DATE: 

TO: 

FROM THE EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE UNIT 

------>.L-· APPROPRIATE ACTION 

CHANGES/CORRECTIONS 

(SEE NOTATIONSIMARKED COPy) 

CONCURRENCE/CLEARANCE 

DIRECT RESPONSEIHANDLING 

(pROVIDE ECU W/ COPY OF RESPONSE) 

FOR yOUR FILES 

FOR yOUR INFORMATION 

FURTHER COORDINATION REQUIRED 

IMPROPER ASSEMBLING OF CORRESPONDENCE; 

MISSING DOCUMENT CLEARANCE RECORD/ 

DOCUMENTS~YSHEET 

PER CONVERSATION 

PER REQUEST 

REVIEWIDISCUSS WITH THE DIRECTOR 

SEE DIRECTOR'S NOTE 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 

COMMENTS: )/;v; ~ /J;[ YC'C: (c _' _____________ _ 

I 

~\ 

Your timely ha dling/action/~f ~ material is appreciated. If you have any questions, 

please contact P Koday or Deb~rah Mayronl1e in the Executive Correspondence Unit 

on 273-3012. 
RICHARD T. MARTIN 

CLERK 

To: 

Subject: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

li;:1 

//~I -<'/770 S( /t5i:<':C 

li;;,:u·r.t«) 

TELEPHONE: 504-389-0321 

FACSIMILE: 504-389-0309 

March 31, 1997 

Recipients of the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction 

Plan 

1996 Annual Assessment of the Civil Justice Reform Act Plan for 

the Middle District of Louisiana 

Enclosed is a copy of the 1996 Annual Assessment for the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to calL 

RTM:tr 

Enclosure 

c: J. Clayton Johnson, ChailTIlan 

POST OFFICE BOX 2630 • BATON ROUGE, LA 70821 • 777 FLORIDA. BATON ROUGE, LA 70801 

1996 

C]RAPlan 

Assessment 

Middle 

District of 

Louisiana 
REPORT OF THE 

:MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA'S ADVISORY GROUP 

CONCERNING THE ADVISORY GROUP'S 

1996 ASSESS:MENT OF THE COURT, ITS PLAN AND ITS DOCKET 

PURSUANT TO 

THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Congress enacted THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990,28 U.S.C. 

§471 et seq. (tithe CJRA"), which requires each United States District Court to develop 

a Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan to facilitate deliberate adjudication of 

civil cases on the merits, monitor discovery, improve litigation management, and ensure 

just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of civil disputes. The United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Louisiana submitted its plan in December 1993. 

Pursuant to Section 478 ofthe Civil Justice Reform Act, the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Chief Judge, John V. Parker, appointed an 

Advisory Group to annually assess the condition of the Middle District Court's civil and 

criminal dockets in order to determine appropriate actions for reducing costs and delays 

in litigation. A list of the members of the Advisory Group is attached as Appendix A. 

The Advisory Group has discussed and reviewed the Civil Justice Reform Act, United 

States District Court Middle District of Louisiana Plan, and the Middle District of 

Louisiana's docket condition, met with Court officials and solicited input from practicing 

members of the Middle District. 
TI. DESCRIPTION OF THE COURT 

The Middle District of Louisiana encompasses the parishes of: Ascension, East 

Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, West 

Baton Rouge and West Feliciana. Court is conducted at the Russell B. Long Federal 

Building and Courthouse, located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The court has only 2 

judges, Chief Judge John V. Parker and Judge Frank J. Polozola, and 2 magistrates, 

Stephen C. Riedlinger and Christine Noland. An additional magistrate for the Middle 

District has been authorized and an appointment has been submitted, with final 

authorization due in approximately May, 1997. At that time, the new magistrate will 

begin performing her duties in the Middle District. 

ill. ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCKET 

A. Condition of the Docket 

i. Civil Cases 

The Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Louisiana reported civil cases statistics for the 12 month period beginning in January 

1996 and ending in December 1996. These statistics are attached as Appendix B. 

The volume of filings in the Middle District, together with the small number of 

judges handling the bulk of the cases, makes almost certain a docket which increases in 

cases pending from year to year. In the year 1995, there were 2,044 civil filings in the 

Middle District. In 1996, there were 7,611 civil filings. At the end of 1996, 10,999 

civil cases were pending, as compared to 4,693 pending at the end of 1995. Although 

19 visiting Federal District Judges and Magistrates are assisting with the caseload in the 

- 2 -
Middle District, most of those judges are handling 10 to 20 cases, with only 1 visiting 

judge handling more than 50 cases. At the end of 1996, 1,813 of the pending cases were 

assigned to Judge Parker, and 9,036 were assigned to Judge Polozola. There is a degree 

of temporary inflation in the numbers from the norm, as approximately one-half of the 

pending cases arise out of the Exxon explosion, where a substantial number of individual 

plaintiffs have sought relief against various defendants. The enormity of the problem in 

the Middle District, however, is not diminished by the temporary inflation, because onehalf of the caseload of the Middle District is still many times greater than the caseload 

of the judges in the Eastern District and almost every, if not every, district in the United 

States. 

