ECF system 

by obtaining a CM/ECF account from the individual court and, even then, have only 

limited levels of access to the system, as determined by the court. 

 211. While the requirements for the next generation of the CM/ECF system are still 

being gathered, it is hoped that the next system will allow judges to more easily assign, 
Chapter 9: Using Information Technology for Litigation Management 

165 

1. Case-management reports 

The CM/ECF database enables each court and chambers to design its 

own package of tailored case-management reports. The automated docketing system contained within CM/ECF collects a great deal of information about each case from which you can extract information relevant to 

your case-management approach and view information in report formats 

that suit your needs. 

 The system will automatically e-mail you and your chambers staff a 

“Notice of Electronic Filing” that informs you that a docket entry has 

been added or a document has been filed in one of your cases. The notice 

includes a description of the event, its date and time of entry, and a live 

link to the document filed. 

 As your case progresses, the CM/ECF system can be used to create 

docket activity reports, showing any events that occur in your cases. 

Judges also use the system to create docket or motions reports to view 

and sort pending matters by various criteria, such as the age of a case or 

event, or its ripeness for disposition. To communicate with your staff 

about a case or event, you can use the case-management report. This tool 

allows you to create the electronic equivalent of “sticky notes” on your 

electronic documents or docket entries, saved privately in the system. The 

notes and memoranda can be used to make work assignments to staff, 

and you can set who can view the notes on a per-note basis. The notes are 

not accessible to the public. 

 Listed below are some examples of reports judges have found useful 

as well as the features of those reports:

• Docket Report—allows you to view party information and all 

docket entries for a case. The abridged docket report allows you 

to limit the report to docket entries within a date range or to certain document numbers. 

• Docket Activity Report—displays a list of all docketing events that 

occurred in your cases in a specified time range. You can review 

this report daily or at other regular intervals to keep track of all 

activity in your open cases.

schedule, and manage work in chambers, and will have better calendaring capability. It is 

envisioned that the system will also assist judges in prioritizing and tracking their work, 

and in tracking old motions and long-pending cases. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

166 

• Motions Report—lists selected motions (pending, terminated, or 

both) by case number, office, presiding or referral judge, type of 

motion, filing date, or trial date. You can sort the report by motions that are ripe for ruling, or other criteria, such as the dates 

by which all pending motions should be fully briefed. 

• Civil Cases Report—displays a summary list of cases selected by 

numerous criteria. For example, you can use the “date filed” criteria to review your cases by the length of time they have been 

pending. 

• Service and Answer Report—lists cases in which at least one defendant has not filed an answer, and those cases in which all answers have been filed but no scheduling or pretrial order has 

been filed. The 120-day rule report lists cases in which one or 

more defendants have not been served a summons within 120 

days of the filing of the case. 

• Trial Settings Report—shows all cases for which a jury or nonjury 

trial has been requested, and can be sorted by whether a trial has 

been set. 

• Unscheduled Cases Report—shows open cases where a breakdown 

has occurred in scheduling and nothing is scheduled for the future. 

• Calendar: 

 – Daily Report—displays your calendar for a single day by location, case, and event (i.e., appointment, deadline, or hearing), 

and you can link to related docket entries and filings. 

 – Monthly Report—displays your calendar for the selected 

month, listing scheduling information for each case. This 

scheduling information can be modified or deleted from 

within the report. 

• Deadlines/Hearings Report—lists scheduled items for a single 

case, sorted according to your preference. 

 See Appendix C for samples of a few of these reports available 

through CM/ECF.

2. Statistical and conflict-checking reports 

The CM/ECF system also generates statistical reports that allow you to 

view the status of your case activities that are collected by the Administra-
Chapter 9: Using Information Technology for Litigation Management 

167 

tive Office. Some data on your workload, described below, are also converted into a report that is available to the public. 

• Monthly Trials and Other Court Activity (former JS-10 Form):

This is an automated version of the statistical report that courts 

must file monthly to report on select activities of each district 

judge inside and outside the courtroom. 

• MJSTAR Reporting: The CM/ECF system automatically collects 

data on the work of magistrate judges, formerly reported by 

courts on the JS-43 form. 

• CJRA Reporting: Under the requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, twice each year courts must provide the Administrative Office with data, by individual judge, on motions 

pending over six months, bench trials submitted more than six 

months ago, bankruptcy appeals pending over six months, Social 

Security appeal cases pending over six months, and civil cases 

pending more than three years.212 The report is then published 

on the judiciary’s national website, http://www.uscourts.gov. The 

CM/ECF system allows the judge to enter status codes explaining 

any causes for delay in the reportable motions or cases, then 

automatically sends the data to the Administrative Office for inclusion in the final report. The CJRA report does not report 

sealed cases, sealed motions, or sealed bench trials. 

• Conflict-Checking Reports: The Judicial Conference requires that 

judges use automated conflict-screening for each case they are assigned, and judges use the conflict-checking software that has 

been added to the CM/ECF system to accomplish this requirement. The software is not a fail-safe and should be used to supplement your regular review of cases to ensure that no conflicts 

of interest exist. 

C. Case Management Outside Chambers 

You may have to conduct business in multiple courthouses, while on 

travel, or at home. The judiciary provides you with the equipment and 

software you need, such as a BlackBerry or laptop computer, and various 

judiciary-supported software applications. These technologies enable you 

 212. See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol. 18. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

168 

to have complete, twenty-four-hour remote access to your chambers 

from nearly anywhere. 

 While remote access to CM/ECF requires only an Internet connection, you will need additional software to connect to the judiciary’s private data communications network (DCN), which, in turn, will allow you 

access to the judiciary’s other systems. Recognizing this need, the Judicial 

Conference Committee on Information Technology authorized the Administrative Office to develop virtual private network (VPN) technology. 

The judiciary encourages the use of JPort software to access the judiciary’s DCN remotely. Using JPort, you can conduct your business as if 

you were sitting in chambers.213

 213. See the Federal Judicial Center’s webpage, Judges’ IT: Ideas and Best Practices 

for Chambers Automation (at http://cwn.fjc.dcn/jit/home.nsf), for tools to assist you with 

remote access. 
169 

Appendix A: List of Sample Forms 

Below is a list of sample forms. The forms are available online in PDF. 

They can be found on the Federal Judicial Center’s intranet site, FJC Online, at http://cwn.fjc.dcn/fjconline/home.nsf/pages/1245; on the Center’s 

Internet site at http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/pages/1245; and on 

the AO’s J-Net at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Judges/Publications/CivilLitig.html. 

 The sample forms included in this appendix were obtained from the 

courts or their websites. Forms and orders are the copy in use by the 

court or the judge whose name is on the form or order, as of this writing. 

 These forms and orders illustrate multiple aspects of civil procedure 

and case management. Citation to a form to illustrate a particular point 

does not suggest the form is useful for only that point. A review of the 

forms generally may provide helpful ideas and language on a variety of 

matters. 

Form 1: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order 

Form 2: Order for Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting and Rule 16(b) 

Scheduling Conference 

Form 3: Initial Scheduling Order 

Form 4: Guidelines for Discovery, Motion Practice and Trial 

Form 5: Individual Practices of Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum 

Form 6: Recommended Model for Individual Judge’s Practices 

Form 7: Standing Order for Matters Before Judge Martin J. Jenkins 

Form 8: Instructions Regarding Pretrial Proceedings 

Form 9: Standing Pretrial Procedure Order and Forms 

Form 10: Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Form 35, Fed. R. Civ. P.) 