One area in which filings seem to be diminishing is that of prisoner lawsuits. It 

seems that, with the advent of filing fees and a restriction on the number of suits, 

prisoner filings have diminished by 40-50 % . 

ii. Criminal Cases 

There were 136 criminal filings in 1996, up from 108 in 1995. This is a 26% 

increase in criminal filings. The U. S. Attorney's office indicates that criminal filings 

can be expected at the same level for the upcoming years. 

Based on information for the fiscal year 1996, which began October 1, 1995 and 

ended on September 30, 1996, the following information indicates the impact of the 

criminal caseload on the court. 

- 3 -
In any given month, there are approximately 21 court days. If you multiply that 

by 2 (the number of District Judges), we then have 42 court days available per month 

for trials, etc. If this is multiplied by 12 months, this gives us the number of court days 

in the year, which is 504 days. 

Of the 504 available court days, the criminal docket of the Court consumed the 

following. 

During the relevant time period, 7 felony criminal trials were conducted. Each 

trial averaged 3 days. Therefore, of the 504 available court days, 21 were taken up by 

criminal trials. 

As to the criminal arraignments, pre-trial motions, sentencings, post-trial motion, 

etc., the U. S. Attorneys spent approximately 295 hours in court. If you divide this by 

7 hours (an average full day of court proceedings), 42 additional days were spent in court 

by the two District Court Judges on criminal matters. 

Therefore, the District Court Judges spent a total of 63 court days on criminal 

matters; or, 31.5 days per judge (approximately 1.5 months each for fiscal year 1996). 

This, of course, does not include time that each judge must spend outside the courtroom 

in preparing for court. This includes such things as jury charge preparation, research, 

preparation of opinions, reading memoranda submitted by counsel, etc. 

As to time spent in court by the U. S. Attorneys before the two Magistrate 

Judges, 198 hours were logged. Again, making the same assumptions as above, the two 

Magistrate Judges spent 28 days or 14 days each on criminal matters. 

- 4-
The criminal docket dramatically affects time available to the Court for the 

handling of civil matters. Additionally, by federal statute, the criminal docket must be 

given priority over civil proceedings. If the first 4 months of fiscal year 1997 are an 

indication of things to come, 6 criminal felony jury trials have already been completed 

through January, 1997. 

B. Trends in Filines 

The following kinds of cases have been med in the Middle District: personal 

injury, admiralty/maritime, prisoner, civil rights, contract, ERISA, employmentllabor, 

land condemnations, foreclosures, Social Security, student loan, veterans, as well as 

other miscellaneous categories. 

C. Court Resources 

The following is quoted from the 1995 Advisory Group's report: 

"As stressed in the 1993 and the 1994 Advisory Group's Report: 

Addition of one or more judges to the 

Middle District would be the main and most 

efficacious method of eliminating delays, 

which invariably lead to increased costs of 

litigation. 

However, despite the urging of the Middle District 

Judges and the CJRA Advisory Group, Congress has 

neglected to approve an increase in the number of Middle 

- 5 -
District Judges. The only relief enjoyed by the Court has 

been from visiting Federal District Judges and Magistrates 

from the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana and 

from Texas." 

The delays and increased costs referred to are compounded and worsened each year. 

Although the visiting Federal District Judges' and Magistrates' help is badly needed, the 

effect on the caseload and the number of pending cases is relatively slight. 

An additional magistrate has been authorized for the Middle District and will be 

in place in approximately May, 1997. Because the magistrates do hear some ofthe cases 

and handle preliminary matters in the cases heard by the Federal District Judges, this will 

certainly help to lessen the increasing number of pending cases. A review of the 

statistics, however, indicates that each of the two existing magistrates is handling fewer 

than 50 cases at any time, which, again, has a relatively slight effect on the total number 

of pending cases. 

As stated above, the addition of 1 or more judges to the Middle District is the 

only way this committee perceives as significantly reducing the pending cases and the 

cases handled by each judge, thus bringing the Middle District more in line with an 

average district. Presently, there is a bill which has been introduced by Senator John 

Breaux which would increase the number of judges in the Middle District by 1, at the 

same time that the number of judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana is decreased by 

1. Because the caseload of Federal District Judges in the Middle District is between 7 

- 6 -
and 10 times greater than the caseload of Federal District Judges in the Eastern District, 

this change in the total number of judges is certainly warranted. This committee would 

recommend that the Bar Associations within the Middle District do everything they can 

to make known the plight of the court in the Middle District in an effort to increase the 

chance of success for the bill by Senator Breaux. 

IV. CLERK OF COURT 

The Advisory Group has reviewed the procedures and practices of the Clerk of 

Court of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and has 

found no additional ways in which it can more efficiently and effectively handle its 

caseload. 

The 1995 report of the Advisory Group suggested that the Clerk's office 

implement scanning equipment to reduce the time-consuming manual input of documents 

into the computer system and to reduce the margin of error. The scanning equipment 

is now in place and will be operational by April, 1997. 

The 1995 Advisory Group suggested that electronic storage equipment was 

necessary to meet future document storage limitations and the lack of physical storage 

space. Equipment is now in place which will hold 80 disks of storage, approximately 

4 to 5 years of documents. This equipment will automatically store each document which 

is filed and scanned into the system by the Clerk of Court. 

The 1995 Advisory Group suggested that the existing office space should be 

redesigned and additional office space should be found for the increased demands 

- 7 -
commensurate with the increased caseload. Redesign of the Clerk of Court's office will 

take place in 1997 to change offices into cubicle space, accommodating additional 

employees, and the Clerk of Court is taking over 2,000 additional square feet of space. 

These changes should accommodate the requirements of the Clerk of Court's office until 

additional judges are authorized. 

The Clerk of Court's office is negatively impacted by the 19 Federal District 

Judges who are assisting with the caseload in Baton Rouge, although the Clerk's office 

welcomes the assistance to the court. The Clerk of Court's office must supply the 

support function for these judges, with no additional employees or funds allocated. This 

situation would be partially alleviated with the addition of 1 or more permanent District 

Court Judges in the Middle District. 

During the past year, all computers in the Court have been brought up to Pentium 

166 processing capacity. All judges and courtroom deputies have notebook computers 

which can be plugged into docking stations, putting them on line. With the tremendous 

caseload in the Middle District, it is imperative that the Clerk of Court's office work 

with the utmost computer efficiency, as its staff is mainly based on the number of judges 

and magistrates authorized for this district, with limited credit for the caseload. 

The Clerk of Court has installed larger screens on all computers and has supplied 

touch screens for the public access computers, which are much more user friendly for 

persons not trained in computer use than are keyboard operated screens. The Clerk of 

Court has also installed a video conferencing system which greatly reduces the need for 

- 8 -
magistrates to drive to Angola. The system is a joint venture with the State. Additional 

video conferencing capability has been requested to allow conferences between judges 

in other districts and judiciary officials in Washington, DC. 

v. PRETRIAL ORDERS 

A. At the direction of the Chairman of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory 

Group, this Subcommittee was tasked with developing a Uniform Pretrial Notice and 

Uniform Pretrial Order form with the intention that it would be utilized in both divisions 

of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and by each of the 

Magistrate Judges. 

B. The Subcommittee carefully reviewed the existing pretrial notice 

requirements currently being utilized by the U.S. District Court and met, individually, 

with Judges Parker, Polozola, Riedlinger and Noland to review specific pretrial 

procedures employed in their respective courts. In addition, the Subcommittee also 

reviewed current pretrial order forms being utilized in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana. The general guidelines given to the 

Subcommittee were to work towards "simplifying" the existing requirements and, above 

all else, to develop a "uniform" format that could be utilized by the bar for essentially 

all cases in the Middle District. In unusually complicated or complex matters, it is 

anticipated that the Court will modify the default format on a case-by-case basis. 

C. The principal recommended changes to existing practice include the 

elimination of any requirement to list (1) contested issues of law and fact, (2) essential 

- 9 -
elements of the claim for relief, and (3) specific evidentiary objections to the 

admissibility of exhibits in the pretrial order. After reviewing the current requirements 

with each of the sitting Judges, it was concluded that requiring this kind of specificity in 

the pretrial order more often than not makes preparation of the order unnecessarily 

complicated and typically leads to laundry lists of information that are of no real use to 

either the Court or counsel in preparing a case for trial. In addition, since a substantial 

majority of cases are in fact settled without proceeding to trial, simplifying preparation 

of the pretrial order is an important step in reducing the overall cost of litigation. 

D. It is acknowledged that individual members of the Advisory Group and 

some members of the Court may prefer more, or less, detail in the form that has been 

proposed. However, this is worked out, in the fmal analysis, the most important 

criterion is that there be one single form used throughout the Court. 

E. Attached as Appendix C is the proposed Uniform Pretrial Notice and 

attached as Appendix D is the proposed Uniform Pretrial Order. 

VI. DISCWSURE AND DISCOVERY 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 

The 1995 Annual Report made recommendations with regard to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The 1995 Annual Report recommended that a may-call 

witness list and preliminary exhibit list be required of all parties within twenty (20) days 

after completion of the 90 Day Status Conference. Recommendations were also made 

as to disclosure of expert testimony, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

- 10 -
26(a)(2). Although no action has been taken on the witness and exhibit lists matters, 

none of the judges or magistrates now require full reports from treating physicians. The 

other recommendations of the 1995 Annual Report still should be considered. 

B. 90 Day Status Report 

A Subcommittee on the 90 Day Status Report met individually with Judges 

Parker and Polozola and Magistrates Riedlinger and Noland regarding the 90 Day Status 

Report. After discussions between the Subcommittee and the judiciary, it was 

determined that the 90 Day Status Report, as it exists, does not need revision at the 

present time, subject to the comments, mentioned above, in the 1995 Annual Report. 

Vll. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

This Subcommittee continued to improve and analyze the mediation process in the 

Federal Court. This mediation procedure was introduced at the behest of Magistrate 

Judge Christine Noland and has been largely formulated by her, with input from this 

committee in the past. 