Form 11: Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order 

Form 12: Order Setting Case Management Conference and Requiring 

Joint Case Management Statement 

Form 13: Minute Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status 

Report, and Early Settlement 

Form 14: Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) 

and L.R. 16.3(b) 

Form 15: Report of Parties’ Rule 26(f) Planning Conference 

Form 16: Uniform Trial Practice and Procedures 

Form 17: Jurisdictional Checklist 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

170 

Form 18: Order Concerning Removal 

Form 19: Scheduling Order 

Form 20: Case Management Order 

Form 21: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order 

Form 22: Rule 16 Initial Order 

Form 23: Pretrial Scheduling Order 

Form 24: Pretrial Order – Civil Case 

Form 25: Scheduling Order and Standing Order on Discovery 

Procedures 

Form 26: Scheduling Order for Social Security Cases 

Form 27: Motions Order for Social Security Cases 

Form 28: Local Rules and Orders Pertaining to Differentiated Case 

Management 

Form 29: Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan 

Form 30: Order for Settlement Conference 

Form 31: Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Form 32: Mediation Stipulation 

Form 33: Order Dismissing Case When Parties Have Not Timely 

Advised Court of the Outcome of Settlement Efforts 

Form 34: Stipulation of Settlement and Order of Dismissal 

Form 35: Standing Order Governing Final Pretrial Conference 

Form 36: Final Pretrial Order 

Form 37: Order for Pretrial Preparation 

Form 38: Pretrial Order 

Form 39: Final Pretrial Order 

Form 40: Order for Final Pretrial Conference 

Form 41: Trial Order 

Form 42: Juror Questionnaire 

Form 43: Juror Questionnaire 

Form 44: Order Setting Civil Jury Trial 

Form 45: Judge Paul A. Zoss’s Voir Dire 

Form 46: Civil Jury Trial Checklist 

Form 47: Guidelines for Preparation of Jury Instructions 

Form 48: Expectations and Requirements for Trials 

Form 49: Procedure for Presentation of Direct Testimony by Written 

Statement 
Appendix A 

171 

Form 50: Referral Order for Referring Matters to Magistrate Judges 

Form 51: Order of General Reference to Magistrate Judges 

Form 52: Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a 

Magistrate Judge 

Form 53: Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States 

Magistrate Judge and Designation 

173 

Appendix B: Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and 

Effective Court-Annexed ADR, Court 

Administration and Case Management 

Committee 

Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR: 

Attributes of a Well-Functioning ADR Program and Ethical 

Principles for ADR Neutrals 

Report of the ADR Task Force of the Court Administration and 

Case Management Committee 

December 1997 

I. Background 

 In June 1995, the Court Administration and Case Management 

Committee established an ADR Task Force, composed of Magistrate 

Judge John Wagner (OK-N), Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell (CA-C), 

and District Judge Jerome Simandle (NJ), who served as chair. The purpose of the Task Force was to consider the issue of ethical guidelines for 

private sector attorneys who serve as neutrals in court-annexed ADR 

programs. This step was prompted by the substantial growth of such programs during the 1990s, programs which at this time are governed only 

by local rules. The Task Force’s concerns were driven largely by rapid 

change in the district courts, but it recognized that ADR has grown apace 

in the appellate and bankruptcy courts as well. 

 To determine the incidence and nature of ethical problems in district 

court ADR proceedings, the Task Force held a series of meetings with 

those involved in court-annexed programs, including judges, court ADR 

staff, attorneys who serve as neutrals, and academics. There was general 

agreement that the incidence of ethical problems is low but that the combination of rapidly growing programs, sometimes inadequate training of 

ADR neutrals, and judges who are unfamiliar with ADR creates a potential for serious ethical breaches. 

 Through its meetings with the various ADR experts, the Task Force 

identified four areas where problems are likely to arise when courts use 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

174 

private sector attorneys as ADR neutrals: past, present, and future conflicts of interest; confidentiality of materials and information disclosed 

during ADR; exposure of the neutral to subpoena to testify in subsequent 

litigation; and protection of ADR neutrals from civil liability through 

immunity. 

 For a number of reasons, the Task Force determined that national 

ADR ethics rules would be premature at this time. Not only did the ADR 

experts advise against them, but the Task Force believes there is considerable value in encouraging further experimentation at the local level before national rules, if any, are drafted. Furthermore, some issues, such as 

immunity and conflicts of interest, are either very complicated, are currently the subject of in-depth study by other organizations, or would require statutory authorization, which the Task Force is not prepared to 

recommend. 

 Nonetheless, the Task Force did conclude that it would be useful for 

the Committee to issue a general statement encouraging courts to give 

careful consideration to several specific ethical issues and advising the 

courts on the attributes of a well-functioning court-annexed ADR program. A recommendation to this effect was made and accepted at the 

June 1996 Committee meeting. The Task Force has subsequently identified the attributes of a well-functioning court-annexed ADR program 

and has developed a set of ethical principles for ADR neutrals. These are 

presented below. 

II. The Attributes of a Well-Functioning Court-Annexed ADR 

Program 

 Our Task Force agrees with the consensus view that a federal court 

must make a conscious effort to determine whether some type of ADR is 

an appropriate response to local dockets, customs, practices, and demands for ADR services. We also believe that, for ADR to be most responsive to local conditions, it should be implemented at the local court 

level (district, appellate, or bankruptcy). There is sufficient breadth in the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other legislation, as the Judicial 

Conference has found, to foster and support implementation of varying 

ADR programs in the local courts. 

 Although we have witnessed the gradual development of a preference 

for mediation, we have not seen the emergence of a single type of ADR 

that should serve as a paradigm for all courts and we recommend none 
Appendix B 

175 

here. Nevertheless, the Task Force believes there are common attributes 

of well-functioning ADR programs that all courts should strive to incorporate into their ADR programs and that should be enunciated through 

local rules. 

 At the same time, we recognize the need for flexibility in providing a 

means for dispute resolution that is informal, inexpensive, and adaptable. 

ADR is often valued, in fact, as an alternative to rule-bound and costly 

procedures like motion practice and trial. One cannot lose sight of the 

fact, however, that federal cases referred to ADR can be factually or legally complicated and can have high stakes. In such an environment, the 

basic ingredients of a fair and effective court-annexed ADR program 

should include at least minimal rules with respect to the expectations 

placed upon the court staff and judicial officers, the appointed neutrals, 

and the participants (attorneys and litigants). 

 Both research and anecdote suggest that, to date, litigants in federal 

court ADR programs have had positive experiences. Our goal is to ensure that this remains true in the future. As use of ADR and understanding of its characteristics continue to grow, we feel that some guidance is 

both warranted and now possible. Thus, we offer the following eight attributes of a well-functioning court-annexed ADR program, drawn from 

our discussions with ADR experts, our own experiences, and other 

sources.Given the critical role played by ADR neutrals, on whom the 

effectiveness, integrity, and reputation of court ADR rests, we address this 

attribute of court programs separately in Section III. 

 1. Research has consistently shown high attorney and litigant satisfaction with ADR 

procedures, including the fairness of these procedures. For the most recent research in 

federal courts, see Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil 

Justice Reform Act (RAND 1997) and Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management: A Study of the Five Demonstration Programs Established Under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (Federal Judicial Center 1997). 

 2. Other sources include two symposia offered by the Federal Judicial Center for 

representatives from district and bankruptcy courts with new or established ADR programs, as well as the National ADR Institute for Federal Judges, co-sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center, the Center for Public Resources, and the ABA’s Litigation Section. A 

handbook prepared for the Institute, Judge’s Deskbook on Court ADR (Center for Public 

Resources 1993), has served as a useful guide for courts interested in ensuring the quality 

of their ADR efforts. [Editor’s note: The Deskbook can be found on the Federal Judicial 

Center’s website, http://www.fjc.gov.] 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

176 

1. The local court should, after consultation among bench, bar and 

participants, define the goals and characteristics of the local ADR 

program and approve it by promulgating appropriate written local 

rules. 

Comment: The program’s structure follows the identification of its 

goals. The court should identify its needs after consultation with all 

constituencies, especially the advisory group set up under the CJRA if 

it is still in operation. The necessity for written guidance is selfevident, and the local rules process provides the surest means of careful promulgation. These rules should contain provisions to address 

each of the attributes discussed here, with special attention to ethical 

guidelines for ADR neutrals.3

2. The court should provide administration of the ADR program 

through a judicial officer or administrator who is trained to perform 

these duties. 

Comment: An ADR program does not run itself and cannot succeed 

without leadership. The selection of cases, administration of the 

panel of neutrals, matters concerning compensation of neutrals, and 

ethical problems will need to be addressed from time to time by a 

person with authority to speak for the court. During the past five 

years, a number of courts have appointed full-time, professional 

ADR staff, to whom they have assigned many core ADR functions, 

such as recruitment and training of neutrals, assignment of cases to 

neutrals, and evaluation of program effectiveness. Professional ADR 

staff can be particularly helpful in handling problems that arise in 

ADR, providing a buffer between the parties, neutral, and assigned 

judge. Although courts can retain these staff through the use of local 

funds, additional funding will depend on actions taken by the Judicial Resources Committee and the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. Where such staff are not available, their important functions 

can be and often ably have been performed by an ADR liaison judge. 

 3. For guidance in designing an ADR program and determining what topics should 

be covered by local rules, courts are strongly encouraged to consult the Judge’s Deskbook 

on Court ADR, supra note 2 (available from the Federal Judicial Center). [Editor’s note: 

See also the Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001) available on the Federal Judicial Center’s website, http://www.fjc.gov.] 
Appendix B 

177 

The important point is to have someone who is responsible for the 

program. 

3. When establishing a roster of neutrals for cases referred to ADR, the 

court should define and require specific levels of training and experience for its ADR neutrals, and appropriate training should be provided through the court or an outside organization. Training should 

include techniques relevant to the neutral’s functions in the program, as well as instruction in ethical duties. 