This past year, the committee placed as its goal to prepare a brochure to be 

published and placed in the Federal Court building for ease of access to attorneys in 

order to advertise the program. It was determined from this committee's survey of two 

years' ago that the mediation process was a positive experience for almost all participants 

that had completed questionnaires on this topic. Because it was a new program, this 

committee felt that the next goal should be to advertise the advantages of the mediation 

program in order to encourage its use. 

- 11 -
This committee prepared a draft brochure and accepted commentary from Judge 

Noland and from all the mediators currently participating in the Federal Court's program. 

Attached as Appendix E is a copy of the brochure which has been adopted and is being 

published for use. 

Additionally, this committee identified one area for which some revision in the 

program was suggested. Many of the mediators expressed concern regarding the time 

it took to schedule the mediations. The order of the court required that the mediator 

coordinate this scheduling. The order of the court has now been changed to place the 

burden for scheduling on the plaintiff, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. It is 

envisioned that this alternative may be used when the defendant desires the mediation and 

the plaintiff would agree to accommodate that request, provided the defendant does the 

scheduling. 

vm. LOCAL RULES 

Rule 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that each District Court, 

acting by majority of its district judges, may, after giving appropriate public notice and 

an opportunity for comment, make and amend rules governing its practice. A local rule 

. . . shall conform to any uniform numbering system prescribed by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States. 

On March 12 1996, the Judicial Conference mandated a procedure to "adopt a 

numbering system for Local Rules of Court that corresponds with the relevant Federal 

- 12 -
Rules of Practice and Procedure. II The conference set April 15, 1997, as the deadline 

for the Courts to adopt a uniform numbering system. 

The Judicial Conference indicated that the uniform numbering system will assist 

the Bar in locating rules applicable to a particular subject, reduce the chance of a trap 

for unwary counsel, and ease incorporation of Local Rules into indexing and computer 

services. The uniform numbering system was deemed to be especially beneficial to help 

a national practitioner to quickly fmd and familiarize himself/herself with the Local Rules 

in the various courts in which they practice. 

The uniform numbering system mandates that the number of the particular local 

rule correspond with the relevant number of the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

The Judicial Conference gives an example that any Local Rules governing summary 

judgments or responding to summary judgments should be located in number 56 of the 

District Court's Local Rules covering civil practice (to correspond to Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 

The Subcommittee learned that Mike Rubin (a prominent local attorney) and Pam 

Mitchell (an attorney and clerk at the Western District Court of Louisiana) had been 

appointed by Judge Eugene Davis of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to 

correlate the Civil Justice Reform Act Plan with the Local Rules of Court in a uniform 

manner. In order to accomplish this task, Mike and Pam decided that it would be 

necessary to renumber all the rules. Pam prepared a draft plan under Mike Rubin's 

direction that renumbered and correlated the Civil Justice Rules with the Local Rules. 

- 13 -
At the same time, Warren Cuntz (with the Eastern District of Louisiana) had prepared 

a similar renumbering plan and draft. Then Pam Mitchell took her draft, Warren Cuntz' 

draft, and attempted to coordinate and combine their efforts in a new draft which is 

intended to also comply with the mandate for renumbering to conform with the Federal 

Rules of Practice and Procedure. That draft is presently being reviewed by this 

Subcommittee and by all three Courts. 

It is the Subcommittee's belief, based on the progress shown thus far, that a 

uniform renumbering system for the Middle, Western and Eastern Districts of the United 

States District Court will be implemented by the April 15, 1997 deadline. 

There are also a number of Local Rule proposals that are being considered by the 

Middle District of the United States District Court, some of which have been adopted by 

the other districts in Louisiana. The Subcommittee is reviewing the Local Rules and 

proposals for new rules and is attempting to get a consensus on any necessary rule 

changes. The Subcommittee will also be reviewing any Standing Orders that might be 

duplicative of Local Rules or incorporated into the Local Rules to reduce the number of 

places a member of the Bar must research in order to be in compliance with all the rules 

of the Middle District. It is the intent of the Subcommittee to gain input from the local 

Bar members prior to making a recommendation to the Court on any rule changes. 

Thereafter the Subcommittee would recommend that the Court provide full notice and 

adequate opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to the Bar pursuant to Rule 

83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the opinion of the Subcommittee that 

- 14 -
allowing input from the members of the Middle District Bar Association prior to 

providing fmal notice of any rule changes will only enhance the relationship between the 

Bar and the Court. 

It is the Subcommittee's recommendation (after discussion with the Court) that 

no new rule changes be made until the renumbering system is implemented, so as not to 

delay the renumbering process prior to the April 1997 deadline. 

IX. CONCLUSION 

The Advisory Group finds that the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Louisiana continues in a remarkably good condition considering its caseload 

in relationship to the number of judges and magistrates. The single most important 

change to increase the efficiency of the Court and reduce the expense to litigants would 

be one or more additional judgeships in the District. Without this change, the Court is 

now operating close to its maximum degree of efficiency. The Advisory Group 

compliments the Federal District Judges and Magistrates, the Clerk of Court, and their 

staffs in maintaining this degree of efficiency in the face of overwhelming statistics. The 

Advisory Group suggests that the Court consider the recommendations set forth in this 

report. 