Comment: Court-appointed ADR neutrals are typically experienced 

attorneys from the local bar or, less frequently, attorneys specializing 

in an ADR practice. We have found, however, great variability in the 

training of these appointed neutrals. Some courts require no training, 

some provide training by judicial officers, and some provide training 

by expert consultants. No funding for training of attorney-neutrals 

has been available from central budget sources, so courts have sometimes funded training from local sources, such as bar associations or 

attorney admission funds, or have required the trainees to bear the 

cost. The training of a court’s ADR neutrals, tailored to the goals and 

structure of the local program, is an essential ingredient of a wellfunctioning court-annexed ADR program. ADR neutrals cannot be 

expected to perform the sensitive functions of their role unless they 

have the necessary skills. Mediation and other techniques require 

special insights into the process that may be unavailable to ordinary 

litigators, no matter how experienced. Training should include instruction on ethics, to increase the sensitivity of the court-appointed 

neutral to the ethical demands of these duties. 

4. The court should adopt written ethical principles to cover the conduct of ADR neutrals. 

Comment: Well-defined ethical principles are part and parcel of a 

well-functioning ADR program and are discussed in greater detail in 

Section III. Principles addressing past, present, and future conflicts, 

impartiality, protection of confidentiality, and protection of the trial 

process all should be included in a court’s ADR rules. No national 

model for such ethical rules has yet emerged. It should be apparent 

that the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) (which derive from an adversarial conception 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

178 

of an attorney-client relationship that is not pertinent to an attorneyneutral) and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (which 

addresses the ethics of judges who adjudicate cases by exercise of judicial power) do not precisely fit the roles and functions of the appointed ADR neutral in most court programs. Similarly, the Model 

Standards of Conduct for Mediators, promulgated in 1995 by the 

American Arbitration Association (AAA), ABA, and Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR), provide a helpful and 

thoughtful guide for mediators generally but not necessarily for mediators in court-annexed programs. Therefore, until national federal 

rules or guidelines, if any, are promulgated, courts should make certain their local rules spell out the duties of and constraints upon ADR 

neutrals. 

5. Where an ADR program provides for the attorney-neutral to receive 

compensation for services, the court should make the method and 

limitations upon compensation explicit. A litigant who is unable to 

afford the cost of ADR should be excused from any fees. 

Comment: Methods of compensation for ADR neutrals vary widely 

from court to court. Some courts use a panel of neutrals who serve 

completely pro bono. Other courts use a modified program, where a 

certain number of hours are rendered free of charge, with a fixed 

hourly rate thereafter, while still others have a fixed per-case payment 

schedule (such as in the statutory arbitration courts under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 651, et seq.). [Editor’s note: Judicial Improvements and Access to 

Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, § 901(a), 102 Stat. 4642, 4659–62 

(1988) (amended 1997) (previously codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 

(1994)). After preparation of these guidelines in December 1997, the 

ADR Act of 1998 was codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658 (1998). Before 

passage of the ADR Act in October 1998, these U.S. Code provisions 

were more limited in scope, authorizing mandatory arbitration in ten 

districts and voluntary arbitration in another ten districts and setting 

 4. For the range of fee arrangements used in the district courts, see ADR and Settlement in the Federal District Courts: A Sourcebook for Judges and Lawyers 29–56 (Federal 

Judicial Center 1996). [Editor’s note: See also the Judicial Conference’s regulations regarding the compensation of ADR neutrals (including arbitrators) adopted at Report of Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Sept. 1999, pp. 53–54, and set 

forth in the Guide to Judiciary Policies.] 
Appendix B 

179 

out provisions for implementing the arbitration programs. The ADR 

Act of 1998 retains the authority of the twenty districts to refer cases 

to arbitration (see 28 U.S.C. § 654(d) (1998)), but it also authorizes 

ADR more generally for the district courts.] Other programs have left 

the matter of compensation to the participants themselves, for negotiation with the neutral. Whatever funding mechanism is decided 

upon, the court’s rule should minimize undue burden and expense 

for ADR, yet not impose on the ADR neutrals to render sophisticated 

or prolonged services on a pro bono basis as a matter of course. 

Where the court draws upon a panel of federal litigators to render 

service as ADR neutrals, the court must avoid the appearance of an 

attorney earning a benefit in litigation as a result of service to the 

court as an ADR neutral. 

6. The local court should adopt a mechanism for receiving any complaints regarding its ADR process and for interpreting and enforcing 

the local rules for ADR, including the ethical principles it adopts. 

Comment: Courts have adopted a variety of mechanisms for handling 

problems in ADR, ranging from the appointment of a compliance 

judge (or ADR liaison judge) with general supervisory authority to 

the appointment of an ADR administrator who receives such complaints or other feedback and channels them appropriately to the 

court. It is important, whatever mechanism is decided upon, that the 

parties be aware of its availability and that it be relatively speedy and 

simple. Among the problems such a mechanism can address are failures of a party to attend the ADR session, scheduling difficulties, ineffectiveness of the ADR neutral and ethical problems. 

7. The court should carefully define the scope of confidentiality intended for information exchanged in its ADR program, striking a 

balance between absolute protection of ADR process information 

and the need to avoid shielding misconduct by participants or neutrals. 

Comment: The candor of adversaries in a negotiation process can often depend on the confidentiality of negotiations, although this concern may be lessened in an evaluative or arbitral settlement process 

involving little or no confidential exchange. The rules of confidentiality and disclosure for attorney-client information under RPC 1.6 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

180 

[Editor’s note: RPC refers to the American Bar Association’s Model 

Rules of Professional Conduct] will generally not apply to negotiations between adverse parties or discussions with an ADR neutral, 

and likewise Fed. R. Evid. 408 will not render confidential, but 

merely inadmissible for most purposes, evidence of conduct or 

statements made in compromise negotiations. In addition, most 

states have not adopted a statutory ADR privilege and therefore the 

degree of protection given by a local confidentiality rule will vary. 

 A blanket rule deeming the entire ADR process confidential has 

appeal, to protect the need of participants to share settlement facts 

with each other and with the attorney-neutral without fear that such 

information will be used against them in another forum. If the ADR 

process permits ex parte communications with the neutral, the participants should be assured that information imparted in confidence 

will not be shared unless authorized. A rule of complete confidentiality may be overbroad, however, and therefore costly if, for example, a 

participant has abused the process or revealed a fraud or crime. As in 

Rule 408, evidence does not become confidential merely because it 

was presented to the ADR neutral if it was otherwise discoverable by 

an adverse party independently of the ADR proceeding. 

 To avoid the problems of an overbroad rule, the confidentiality 

rule could provide that (a) all information presented to the ADR 

neutral is deemed confidential unless disclosure is jointly agreed to 

by the parties and (b) shall not be disclosed by anyone without consent, except (i) as required to be disclosed by operation of law, or 

(ii) as related to an ongoing or intended crime or fraud, or (iii) as 

tending to prove the existence or terms of a settlement, or (iv) as 

proving an abuse of the process by a participant or an attorneyneutral. 

 Whatever rule of confidentiality a court chooses, it will be informing the expectations of the ADR participants. The parties’ expectations at the outset are material and will shape the ADR neutral’s 

duties of confidentiality, as reflected in suggested Principle 6 below. 

The AAA/ABA/SPIDR standards, supra, thus state as to confidentiality: “A mediator shall maintain the reasonable expectations of the 

parties with regard to confidentiality.” It is best practice to assure that 

the participants understand the contours of the confidentiality re-
Appendix B 

181 

quirements and protections at the outset by having the ADR neutral 

review the court’s rule with them. 

8. The court should evaluate and measure the success of its ADR program, perhaps in conjunction with its advisory group. 

Comment: In many districts with successful ADR programs, the advisory groups established by the CJRA have had important roles in designing, implementing, and evaluating the court’s ADR processes. 

Whether an advisory group is used or not, however, it remains the 

responsibility of the local court to ensure that its program provides 

the quality and integrity of service that is commensurate with the 

court’s aspirations and the parties’ expectations. Unless such evaluation and measurement are included, the court may remain unaware 

of areas in need of improvement. 

***** 

 These attributes of healthy and responsive ADR programs are not 

meant to provide an exclusive list. Courts may have needs and goals that 

go beyond these principles. The Task Force recommends the consideration of these principles as constituting a benchmark for a court-annexed 

ADR program. 

III. Ethical Principles for ADR Neutrals in Court-Annexed ADR 

Programs 

 If courts continue to use practicing attorneys as neutrals in courtannexed ADR programs, they must make sure their local rules satisfactorily address the role of the attorney-neutral. Particularly important are 

rules regarding ethical issues, such as maintaining confidentiality and 

revealing conflicts of interest. When adopting such rules, courts should 

make sure the rules are consistent with the type of ADR program established. For example, while existing rules for judges and lawyers operating 

in advocacy roles may translate to some extent to adjudicative ADR processes such as arbitration, they cannot properly be applied to nonadjudicative ADR processes such as mediation, where the attorneyneutral acts neither as judge nor advocate but rather as a neutral facilitator in a non-binding process. In designing ethical guidelines appropriate 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

182 

to the type of ADR program adopted, courts should be encouraged to 

consider each of the following principles. 