- 15 -
The report is respectfully submitted on behalf of all members of the Advisory 

Group through its Chainnan and its Reporter, to the Honorable John V. Parker, Chief ,*' Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, this _1_1_ day 

of March, 1997. 

- 16 -
APPENDIX A 

ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AS OF MARCH 1, 1996 

Mathile W. Abramson 

Denise N. Akers 

Howard B. Bolton, Jr. 

R. Wendel Foushee, CPA 

Leo C. Hamilton 

Etta Kay Hearn (Reporter) 

J. Clayton Johnson, Jr. (Chairman) 

William C. Kaufman, III 

John A. Manda 

Professor J. Warren Mengis 

Roy A. Mongrue, Jr. 

John W. Perry, Jr. 

Arthur R. Thomas 

Steven C. Thompson 

Honorable L. J. Hymel 
U.S. DISTRICT COURT -- JUDICIAL CASELDAD PROFILE 

TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 3D LOUISIANA MIDDLE 

1~992 

OVER ALL 

CASE LOAD 

fTATI STies 

Filings" 

Terminations 

Pending 

Percent Change 

In Total Filings Current Year 

Number of JudQeships 

1995 1994 

3,007 2,942 

1 ,361 1 ,250 

4,649 3,057 

Over 2.2 Last Year ... 

Over Earlier Years ... 

21 2 

1991 1990 

1 ,234 1,200 1 ,321 1.239 

1 , 181 1,248 1,234 1 , 101 

1 .386 1,462 1 ,510 1 .427 

143.7 150.6 127.6 142.7 

2 2 2 2 

Vacant Judgeship Months .... .0 .0 .0 .0 . a .0 

ACT IONS 

P 

JUDG 

ER 

ESHIP 

'-

-

- MED IAN 

TIM 

(MON 

ES 

THSI 

OTHER 

-

Type of 

Total 1.504 1 .471 617 600 661 620 

FILINGS Civil 1 1457 1 1447 575 575 630 592 

Criminal 

Felony 47 24 42 25 31 28 

Pending Cases- 2.325 1,529 69":3 731 755 714 

- Weighted Filings·" 1 t 233 1 , 182 456 38t 473 411 

95% Uooer 1 42~ 1 361 48~ 4H :,Q1 ill 

Contiilence Lower 1 042 1 004 424 357 43~ 380 

Terminations 681 625 591 624 617 551 

'[rials Completed 22 16 21 18 ' 22 26 

From Criminal 3.7 4.2 3.4 3.e 3.7 2.7 

Filing to Felony 

Disposition Civil ..... 1 C 6 1 1 13 13 15 

From Filing to Trial·" 

(Civil Only) 24 29 35 27 3~ 30 

Number (and 'Yo) 

of Civil Cases 97 122 98 85 1 18 156 

Over 3 Years Old 2. 1 4.0 ' 7.3 5.9 8.0 11. 1 

AveraPte Number 

at Fe any Defendants - Filed per Case 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 

Avg. Present tor 

JurY Selection"· 21 .76 24.00 22.2 21. 00 21 .45 15.22 

Jurors Percent Not 

Selected or 12.8 16.7 20.9 15.9 13.0 1 1. 1 

Challenged'" 

FOR NATIONAL PROFILE AND NATURE OF SUIT AND OFFENSE CLASSIFICATIONS 

SHOWN BELOW -- OPEN FOLDOUT AT BACK COVER 

1995 CIVil AND CRIMINAL FELONY FILINGS BY NATURE OF SUIT AND OFFENSE 

TOTAL A B C D E F G H I J 

Civil 2913 35 5 501 9 25 39 116 198~ 13 123 

Criminal- 91 - 6 7 - 1 22 - I:: 4 1 -

NUMERICAL 

STANDING 

WITHIN 

U.S. CIRCUIT 

L.!J ~ 

L.!J ~ 

L5 CJ 

U U 

UJ L1J 

U U 

1

64

1 CJ 

~ 1 

LJ 

~ ~ 

~ ~ 

~ L!J 

K L 

2 63 

1 8 .. .. . . .. .. • Filings III the Overall Workload Statistics section Include cnmlnal transfers. while !lIlngs by nature of ollense do not. 

•• See Page 167. 
100 

84 

81 

100 I 

110 I 

86 

85 

110 

115 

86 

91 

92 

CIVIL 

I 

I 

1 841 

92 1 

93 i 

107 

104 

79 

86 

92 

3798 

87 i 

108 , 

143 i 

144 ! 

265i 

1261 

2761 

1,271 . 

99 

85 

4,593 . 

100 , 

86, 

916 1 

102 : 

85 

95 

84 

10,999 l 

681 

151 • 

2,709 i 

111 • 

88 

107 

95 

66 

96 
CIVIL 

81 i 171 

~ 841 123 74 

1081 1081 79 

107! 91 I 99 76 72! . 

133 ! 85 i 73 110 95! I 

1011 54! 156 93 75 i 

'99! 681 118 94 148! : 88 I 951 105 142 1081 

691 : 

117 : 91 127 961 

130 75 ! 75 1 105 120 I 

66 92 i 116 : 97 74 

94 741 101 : 76 80 
Report Date: 01/06/97 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

REPORT OF CIVIL CASES (JS-9) 

REPORTING PERIOD OF 12/1/96 THRU 12/31/96 

JUDGE / MAGISTRATE 

Beer, P. 

Berrigan, G. 

Doherty, R. 

Duplantier, A. 

Duval, S. 

Fallon, E. 

Feldman, M. 

Little, F. 

McNamara, A. 

Melancon, T. 

Mentz, H. 

Noland, C. 

Parker, J. 

Polozola, F. 

Riedlinger, S. 

Schwartz, C. 

Sear, M. 

Simon, J. 

Trimble, J. 

Vance, S. 

Walter, D. 

Wilkinson, J. 

Wilson, A. 

TOTAL: 

(3L23) 

(3L29) 

(3616) 

(3L19) 

(3L30) 

(3L34) 

(3L26) 

(3612) 

(3L24 ) 

(3617) 

(3L25) 

(3NBD) 

(3N02) 

(3N03) 

(3NBC) 

(3L16) 

(3L17) 

(36BE) 

(3615) 

( 3L31) 

(3613) 

(3LBI) 

(36BF) 

PENDING 

FIRST OF 

PERIOD + ... _------ .... 

5 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

28 

3 

38 

1813 

9036 

30 

1 

2 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

2 

---------

10982 

FOR DIVISIONAL OFFICE 3 (Baton Rouge) 

REOPENED FROM 

NEWLY DURING ANOTHER 

ASSIGNED + PERIOD + JUDGE 

----_ ... _-- --------- --------- 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 5 

33 0 2 

63 1 0 

0 0 3 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 2 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

----- --- --------- ---------

96 1 12 

Note: Pending first-of-period may differ from prior month pending end-of-period 

due to case activity from a prior month entered after report submission. 

TO 

ANOTHER 

JUDGE 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

...-.. 

Page: 1 

DISPOSED PENDING 

OF DURING END OF 

PERIOD PERIOD ------ - _ .... _------

0 5 

0 3 

0 3 

0 2 

0 2 

0 1 

0 1 

0 1 

0 1 

3 23 

0 3 

2 41 

36 1807 

36 9060 

2 31 

0 1 

0 1 

0 3 

0 6 

1 0 

0 1 

0 1 

0 2 

- ------- -_ ... _-----

80 10999 
APJ?E2:IIDIX C 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

Plaintiff(s) CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-0000-A-1 

VS. 

Defendant( s) 

UNIFORM PRETRIAL NOTICE 

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal rules of civil Procedure, a pretrial conference will be held in chambers in this proceeding at __ o'clock _.M. on the __ 

day of ______ , 19_, before Judge ____________ _ 

I. PRETRIAL ORDER REQUIREMENTS 

Counsel for the plaintiff(s), with the cooperation and assistance of all other 

counsel and any unrepresented parties, shall prepare a written pretrial order in this case to 

be signed by all counsel of record and then submitted to the Court not later than ten (10) 

days prior to the scheduled pretrial conference. In the event that there is any disagreement 

with the content of the pretrial order or any part thereof, the objecting counselor party 

shall attach an opposition to the pretrial order prior to its submission to the Court. A completed pretrial order, approved as to form for use in this Court, is attached to this notice. 

The pretrial order shall contain the following information: 

L The specific statute(s) or other authority upon which federal subject 

matter JURISDICTION is founded, and any jurisdictional questions 

raised by any party. 

2. A list of all pending MOTIONS, if any, and specific issues raised in those 

pending motions. 
3. A brief statement of the PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS. 

4. A brief statement of the DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS. 

5. A brief statement of the CLAIMS OF OTHER PARTIES, if any. 

6. FACTS ESTABLISHED by pleadings or by stipulation of counsel. 

7. (a) A listing of all EXHIBITS (except documents for impeachment 

only) to be offered in evidence by all parties. 

(b) As to each listed exhibit, a representation that: 

1. There are, or are not, objections to the AUTHENTICITY of 

the exhibit and the reasons therefor; 

11. Objections, if any, to the ADMISSIBILITY of exhibits need 

not be addressed in the pretrial order, but will instead be 

presented to the Court by motions in limine and pretrial 

memoranda to be filed at a time to be set by the Court at the 

pretrial conference. 

8. (a) A list of all WITNESSES for each party, including their names, 

addresses and a brief statement as to the nature of their expected 

testimony together with a representation whether they WILL be 

called to testify or MAYbe called to testify. 

(b) WILL CALL witnesses shall be produced or subpoenaed by the 

party listing them and made available during the trial in order that 

such witnesses may be available to opposing counsel as witnesses 

even if not actually called upon to testify by the party so listing 

them. This is intended to eliminate the necessity of opposing 

counsel having to subpoena the same witnesses who are being 

voluntarily produced or subpoenaed by the party listing them. 

(c) MA Y CALL witnesses shall be listed on the pretrial order, but there 

is no obligation to have may call witnesses subpoenaed and present 

for the trial. 