1. An attorney-neutral appointed or selected by the court should act 

fairly, honestly, competently, and impartially. 

Comment: This is an objective, not subjective, standard. Should the 

integrity or competency of an attorney-neutral be questioned, the inquiry should be whether an attorney-neutral has acted fairly, honestly, competently, and impartially. Whether this standard has been 

met should be measured from the point of view of a disinterested, 

objective observer (such as the judge who administers the ADR program), rather than from the point of view of any particular party. 

 The imposition of a subjective appearance standard would unfairly require the neutral to withstand the subjective scrutiny of the 

interested parties, who, for example, might seek to attack the neutral’s impartiality if disappointed by the settlement. As this would 

undermine the important public interest in achieving binding settlements, there is no intention to impose such a subjective standard under this principle. 

2. An attorney-neutral should disqualify himself or herself if there is a 

conflict of interest arising from a past or current relationship with a 

party to the ADR process. 

Comment: Ordinarily, an attorney-neutral cannot perform effectively 

as a neutral if there is a past or present representational or other 

business relationship with one of the parties to the dispute, even if 

that relationship existed only in connection with entirely unrelated 

matters. However, such conflicts of interest may be waived by the 

parties, so long as the particulars of the representational or other 

business relationship are first fully disclosed on a timely basis. Family 

relationships, and relationships that give rise to an attorney-neutral’s 

having a financial interest in one of the parties or in the outcome of 

the dispute, or prior representation with regard to the particular dispute to be addressed in the ADR process, cannot be waived. 

 The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which incorporates 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides guidance as to the grounds for disqualification of judges. Although the Code of Judicial Conduct is not 

directly applicable to the attorney-neutral context, it does set out 
Appendix B 

183 

some guiding principles that can be applied if modified to accommodate the different orientation of an attorney-neutral operating in an 

ADR, as opposed to a public adjudication, context. Keep in mind, 

however, that § 455 is expressly required as the appropriate standard 

when evaluating the actions of arbitrators (28 U.S.C. § 656(a)(2)). 

[Editor’s note: See Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, 

Pub. L. No. 100-702, § 901(a), 102 Stat. 4642, 4662 (1988) (previously codified at 28 U.S.C. § 656(a)(2) (1994)). See also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 655(b)(2) (1998).] 

3. An attorney-neutral should avoid future conflicts that may arise after the ADR proceeding is complete. Thus, an attorney-neutral 

should be barred from representing a party to the ADR proceeding 

with regard to the same or substantially related matters, as should 

his or her law firm, except that no future conflict with regard to substantially related matters will be imputed to his or her law firm after 

the expiration of one year from completion of the ADR process, 

provided that the law firm shields the ADR neutral from participating in the substantially related matter in any way. 

Comment: Parties to an ADR proceeding have a reasonable expectation that they will not be harmed in the future from an ADR neutral’s 

knowledge about them, especially confidential information gained 

during the ADR process. Thus, this principle would preclude the 

ADR neutral from representing any other ADR party in the same or 

substantially related matters, recognizing the sensitive nature of information, opinions, and strategies learned by the ADR neutral. The 

same impairment would be imputed to the neutral’s law firm in the 

same case, but it would dissipate with the passage of time, our recommendation being one year, in any substantially related matter. 

This safe harbor recognizes that it would be far too draconian to 

automatically preclude the law firm’s representation of a prospective 

client for all time merely because an attorney-neutral in that firm 

conducted ADR proceedings involving that party in the past, even in 

a substantially related matter. This provision assumes that the attorney-neutral has observed the duty of confidentiality and that he or 

she can be screened from any future related matter undertaken by the 

firm. 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

184 

 A conflict rule that generally disqualifies an entire law firm from 

representing any party that participates in an ADR proceeding conducted by an attorney in the firm will have severe and adverse effects 

on court-annexed ADR programs that use active lawyers as neutrals. 

Finally, because an attorney who serves as a court-appointed ADR 

neutral does not thereby undertake the representation of the participants as clients in the practice of law, ethical rules governing future 

conflicts of interest arising from past representation, such as the ABA 

Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9 and 1.10, do not appear to 

apply. 

4. Before accepting an ADR assignment, an attorney-neutral should 

disclose any facts or circumstances that may give rise to an appearance of bias. 

Comment: Once such disclosure is made, the attorney-neutral may 

proceed with the ADR process if the party or parties against whom 

the apparent bias would operate waive the potential conflict. The best 

practice is for the attorney-neutral to disclose the potential conflict in 

writing and to obtain written waivers from each party before proceeding. 

5. While presiding over an ADR process, an attorney-neutral should 

refrain from soliciting legal business from, or developing an attorney-client relationship with, a participant in that ongoing ADR 

process. 

Comment: This provision prohibits the development of a representational attorney-client relationship, or the solicitation of one, during 

the course of an ADR process. It is not intended to preclude consideration of enlarging an ADR process to include related matters, nor is 

it intended to prevent the ADR neutral from accepting other ADR assignments involving a participant in an ongoing ADR matter, provided the attorney-neutral discloses such arrangements to all the 

other participants in the ongoing ADR matter. 

6. An attorney-neutral should protect confidential information obtained by virtue of the ADR process and should not disclose such information to other attorneys within his or her law firm or use such 

information to the advantage of the law firm’s clients or to the dis-
Appendix B 

185 

advantage of those providing such information. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, an attorney-neutral may disclose information (a) that is required to be disclosed by operation of law, including the court’s local rules on ADR; (b) that he or she is permitted by 

the parties to disclose; (c) that is related to an ongoing or intended 

crime or fraud; or (d) that would prove an abuse of the process by a 

participant or an attorney-neutral. 

Comment: This provision requires protection of confidential information learned during ADR processes. For this purpose, information 

is confidential if it was imparted to the ADR neutral with the expectation that it would not be used outside the ADR process; information otherwise discoverable in the litigation does not become confidential merely because it has been exchanged in the ADR process. 

This principle also permits disclosure of information that is required 

to be disclosed by operation of law. This provision accommodates 

laws such as those requiring the reporting of domestic violence and 

child abuse. 

7. An attorney-neutral should protect the integrity of both the trial and 

ADR processes by refraining from communicating with the assigned 

trial judge concerning the substance of negotiations or any other 

confidential information learned or obtained by virtue of the ADR 

process, unless all of the participants agree and jointly ask the attorney-neutral to communicate in a specified way with the assigned 

trial judge. 

Comment: Courts implementing ADR programs should specifically 

adopt a written policy forbidding attorney-neutrals from speaking 

with the assigned trial judge about the substance of confidential negotiations and also prohibiting the assigned trial judge from seeking 

such information from an attorney-neutral. Docket control should 

be facilitated by means of the attorney-neutral’s report of whether the 

case settled or not or through other periodic reporting that does not 

discuss parties’ positions or the merits of the case. Such reports 

should be submitted to the ADR administrator, judicial ADR liaison, 

or the court clerk or his or her designee. 

 Public confidence in both the trial and settlement processes can 

be undermined if direct communication is permitted between the at-
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

186 

torney-neutral and the assigned trial judge regarding the merits of 

the case or the parties’ confidential settlement positions. However, it 

does no harm to communicate with the trial judge at the joint request of the parties, such as requests for continuances, discovery accommodations, more time to pursue the effort, or administrative closure of the case pending implementation of a settlement agreement. 

8. An attorney-neutral should fully and timely disclose all fee and expense requirements to the prospective participants in the settlement 

process in accordance with the rules of the program. When an ADR 

program provides for the attorney-neutral to receive a defined level 

of compensation for services rendered, the court should require the 

parties to make explicit the method of compensation and any limits 

upon compensation. A participant who is unable to afford the cost 

of ADR should be excused from paying. 

Comment: If the court intends to require a certain level of pro bono 

service in order to participate as an attorney-neutral in a courtannexed ADR program, the level of the pro bono commitment 

should be explicitly defined. Where courts permit neutrals to charge 

a fee to ADR participants, disputes about ADR fees, though rare, can 

be prevented through disclosure at the outset of the fee arrangements. 
187 

Appendix C: Sample CM/ECF Reports 

Below is a list of sample CM/ECF reports, available online in PDF. They 

can be found on the Federal Judicial Center’s intranet site, FJC Online, at 

http://cwn.fjc.dcn/fjconline/home.nsf/pages/1245; on the Center’s Internet site at http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/pages/1245; and on the 

AO’s J-Net at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Judges/Publications/CivilLitig.html. 

Docket Activity Report 

Motions Report 

Ripe Motions Report 

Abridged Docket Report 

189 

Appendix D: Bibliography 

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Settlement 

Attorneys’ Fees 

Case Management: Pretrial 

General 

Discovery management 

Motions management 

Case Management: Trial 

Complex Litigation, Mass Torts, and Class Actions 

Court Personnel 

Expert Testimony 

Jury Matters 

Jury selection 

Facilitating juror comprehension and decision making 

Magistrate Judges 

Multidistrict Litigation 

Prisoner and Pro Se Litigation 

Sanctions 

Special Masters 

Technology in Case Management 

Visiting Judges 

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Settlement 

James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laural A. Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, 

Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace & Mary E. Vaiana, An Evaluation of 

Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform 

Act (RAND Inst. for Civil Justice 1996) 

Gladys Kessler, Alan Kay, Amy E. Wind, L. Graeme Bell Jr., Donna Stienstra, Jeremy D. Fogel, Marina Braswell, Donald Green & Nancy Stanley, 

Communications Between Judges, Settlement Judges, and Mediators: 

What’s OK, What’s Off Limits? (Feb. 14, 2002) (FJC Media Library No. 

4308-V/02) 

Mediation and Case Management: Do’s and Don’ts on the Way to Successful Mediation (June 19, 2003) (FJC Media Library No. 4492-V/03) 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

190 

Robert J. Niemic, Donna Stienstra & Randall E. Ravitz, Guide to Judicial 

Management of Cases in ADR (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001) 

Robert J. Niemic, Mediation & Conference Programs in the Federal 

Courts of Appeals, A Sourcebook for Judges and Lawyers (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 2d ed. 2006) 

Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary, Natacha 

Blain, Steven S. Gensler, George Cort & Dean Miletich, Sealed Settlement 

Agreements in Federal District Court (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2004) 

Judith Resnik & D. Brock Hornby, The Changing Role of the District 

Judge in an Era of ADR and Guilty Pleas (Fed. Judicial Ctr. Sept. 19, 

2008) (audio) (available at http://www.fjc.gov) 

Lawrence M. Watson Jr., The Case for Mediated Case Management 

(2006) (seminar materials for judges) 

Attorneys’ Fees 

Alan Hirsch & Diane Sheehey, Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing 

Fee Litigation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2005) 

Case Management: Pretrial 

General 

21st Century Civil Justice System: A Roadmap for Reform—Civil Caseflow Management Guidelines (Inst. for the Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys. 2009) 

Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 5th ed. 

2007) 

Case Management and Civil Pretrial Procedure (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1998) 

(FJC Media Library No. 1717-V/98) 

Judicial Conference of the U.S., The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990: 

Final Report (Mar. 1997) 

James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laural A. Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, 

Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace & Mary E. Vaina, An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the Civil Justice Reform Act (RAND Inst. 

for Civil Justice 1996) 
Appendix D 

191 

Robert Keeton, Judging (West Publishing Co. 1990) 

Marsha J. Pechman & Julie A. Robinson, Case Management and the Civil 

Trial (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2010) (FJC Media Library No. 1717-V/10) 

Sample Advisory on Protecting Privacy of Personal Information in Electronic Transcripts (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009) 

William W Schwarzer, Guidelines for Discovery, Motion Practice and Trial, 

117 F.R.D. 273 (1987) 

William W Schwarzer & Alan Hirsch, The Elements of Case Management: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2006) 

Discovery management 

James Francis IV & Jonathan M. Redgrave, No Judge Left Behind: A Report Card on the E-Discovery Rule (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2007) 

R.J. Hedges, Discovery of Electronically Stored Information: Surveying 

the Legal Landscape (BNA Books 2007) 

James S. Kakalik, Deborah R. Hensler, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, 

Nicholas M. Pace & Mary E. Vaiana, Discovery Management: Further 

Analysis of the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data (RAND Inst. for 

Civil Justice 1998) 

Emery G. Lee III & Thomas E. Willging, National, Case-Based Civil 

Rules Survey: Preliminary Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory 

Committee on Civil Rules (Fed. Judicial Ctr. Oct. 2009)

Managing Discovery of Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for 

Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2007) 

Materials on Electronic Discovery: Civil Litigation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 

2007) 

A Qualitative Study of Issues Raised by the Discovery of Computer-Based 

Information in Civil Litigation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2002) 

Motions management 

Edward J. Brunet, Martin H. Redish & Michael A. Reiter, Summary 

Judgment: Federal Law and Practice (West Group 2d ed. 2000) 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

192 

Report on Summary Judgment Practice Across Districts with Variations 

in Local Rules (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008) 

Thomas E. Willging, Use of Rule 12(b)(6) in Two Federal District Courts 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1989) 

Case Management: Trial 

Joe S. Cecil, E. Allan Lind & Gordon Bermant, Jury Service in Lengthy 

Civil Trials (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1987) 

D. Brock Hornby, How Jurors See Us, 14 Me. B.J. 174 (1999) 

Judicial Demeanor and Courtroom Control Practices (filmed by the Federal Judicial Center and American College of Trial Lawyers in 2009) (FJC 

Media Library No. 5077-V/09) 

Ronald S. Longhofer, Jury Trial Techniques in Complex Civil Litigation, 32 

U. Mich. J.L. Reform 2 (1999) (symposium on jury reform) 

William W Schwarzer, Reforming Jury Trials, 132 F.R.D. 575 (1991) 

Gerald T. Wetherington, Hanson Lawton & Donald I. Pollock, Preparing 

for the High Profile Case: An Omnibus Treatment for Judges, 51 Fla. L. Rev. 

425 (1999) 

Complex Litigation, Mass Torts, and Class Actions 

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and Working Group on Mass Torts, 

Report on Mass Tort Litigation to the Chief Justice of the United States 

and the Judicial Conference of the United States (Feb. 15, 1999), reprinted at 187 F.R.D. 293 (1999) 

Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and “Settlement 

Class Actions”: An Introduction, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 811 (1995) (symposium on mass torts) 

S. Elizabeth Gibson, Case Studies of Mass Tort Limited Fund Class Action Settlements and Bankruptcy Reorganizations (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 

2000) 

Laural L. Hooper & Marie Leary, Auctioning the Role of Class Counsel in 

Class Action Cases: A Descriptive Study (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001), reprinted at 209 F.R.D. 519 (2002) 
Appendix D 

193 

Illustrative Forms of Class Action Notices (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2005) 

Samuel Issacharoff, Administering Damage Awards in Mass Tort Litigation, 10 Rev. Litig. 463 (1991) 

Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2004) 

Barbara J. Rothstein & Thomas Willging, Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2009) 

Peter H. Schuck, The Role of Judges in Settling Complex Cases: The Agent 

Orange Example, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 337 (1986) 

Jerome B. Simandle, Resolving Multi-Party Hazardous Waste Litigation, 2 

Vill. Envtl. L.J. 111 (1991) 

Jay Tidmarsh, Mass Tort Settlement Class Actions: Five Case Studies 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1998) 

Stephen Wasby, Case Management in Complex Litigation: The Puerto Rican Hotel Fire, 14 Just. Sys. J. 119 (1990) 

Thomas E. Willging, Mass Torts Problems and Proposals: A Report to the 

Mass Torts Working Group, 187 F.R.D. 328 (1999) 

Court Personnel 

Changes in Compliance with the Civil Justice Reform Act, in U.S. District 

Courtroom Deputies at Work 11 (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1992) 

Barbara B. Crabb, Court Officers and Support Personnel: Resources for 

the District Judge (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1996) (FJC Media Library No. 1723-

V/96) 

David K. Hendrickson, Conducting Job Interviews: A Guide for Federal 

Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1999) 

D. Brock Hornby, Working Effectively with Your Judge: An Outline for 

Remarks (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008) 

Law Clerk Handbook: A Handbook for Law Clerks to Federal Judges 

(Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2007) 

Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2002) 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

194 

Expert Testimony 

Court Appointed Scientific Experts: A Demonstration Project of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2008) (available 

at http://www.aaas.org) 

Carol Krafka, Meghan A. Dunn, Molly Treadway Johnson, Joe S. Cecil & 

Dean Miletich, Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns 

Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 

2002) 

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2d ed. 2000) 

Science in the Courtroom (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2001) (six DVDs on understanding and managing scientific testimony in the courtroom): 

• Program 1: Core Concepts of Microbiology (FJC Media Library 

No. 4046-V/01) 

• Program 2: Recombinant DNA and Gene Cloning (FJC Media Library No. 4047-V/01) 

• Program 3: Markman Issues in Biotech Patent Cases (FJC Media 

Library No. 4048-V/01) 

• Program 4: Basic Principles of Toxicology (FJC Media Library No. 