(d) The parties shall also designate which of the witnesses, if any, will 

testify by WRITfEN OR VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS. Where 

written or video depositions are to be used, the parties shall 

designate for the Court and all other parties those portions of the 

deposition which are to be read or shown to the jury not later than 
twenty (20) days prior to trial. Only those portions of the deposition which are necessary to a party's case shall be read or played to 

the jury. Where a video deposition is used, the parties shall file into 

evidence a written transcript of the deposition. 

9. Any proposed AMENDMENTS to the pleadings and what objections, if 

any, there may be to any proposed amendments. 

10. Any ADDITIONAL MA1TERS which may aid in the disposition of the 

case, including, e.g., settlement possibilities, whether the parties wish, to 

engage in a summary jury trial, arbitration, mediation and or trial before 

the United States Magistrate Judge, and an estimate of the probable 

length of the trial. 

II. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS 

1. NON-JURY TRIALS. In non-jury trials, proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, bench books of exhibits marked for identification with numbers to be 

used at trial, and pretrial briefs shall be filed in duplicate with the Court not later than ten 

(10) days prior to trial, with copies provided to opposing counsel. 

2. JUR Y TRIALS. In jury trials, proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions, jury interrogatories, bench books of exhibits marked for identification with numbers 

to be used at trial, and pretrial briefs shall be filed in duplicate with the Court not later 

than ten (10) days prior to trial, with copies provided to opposing counsel. Jury instructions 

relating to the Court's general charge, that is, those charges which pertain to the function 

of the jury, credibility of witnesses, burden of proof, and similar matters, need not be filed 

with the Court unless the case presents unusual circumstances in which special instructions 

on these matters are desired, or are otherwise ordered by the Court at the pretrial conference. 

-3-
3. EXCEPT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, ONL Y EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES LISTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER, OR PERMITIED TO BE LISTED IN 

AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRETRIAL ORDER, SHALL BE ADMITIED IN EVIDENCE OR ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this __ day of ______ ', 19_. 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
VS. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

Plain tiff( s) CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-0000-A-1 

Defendant(s) . 

UNIFORM PRETRIAL ORDER 

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial conference was conducted in this proceeding by on the __ day of 

_____ ,19 _ 

__________ appeared as trial counsel for plaintiff(s); 

__________ appeared as trial counsel for defendant( s). 

1. JURISDICTION. 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding under the provisions of 28 USC §1332. The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Louisiana and the defendant is a citizen of the State of Illinois, and the amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive 

of interest and costs, the necessary jurisdictional amount. 

2. MOTIONS. 

There are no pending motions. The defendant will file a motion in limine to 

exclude certain photographs from evidence at trial on the basis that they are unnecessarily 

gruesome and unlikely to assist the jury in resolving any dispu ted issues of fact. 

3. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS. 

The plaintiff claims that he was seriously injured in an automobile accident 
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 19, 1996, and that the accident was caused by the 

negligence and fault of the defendant driver who ran into the rear of the plaintiff's automobile after he had stopped for a red light. The plaintiff also contends that his injuries in 

the accident required a long period of hospitalization and made it impossible for him to 

return to his regular employment as a truck driver for six months, all of which resulted in 

significant loss of income and out-of-pocket medical and hospital expenses. 

4. DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS. 

The defendant denies that he was negligent or otherwise at fault for the occurrence of the accident for which the plaintiff has filed suit, and also claims that the plaintiff 

had serious health problems for many years prior to the accident and that these problems 

were not caused or aggravated by any injuries he sustained in the accident. 

5. CLAIMS OF OTHER PARTIES. 

None. 

6. ESTABLISHED FACTS. 

(1) The plaintiff and defendant were involved in an automobile accident 

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 19, 1996. 

(2) The plaintiff was hospitalized in the Baton Rouge General Hospital 

from October 19, 1996, to November 30, 1996. 

(3) The plaintiff incurred medical and hospital expenses of $63,480 

from October 19, 1996, to March 30, 1997. 

7. EXHIBITS. 

(a) The plaintiff will offer the following exhibits at trial: 

Exhibit No.1: Diagram of accident scene; 

Exhibit No.2: Four (4) photographs of accident scene; 

-2-
Exhibit No.3: Hospital records from Baton Rouge General Hospital 

from October 19, 1996, to November 30, 1996; 

Exhibit No.4: Four (4) photographs of injuries to plaintiff's left arm 

and leg; 

Exhibit No.5: Medical and hospital bills totaling $63,480. 

(b) The defendant will offer the following exhibits at trial: 

Exhibit No.1: Three (3) enlarged photographs of accident scene; 

Exhibit No.2: Scale model of accident scene and automobiles; 

Exhibit No.3: Plaintiff's hospital records from Ascension General 

Hospital from March 1, 1990, to March 30, 1990. 

The parties agree that all listed exhibits are authentic, except for defendant's 

Exhibit No. 2 to which the plaintiff objects because it does not correctly depict the scene 

of the accident. 

8. WI1NESSES. 

(a) Plaintiff's Witnesses: 

(1) Paul Plaintiff 

125 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Plaintiff will testify about the accident and his injuries. 

(2) Paulette Plaintiff 

125 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Plaintiff's wife will testify about her husband's injuries. 