4049-V/01) 

• Program 5: Basic Principles of Epidemiology (FJC Media Library 

No. 4050-V/01) 

• Program 6: Daubert Issues in Toxic Tort Cases (FJC Media Library 

No. 4051-V/01) 

Jury Matters 

Jury selection 

Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management (A.B.A. Jud. Admin. 

Div. 1993) 

Roger G. Strand, Administration of the Jury System and Selection of a 

Jury (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1995) (FJC Media Library No. 2892-V/95) 

Christina A. Studebaker & Steven D. Penrod, Pretrial Publicity: The Media, the Law, and Common Sense, 3 Psychol., Pub. Pol’y, & L. 428 (1997) 
Appendix D 

195 

Facilitating juror comprehension and decision making 

Mark A. Frankel, A Trial Judge’s Perspective on Providing Tools for Rational Jury Decisionmaking, 85 Nw. U. L. Rev. 221 (1990) 

Irwin A. Horowitz & Kenneth S. Bordens, An Experimental Investigation 

of Procedural Issues in Complex Tort Trials, 14 Law & Hum. Behav. 269 

(1999) 

Jury Comprehension in Complex Cases (A.B.A. 1990) 

James E. Kelley, Addressing Juror Stress: A Trial Judge’s Perspective, 43 

Drake L. Rev. 97 (1994) 

Sue Orem, Beth Murphy & Robert G. Boatright, Behind Closed Doors: A 

Resource Manual to Improve Jury Deliberations (Am. Judicature Soc’y 

1999) 

Magistrate Judges 

D. Brock Hornby, The Role of the U.S. Magistrate Judge (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 1998) (FJC Media Library No. 2461-V/98) 

Inventory of United States Magistrate Judge Duties (Admin. Office of the 

U.S. Courts 2009) 

Frederick B. Lacy & Jay G. Safer, Magistrate Judges and Special Masters, in

Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts (Robert L. Haig 

ed., West Group 1998) 

Philip Pro & Thomas Hnatowski, The Evolution and Administration of the 

Federal Magistrate Judges System, 44 Am. U. L. Rev. 1503 (1995) 

Multidistrict Litigation 

Ten Steps to Better Case Management: A Guide for Multidistrict Litigation Transferee Judges (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2009) 

Prisoner and Pro Se Litigation 

FJC Directions, no. 9: Special Issue on Pro Se Litigation (Fed. Judicial 

Ctr. 1996) 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

196 

Jona Goldschmidt, Barry Mahoney, Harvey Solomon & Joan Green, 

Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and Guidebook for 

Judges and Court Managers (Am. Judicature Soc’y 1998) 

Resource Guide for Handling Capital Cases, Vol. 2: Habeas Corpus Review of Capital Convictions (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2004) 

Resource Guide for Managing Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1996) 

Sanctions 

Report of a Survey of United States District Judges’ Experiences and 

Views Concerning Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2005) 

Standards of Attorney Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures: A Study of 

the Federal District Courts, Report to the Committee on Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 1997) 

Special Masters 

Robert Freilich, The Use of a Special Master in Complex Environmental 

Litigation, 6 Inside Litig. 11 (Feb. 1992) 

A Study of the Role and Impact of Special Masters in Patent Cases (Fed. 

Judicial Ctr. 2009) 

Thomas E. Willging, Laural L. Hooper, Marie Leary, Dean Miletich, Robert Timothy Reagan & John Shapard, Special Masters’ Incidence and Activity (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2000) 

Technology in Case Management 

Francis Allegra, Nancy Gertner, David Nuffer & Lynn Winmill, Judge-toJudge: IT Tips and Techniques (2006) (available at http://www.fjc.gov) 

David A. Baker, Dennis L. Beck, Nancy S. Nowak & David Nuffer, All in a 

Day’s Work: IT Tips for Judges (Dec. 5, 2006) (available at http://www.fjc.gov) 

Dennis L. Beck, James E. Massey & Karen A. Overstreet, Ten IT Tips to 

Make Your Job Easier (Sept. 18, 2007) (available at http://www.fjc.gov) 
Appendix D 

197 

Geraldine Soat Brown, Sheri Polster Chappell, Audrey Fleissig, C. Michael Hill, Charles S. Miller & Nancy Nowak, Enhancing Chamber’s Efficiency Through Technology (July 10, 2008) (audio) (available at 

http://www.fjc.gov) 

Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s Guide to Pretrial and 

Trial (Fed. Judicial Ctr. & Nat’l Inst. for Trial Advocacy 2001) 

Judges’ IT: Ideas and Best Practices for Chambers Automation (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008) (a webpage at http://www.fjc.gov dedicated to federal 

judges information technology needs, including courtroom technology 

information, remote access, e-mail, electronic calendaring, and information technology security) 

Resources on Courtroom Technology (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 2008) (a webpage at http://www.fjc.gov dedicated to assisting judges in the use of 

technology in the courtroom including admissibility of electronic evidence) 

Visiting Judges 

Nicholle Stahl-Reisdorff, The Use of Visiting Judges in the Federal District Courts: A Guide for Judges & Court Personnel (Fed. Judicial Ctr. 

2006) 

199 

Appendix E: Table of Statutes and Acts 

Title 11 

11 U.S.C. § 523(a), 137, 159 

Title 18 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A, 140 

18 U.S.C. § 3624, 137, 159 

18 U.S.C. § 3626, 137, 159 

Title 28 

28 U.S.C. § 471, 1 

28 U.S.C. § 471–482, 70 

28 U.S.C. § 476, 1, 114 

28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), 115 

28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(2), 115 

28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(3), 115 

28 U.S.C. § 636, 150 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 142, 151, 152 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), 155 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), 150, 153 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4), 150 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), 152, 153 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2), 153 

28 U.S.C. § 651–658, 70, 71, 76 

28 U.S.C. § 651(b), 71, 72 

28 U.S.C. § 652(a), 74, 76 

28 U.S.C. § 652(d), 87 

28 U.S.C. § 653, 83 

28 U.S.C. § 653(a), 74 

28 U.S.C. § 653(b), 74 

28 U.S.C. § 654, 74, 80 

28 U.S.C. § 654(d), 76 

28 U.S.C. § 658(a), 85 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, 60 

28 U.S.C. § 1332, 60 

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), 137, 159 

28 U.S.C. § 1404, 62 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), 60, 61 

28 U.S.C. § 1654, 136 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, 137, 159 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 139 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), 139 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), 139 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 139 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 138 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2), 139 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 138 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 137, 159 

28 U.S.C. § 1927, 64, 65 

28 U.S.C. § 1932, 137, 159 

Title 42 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 16, 140 

42 U.S.C. § 1988, 140, 141 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e, 137, 159 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 138 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d), 141 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), 138 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5), 155 

Acts 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998: 71, 72, 74, 76, 83, 85, 86, 87 

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990: 1, 16, 19, 29, 54, 70, 73–74, 114, 167 

Civil Rights Act of 1991: 107, 155 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: 122 

Criminal Justice Act: 140 

Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act: 70, 76 

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA): 137–141, 159 

201 

Appendix F: Table of Rules 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m): 138 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: 26, 55, 64, 65 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12: 12, 62 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b): 15, 27, 62, 63 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1): 62 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2): 62 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3): 62 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6): 62 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15: 28 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16: 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 14, 15–

18, 21–25, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 47, 51, 54, 

55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 91, 100, 102, 108, 122, 

123, 141, 146, 151, 153 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a): 15 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(4): 100 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5): 100 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b): 13, 14, 17, 18, 28, 47 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3): 29, 40 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c): 14, 20, 24, 47, 93, 

102 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(1): 20 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2): 25, 26, 28, 29, 40, 

55, 69, 107, 123, 158 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d): 14, 109 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e): 102, 109 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26: 7, 11, 64, 65, 124 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a): 22, 23, 39 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): 11, 47 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): 29, 34 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3): 113 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b): 38 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1): 31, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2): 33, 34, 38, 40, 48 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4): 124 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5): 36 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c): 32, 36, 52 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d): 47 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e): 32 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f): 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

22, 23, 32, 38, 47, 153 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3): 25 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30: 34, 40 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6): 34, 36, 47 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31: 34, 40 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(c): 113 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33: 34, 37 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34: 44 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a): 44, 45 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2): 44 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37: 55, 64, 65, 157 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a): 44, 52 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e): 12, 43 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f): 11 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41: 64 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43: 104, 113 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c): 53 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45: 157 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 47: 106 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 48: 106 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 49: 101, 107 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 51: 108 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b): 112 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52: 114 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53: 48, 127, 155, 156 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1): 155 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b): 155 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2): 157, 158 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c): 157, 158 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e): 159 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1): 159 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2): 159 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3): 159 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g): 158, 159 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56: 12, 57, 63, 124 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65: 59 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2): 60 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b): 59, 60 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d): 60 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68: 95 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72: 150 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a): 151 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1): 152 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2): 152 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3): 152 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 73: 150 

Federal Rules of Evidence 

Fed. R. Evid. 104(a): 103, 105, 124 

Fed. R. Evid. 403: 105, 107 

Fed. R. Evid. 502: 36 

Fed. R. Evid. 611: 107 

Fed. R. Evid. 611(a): 103, 104, 105 

Fed. R. Evid. 702: 122, 125 

Fed. R. Evid. 706: 42, 48, 105, 126 

203 

Index 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

ADR Act of 1998, 71, 72, 74, 76, 83, 85, 

86–87 

arbitration, 70, 72–73, 76, 79–80 

authority to refer cases, 73–74 

consent of parties to, 71–74, 76, 79 

court-annexed (court-based), 70, 72, 79 

early neutral evaluation (ENE), 8, 70, 74, 

77, 80–81 

Judicial Conference 

1995 Long Range Plan for the Federal 

Courts, 73–74 

1997 CJRA Report to Congress, 73–74 

Committee on Information Technology, 161, 168 

compensation of neutrals in ADR 

process, 83–85 

Court Administration and Case Management Committee, Guidelines for 

Ensuring Fair and Effective CourtAnnexed ADR, 85, 173 

local rules and, 71 

managing cases referred to, 87 

mandatory, 71–72, 76, 80 

mediation, 78–79 

mini-trial, 81–82 

neutrals, selection and compensation, 83–

85 

referral order, 85–87 

selecting an ADR process, 75–78 

settlement week, 82–83 

summary bench trial, 81–82 

summary jury trial, 81–82 

terms, 71–73 

types of, 78–83 

voluntary, 71, 80 

arbitration, see alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

bench trials, 81–82, 113–15

findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

113–15 

management techniques, 113 

summary bench trials, 81–82 

time standards, adoption of, 114 

calendar management, 28–30, 140, 149, 166

cameras in courtrooms, 131, 135

case management 

authority for, 2, 71, 73–74 

calendar management, 28–30 

case-management guidelines, 6–8 

case-management information package, 

165 

case-management plan, setting through 

Rule 16 conference, 17–28 

case schedule, 2, 6–8, 13–14, 15, 28–30, 

141–42 

case screening, 8, 137–39 

consulting with lawyers and unrepresented parties, 15–16 

counsel, responsibility of, 10–12, 22–24 

differentiated case management, 9–10 

see discovery 

early case screening, 8, 137–39 

establishing early case-management control, 5–10 

guidelines, 6–8, 11, 16 

initial scheduling order, 6–8, 11 

joint case-management report, preparation, 7, 10–12, 16 

mandatory initial disclosures, 10–11 

“meet and confer” conference, 6–8, 10–12 

remote access/outside chambers, 167–68 

see Rule 16 conference 

scheduling orders, 13–14 

specific techniques, 6–10 

trial management, 109–12 

Case Management/Electronic Case Files 

(CM/ECF)

calendar management through, 166 

reports in 

case-management reports, 165–66 

conflict-checking reports, 166–67 

statistical reports, 166–67 

use of, 1, 30, 164–67 

case managers, 149–50

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA)

Federal Judicial Center report on five 

demonstration districts, 74, 77 

Judicial Conference final report on the 

CJRA (referred to in text as JCUS CJRA 

Report), 16, 19, 74 

RAND Report on ADR, 74 

RAND CJRA Report, 1, 2 

reporting requirements of, 1, 167 

complex cases 

class actions, 121–22 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

204 

see high-visibility trials 

in general, 9, 118–21 

indicators of, 119 

mass tort cases, 121, 156 

computers, see information technology 

conflict-checking software, 166–67

continuances, 7, 29, 30, 104

court-appointed experts, 48–49, 126–27 

authority to appoint under Fed. R. Evid. 

706, 48, 126 

order appointing, what to include, 127 

courtroom deputies, 149–50 

courtroom technology, 30, 112

see information technology 

damages

estimates of economic loss, 123 

identifying at Rule 16 conference, 27 

monetary, provisions under PLRA, 141 

punitive, exclusion of as an element of 

claim for settlement, 95 

Rule 26 and, 11 

settlement negotiations, emphasizing 

damages during, 94 

special master, use of in determining, 155, 

156 

Daubert hearing, 122, 124–25

depositions 

avoiding use of depositions in trial, 104 

discovery management and, 32, 34, 36, 

40, 101, 141 

expert testimony, 105 

limiting number of, 34, 40 

motions practice and, 59 

summaries, use of, 53, 110–11 

summary judgment, 58 

video depositions, use of, 52, 104, 124 

differentiated case management, 9–10

discovery 

complex cases, 34 

conferences on, 25, 32, 39, 47 

depositions, 34, 40 

discovery abuse, 41, 65 

disputes, 8, 32, 35–37, 41–42, 46 

document requests, 39–40 

electronically stored information, 7, 21, 

32, 34, 39, 42–49 

see expert evidence 

initial disclosure, 10–11, 47 

limiting discovery, methods for, 20, 28, 

33, 37–40, 48 

magistrate judge, by, 35, 36 

motions, 41–42 

parties’ joint discovery plan, 10, 11 

phased discovery, 34, 38, 39 

preservation of data, 43–44 

privileged and other confidential information, protecting and claiming, 45, 

124 

proportionality, 38, 48 

Rule 16(c) conference agenda, 47 

sanctions, 11, 41, 43 

scope, defining, 15, 31–35, 37–40 

sequencing of discovery, 28, 33 

special master, use of, 32, 36, 42, 48–49, 

156 

spoliation, 43 

techniques for managing, 33–35 

dismiss, motions to, see motions practice, 

motions to dismiss

early neutral evaluation (ENE), 70, 77, 80–

81

see also alternative dispute resolution 

electronically stored information, discovery,

see discovery

evidence, 47, 80–81, 86–87, 88–89 

see also expert evidence 

exhibits 

limiting, 105–06, 110, 113 

prejudicial, identifying, 106, 125 

premarking, 105 

receiving into the record at final pretrial 

conference, 101, 103 

visual and other aids, 106 

expert evidence 

addressing problems with, 124 

admissibility of, 124–25 

confidentiality orders and, 124 

court-appointed experts, 48–49, 122, 

126–27 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., 124–25 

disclosure of expert reports, setting deadlines for, 124, 126 

early pretrial evidence, 123–24 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(G), 

(c)(2)(L), (c)(2)(P), 123 

Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), 124 

Fed. R. Evid. 702, 124–25 

final pretrial conference, addressing issues 

and problems related to, 104–05, 124–

25 

final pretrial evidence, 124–25 
Index 

205 

joint expert reports, 124 

joint statement, 125 

management of, 122–27 

testimony, limiting, 124 

trial evidence, 125–26 

expert witnesses 

court-appointed experts, 42, 48–49, 122, 

126–27 

generally, 104–05, 119, 122–27 

identification of, 29, 105, 123 

qualifications, 103, 105, 122, 124 

video depositions, 124 

final pretrial conference 

disclosure, 99 

exhibits, 105–06 

expert evidence, addressing problems 

with, 104–05 

expert witnesses, 104–05 

final pretrial order, 109 

in general, 99–100, 102–03 

joint pretrial statement, 79 

jury issues, 106–07 

motions in limine, presubmission of for 

ruling, 101, 103 

preliminary matters, 103–04 

preparation requirements, 101–02 

Rule 16(d) provisions, 109 

settlement, last opportunity to discuss, 

99, 100, 102, 104 

timing and arrangements, 100–01 

trial events, scheduling and limiting, 107–

08 

high-visibility trials 

assigning responsibilities, 128–29 

cameras and other recording devices, Judicial Conference policy on use of, 131, 

135 

courtroom conduct, 135 

decorum order, 135 

gag order, 132 

jury, protecting, 132–34 

media 

inquiries, responding to, 130, 131 

interaction with, 131–32 

management of, 18, 128, 129, 130–34, 

135 

management of attorney interaction 

with, 132 

plan for, 127, 128–29, 135–36 

public access, 135 

security, planning for, 134–35 

in forma pauperis status, 138, 139

information technology 

case management, 161, 164–68 

see Case Management/Electronic Case 

Files (CM/ECF) 