-3-
(3) Walter Witness 

128 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

This is an eyewitness who will testify about the accident. 

(4) Dr. Tom Terry 

350 Medical Plaza 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

The plaintiff's treating physician will testify about his injuries. 

(5) Edwin Employer 

ABC Manufacturing 

150 Industrial Blvd. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

The plaintiff's employer will testify about his lost wages. 

(6) Danny Defendant 

140 Elm Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

The defendant will testify about how the accident occurred 

under cross-examination. 

(b) Defendant's Witnesses: 

(1) Danny Defendant 

125 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Defendant will testify about the accident. 

(2) Paul Plaintiff 

125 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Plaintiff will testify about the accident and his injuries under 

cross-examination. 

-4-
(3) William Witness 

130 Mulberry Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

This is an eyewitness will testify about the accident. 

(4) Dr. John Smith 

Ascension General Hospital 

190 Worthy Road 

Gonzales, Louisiana 

The plaintiffs former treating physician will testify about his 

health prior to and after the accident. 

(5) SGT Tom Trooper 

Baton Rouge Police Department 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

SGT Trooper will testify about his investigation of the accident. 

9. AMENDMENTS. 

None. 

10. ADDITIONAL MATTERS. 

The parties estimate that the case can be tried in one day, and have considered the possibility of settlement. 

DATE: 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

DATE: 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

-5-
VS. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

Plain tiff( s) CIVIL ACfION NO. 97-0000-A-1 

Defendant( s) 

ORDER 

Premises considered; 

IT IS ORDERED, that this proceeding is set for trial (with/without a jury) 

at __ o'clock __ .M. on the __ day of ______ , 19_. Motions in limine 

that the parties desire, or that the Court directs, are to be filed with the Court not later 

than the __ day of ,19_ 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this __ day of ______ , 19_ 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
What Is Mediation? 

Mediation is a process of dispute 

resolution that allows the parties infonnally 

to present their dispute to an independent 

non-biased third party who attempts to get 

the parties to reach a compromise. 

Mediation is not binding. However, any 

agreement reached by the parties must be 

memorialized in a binding agreement. 

Who Acts As Mediators For Federal 

Court? 

The Federal Court has a list of 

mediators who have offered their services 

for mediation in .the Federal Court. When 

the parties elect to use the mediation 

r:::I process, the judge or magistrate overseeing 

~ the case will assign a mediator. All the i mediators have experience in this area and 

~ have attended at least 20 hours CLE credit in 

the mediation field. 

What Is The Procedure For Establishing 

Mediation In Your Case? 

All parties must consent to mediation 

in order for a matter to be directed there. 

Once all parties consent, they can infonn 

their judge or magistrate of their desire for 

mediation by letter or at a scheduled status 

conference. The following documents must 

then be executed: 

1. A mediation order must be signed 

by the court setting this matter for mediation 

before a particular mediator. 

2. A hold hannless and 

confidentiality agreement must be signed by 

each party, agreeing that: (a) none of the 

conversations or evidence introduced at 

mediation shall be used at trial nor be used 

as an admission; (b) disclosures made during 

private meetings with the mediator are to 

remain confidential and (c )no subpoena shall 

issue to the mediator requesting that the 

mediator testify for discovery purposes or at 

trial of the matter; . 

3. A mediation certificate must be 

executed by each attorney in the matter 

agreeing to participate in good faith in the 

mediation process and obligating that party 

to have physically present at the mediation a 

person with authority to settle. 

A mediation can be scheduled as 

soon as convenient for the parties concerned 

and the mediator's schedule. Often the 

mediation can occur within the month. 

Thus, this process can potentially reach a 

resolution much faster than the trial process. 

The mediation can be conducted at the 

Federal Court building or at any mutually 

convenient place agreed to by all concerned 

parties. Obviously there will probably be cl 

charge for a meeting place outside of the 

Federal Court. This charge shall be divided 

between all parties equally, unless otherwise 

agreed. The average mediation conference. 

lasts 'approximately four( 4) hours with 

ten(10) to eleven( 11) hours being on the 

high side and one( 1) hour being on the low 

side. 

What is the Cost? 

Except for a $25 administrative fee, 

mediation is free to the parties. The 

mediators offer their services free of charge 

in this pilot program by the Federal Court. 

Comments From Mediation Participants 

Mediation has been available on a 

trial basis in the Federal Court system for 

approximately two years now. Comments 

and evaluations from participants have 

yielded very favorable support for this 

program. Some of the comments from 

participants are the following: 

"The process enables the client to 

more fully understand the case evaluation 

process and the see the opposing side's 

view." 

"Helped client detennine rational 

value of case. Even though case not settled, 

client obtained realistic idea of case." 

"It let the defendants know that they 

are exposed to liability, which they did not 

perceive before." 

"We were particularly fortunate to 

have such a skilled mediator ... his diplomacy 

and persistence were vital to the parties 

reaching a mutually beneficial settlement." 

In a questionnaire to attorneys 

participating in the mediation process, the 

following statistics were obtained: 

39% found the overall early 

mediation conference very helpful in a 

resolution of the case and an additional 47% 

found it somewhat helpful.