discovery issues, 21, 43, 42–49 

JPort, 168 

remote access, 167–68 

training 

court staff, 163–64 

judges, 161–64 

national workshops, 162 

online, 163 

newly appointed judges, 162–63 

virtual private network (VPN), 168 

interlocutory appeal, and motions raising 

qualified immunity, 63 

Internet/Web, use of, 43, 44, 130, 147, 167, 

168 

court website utilization, 3, 6, 16, 58, 84, 

103, 130 

judicial assistant (secretary), 148

Judicial Conference

ADR, general policies regarding, 70, 73–

74, 85 

ADR neutrals, policy regarding compensation of, 85 

cameras and other recording devices, policy on use of, 131, 135 

Committee on Administration of the 

Magistrate Judges System, 150 

Committee on Court Administration and 

Case Management, xi, 85, 87, 173 

Committee on Information Technology, 

161, 168 

conflict-checking software requirement, 

167 

courtroom technology, endorsement of, 

161, 168 

Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective 

Court-Annexed ADR, 173 

law clerk appointments, policies and 

statutory provisions regarding, 148 

mandatory referral to arbitration, policy 

regarding, 76 

jury 

assisting during trial, 111–12 

comprehension, enhancing, 1, 105, 106, 

111–12 

in high-profile trials, 128, 130, 132–34 

instructions, 101–02, 108 
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

206 

questionnaires 

exit, 112 

screening, 106, 107 

selection procedures, establishing, 106 

verdicts 

nonunanimous, 106 

seriatim, 107 

special, 107 

voir dire, 101, 106, 110 

jury trials 

assisting the jury, 111–12 

management techniques, 109–12 

see summary jury trials 

voir dire 

clarifying procedures for, 106 

preparing for, 110 

procedures, establishing and streamlining, 110 

proposed questions, having counsel 

submit, 110 

law clerks 

effective use of, 145–47 

hiring, 146 

pro se, use of, 146 

resources, 146–47 

magistrate judges 

assignment procedures for referral, 153–

54 

consent of parties regarding referral to, 

151, 152–53 

discovery disputes, referral to, 151 

dispositive matters, referral to, 152 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 73, referral governed 

by, 150 

in-prison hearings, 142 

Judicial Conference Committee on Administration of the Magistrate Judges 

System, 150 

mediator, use as, 151 

nondispositive matters, referral to, 151 

rules and statute governing referral, 150 

scheduling order and, 29 

settlement expert, use as, 83 

settlement neutral, use as, 88 

Spears hearing, 142 

special master, use as, 155, 157 

trial, referral to, 152–53 

Martinez report, 142

mass tort cases, 118–21 

see also complex cases 

mediation, 70–79, 82–84

see also alternative dispute resolution 

“meet and confer” conference, see Rule 26 

“meet and confer” conference

motions practice 

depositions, 59 

discovery motions, 41–42 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c), 53 

joint stipulations, 52 

management, generally, 51–54 

motions for injunctive relief, 59–60 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and, 59–60 

injunction proceeding, 60 

injunctive order, 60 

restraining order, 59 

settlement, 60 

motions for remand, 60–62 

motions for sanctions, 64–67 

authorities and sanctionable conduct, 

64–66 

deferring, 55 

fair hearing, providing the opportunity 

for, 66 

record of authorities, 64–65 

rules of conduct, 65 

show cause order, 67 

motions for summary judgment, 57–59 

deferring, 55, 57 

discovery for, planning requisite, 56 

in general, 57–58 

preargument order, 59 

prefiling conference, 58 

techniques for managing, 58–59 

motions raising qualified immunity, 63 

motions removing a case from its schedule, 64 

motions screening, 55 

motions timing, 55–56 

Rule 16 scheduling conference, 15, 17, 

55–56 

Rule 16(b)(2) and, 62 

summary judgment motions, planning 

requisite discovery for, 56, 57 

motions to dismiss, 56, 62–63 

narrowing the issues, 54, 57 

oral argument and, 57 

pretrial motions conference, 54 

Rule 11 motions, 55, 64, 65 

Rule 16 conference, 51, 54, 55–56, 64 

Rule 37 motions, 55, 64, 65 
Index 

207 

Rulings 

bench, 53, 59 

delays in issuing, 53–54 

tentative, 53, 59 

sur-reply briefs, 52 

orders

decorum order, 7, 102, 135 

final pretrial order, 7, 91, 108, 109 

gag order, 132 

initial scheduling order, 6–8, 11, 20 

protective order, 36 

referral order, 85–87 

scheduling order, 14, 17, 23, 28–30 

calendar management considerations, 

29–30 

items for inclusion, 28–29 

show cause order, 27, 59, 67, 138 

uniform order, 9, 24 

PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic 

Records), 164

pretrial case management, see case management 

pretrial motions conference, 54

see also motions practice 

prison hearings, 142

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 137–

41, 159 

prisoner cases, see pro se cases 

pro se cases, 136–44 

ADR, exemption from, 143 

attorneys’ fees, 140–41 

consolidating, 139, 140 

counsel, deciding to appoint, 139–41 

court staff, use in, 136–37 

Criminal Justice Act, 140 

early screening, 137–39 

filing fee, 139, 140 

in forma pauperis status, 139 

in-prison hearings, 142 

Martinez report, 142 

nonprisoner cases, early screening of, 138 

Prison Litigation Reform Act and, 137 

prisoner cases, early screening of, 137–38 

pro se law clerks, use of, 136, 137 

pro se litigants, questioning of, 141 

Rule 16 conference and, 141 

scheduling and monitoring, 141–42 

settlement and, 143–44 

Spears hearing, 142 

trial, 140, 143–44 

proportionality of discovery, 38, 48

public access to electronic court records, 

164

remand, motions for, 60–62

see motions practice, motions for remand 

remote access to chambers, 167–68

reports, CJRA requirements for, 54, 167

reports, statistical, 166–67

Rule 16 conference 

agenda for, 12 

amendment of pleadings, 25, 28 

attendance, 20–22 

lawyers, 20 

litigants, 20–21 

others, 21–22 

case-management plan, setting, 13–14 

conference statement/order, 22–24 

differential case tracking, 9–10 

discretion, judicial, 16 

issues, identifying and narrowing, 26–28 

joinder of parties, 25, 28 

motions planning and, 25, 54 

off the record vs. on the record, 19–20 

party preparation for, 22–24 

pro se litigants and, 19, 141 

purposes of, 15–18 

scheduling, 2, 12, 13–16, 28–30 

settlement discussions, 15, 17–21, 25 

subjects for discussion, 24–26 

teleconferencing vs. face-to-face conference, 18–19 

timing of, 17–18 

uniform orders, 24 

where to hold, 18 

who should conduct, 17 

Rule 26 “meet and confer” conference 

agenda, supplementing, 12, 41, 47 

counsel, establishing relationships with, 

11 

discovery plan, developing, 32 

in general, 6–8, 10–12 

joint case-management report, preparing, 

10–11, 12 

purpose of, 10–11 

scheduling, 10–11 

sanctions, motions for, 55, 64–67

see motions practice, motions for sanctions 

scheduling order, see orders 

secretary, 148
Civil Litigation Management Manual 

208 

settlement, judicial 

attendance of parties, requiring, 93 

attorney representative, 93 

authority to settle, ensuring, 82, 93 

cautions regarding judge’s role in, 88–90 

conferences, judge-hosted, 88, 91–92, 93–

95, 97 

damages, punitive, exclusion of, 95 

ethical considerations, 97 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 offer, 95 

litigation costs, 91, 94 

magistrate judge, use as settlement neutral, 88, 91, 97 

negotiations 

judge’s role in, 89–90 

procedures or format, assisting counsel 

with, 90, 91, 92–95, 96 

timing of settlement discussions, 90–92 

written report, requesting from counsel, 91 

partial, 95 

pro se cases and, 96–97 

recording, 95–96 

Rule 16 conference and, 91–92, 93 

special counsel, 93 

targeted discovery and, in evaluating case 

for settlement, 91 

techniques for, 92–95 

trial date, setting, 91, 93 

settlement week, 82–83 

show cause order, 27, 59, 67, 138 

sidebar conferences, 106, 108, 110, 111 

Spears hearing, 142

special masters 

appointment, 154–58 

case-management plan, use in developing, 156 

Civil Rights Act of 1991 and, 155 

compensation of, 159 

computer-based discovery, use in, 42, 48 

damages, use of in determining, 155 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, use of masters governed by, 155–59 

magistrate judges designated as, 157 

parties’ consent to, 155 

PLRA cases and, 159 

qualifications, 157 

reasons for appointing, 156 

referral order, 157–58 

report, 159 

statistical reports, 166–67

summary judgment motion, see motions 

practice, motions for summary judgment

summary jury trials, 81–82

technology, see information technology 

trial management, see bench trials; courtroom technology; expert evidence; final 

pretrial conference; high-visibility trials; 

jury; and jury trials 

uniform order, 24

verdicts, jury 

magistrate judges, 153 

nonunanimous, 106 

seriatim, 107 

special, 107 

voir dire, see jury trials