UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

, 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 

UNDER THE 

CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 

FOR THE YEAR 1994 

June 1996 
1994 ADVISORY GROUP 

Peter Bradford Chairman 

dy Hamilton Morse Vice Chair 

Members 

Emmanuel Edem 

Glen D. Huff 

Pat Ryan 

Guy Clark 

Joe Heaton 

Robert A. Hodder 

Guy Hurst 

John Coyle 

Donna Blakley 

Dianne Goldschmidt 

Acting U.S. Attorney, Rozia McKinney-Foster 

Ex.Otlicio/Non.Voting Members 

Honorable David L Russell 

Honorable Ralph G. Thompson 

Honorable Wayne E. Alley 

Honorable Robin J. Cauthron 

Honorable Timothy D. Leonard 

Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange 

Honorable Ronald L. Howland 

Honorable Pat Irwin 

Honorable Doyle W. Argo 

Honorable Bana Blasdel 

Honorable Gary M. Purcell 

Robert D. Dennis, Clerk of Court 

Reporter 

Ann D. Marshall, Law Clerk 

Special Assistant 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

THIRD ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE COURT AND REVIEW 

OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLAN BY THE 

ADVISORY GROUP APPOINTED UNDER THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACf OF 1990 

STATE OF THE COURT REPORT FOR 1994 

This is the third "State of the Court Report" and assessment made after the adoption 

on December 31, 1991 and the implementation in January, 1992 of the Civil Justice Expense 

and Delay Reduction Plan (The Plan) in this pilot district court.! This annual assessment of 

the condition of the court's criminal and civil dockets is in response to 28 U.S.C. § 475 of 

the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requiring annual assessments, consultation with and 

review by the Advisory Group through 1997 with a view toward determining appropriate 

additional actions that may be taken by the court to reduce avoidable cost and delay in civil 

litigation and to improve the litigation management practices of the court. This is an update 

of our prior annual assessments and reports with further analysis of the impact of the court's 

Plan and assessment of the Plan's performance. It also compares the data of the three years 

under the Plan and at least the two years prior to implementation.2 

CONDITION OF THE DOCKET: 

Caseload Volume: 

SY 1994 SY 1993 SY 1992 

Total Case Filings: 

Total Civil Cases Filed: 

Total Criminal Felony 

Cases Filed:* 

Total Case Terminations: 

Total Cases Pending: 

* includes transfers 

2464 

2271 

193 

2522 

1707 

2610 

2375 

235 

2650 

1772 

3 

2647 

2442 

205 

2248 

1907 

SY 1991 SY 1990 

2237 

1949 

225 

2145 

1508 

2474 

2288 

245 

2644 

1475 
Statistical data concerning caseload volume is a major source of information about 

the condition of the court's docket. The court continues to have a high civil caseload in 

relation to its criminal caseload just as it has had for more than a decade. According to the 

1994 Federal Court Management Statistics, it appears that, just as in the past several years, 

over 90% of all cases filed in this court are civil in nature and less than 10% criminal felony 

cases. 

Criminal Statistics: 

Because a court's criminal caseload limits the resources available for work on a 

court's civil caseload, the impact of criminal prosecutions must be reviewed annually to 

better assess the overall condition of the court's docket and whether this is an area that 

needs attention in order to continue to focus on the goal of avoidable expense and delay 

reduction for civil cases under the CJRA. 

Caseload Mix: Chart I on the following page (i) describes criminal felony filings for 

1994 by nature of offence. Fraud has been a significant part of the criminal caseload for 

some years. This was due in large part to the task forces organized by the Department of 

Justice to investigate and prosecute individuals involved in fraudulent financial practices 

since the savings and loan crisis. 

Burden on the Court: Criminal felony case filings have remained fairly stable for the 

last several years but down a bit in 1994 (see Caseload Volume on page 1). Burden on the 

court in this area is measured by the number of criminal defendants and the court averaged 

1.4 criminal felony defendants per case in SY 1994. In fact the court has only varied from 

1.3 to 1.5 felony defendants per case since 1988. The average nationally in 1994 was 1.6 

felony defendants per case. 

Statistical information provided to us from the Administrative Office of the Courts 

and the Federal Judicial Center indicates a rise in criminal misdemeanor defendants in our 

district. Misdemeanors are handled by the magistrate judges, with the time burden on them 

rather then the district judge. The court has one magistrate judge who devotes his criminal 

case load full time to the Tinker Air Force Base docket. It should be noted that district 

judges are spend increasing amounts of time on presentence investigation reports under the 

4 
~ 

CHART I 

Criminal Filings for Oklahoma Western District 

1994 

~ ~ Legend 

~ D A-Immigration - 0 

@] • B-Embezzlement - 14 

• C-Weapons and Firearms - 12 

~ • D-Escape - 3 

• E-Burglary and Larceny - 9 

F-Marijuana, Controlled SubstJOther - 26 

G-Narcotics - 26 

• H-Forgery and Counterfeiting - 19 

• I-Fraud - 40 

• J-Homiclde and Assault - 7 

• K-Robbery • 8 

• L-AII Other Criminal CaBeI - 25 

(i) 
Sentencing Guidelines and appear to be spending more time on contested sentencing 

matters. 

Criminal Trials: It is important to recognize that the Speedy Trial Act mandates that 

criminal proceedings occur within specified time limits and therefore, often must preempt 

scheduled civil trials. This can interfere with the prompt disposition of civil matters. There 

appears to be an increase in the number of criminal felony trials being conducted relative 

to civil trials over the past several years.3 In 1994 the judges held a total of 79 criminal 

felony trials and 97 civil trials; 50 criminal in 1993 and 88 civil trials; in 1992, 47 criminal to 

117 civil; in 1991, 37 criminal to 129 civil; and in 1990, 51 criminal to 118 civil. Chart II on 

the following page (ii) shows this graphically. Although the court continues to process all 

cases very promptly as will be discussed later, the incidence of or increase in criminal felony 

trials should be monitored for any adverse effects. 

Civil Statistics: 

The 1994 Federal Court Management Statistics reports a 5.6% decrease in total 

filings for the Western District of Oklahoma since SY 1993 and a 6.9% decrease in civil 

filings since SY 1992. The opposite was true nationally - total district court filings rose 

slightly in 1994, up 1.4%, and civil filings nationally in 1994 rose almost 3 percent. 

Civil Caseload Mix and Filing Trends. Caseload mix and filing trends show the 

variety of cases making up the caseload and is helpful for assessment purposes because 

different types of cases tend to move through the court system is different ways. The pie 

graph at Chart III on the following page (iii) demonstrates civil filing types for 1994. 

The numbers of the various types of cases or nature of suits that are filed in this 

court have changed over time. The civil cases showing the greatest decrease in filings are 

contract cases while the civil cases showing the greatest increase in filings are prisoner and 

habeas corpus cases (comprising 24% of the civil docket in SY94) with non-prisoner civil 

rights (i.e. employment discrimination and § 1983 actions) steadily continuing to rise in 

number of filings (comprising 16% of the civil docket in SY 1994). The civil rights filings 

appear to continue to rise of all the major case categories. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is 

partly responsible for this increase. The graph at Chart IV on page (iv) shows these case 

5 
Chart II 

Number of Civil Trials Compared to Number of Criminal Trials 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

Criminal & Civil Filings 

Calendar Years - 1 eeo through 1994 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Civil • Criminal 

( ii) 
~ 

[!] 

CHART III 

Civil Filings for Oklahoma Western District 

1994 

Legend 

0 A-Social Security - 88 

- B-Recovery of Overpayment -17 

C-Prisoner Petitions - 533 

~ II O-Forfeitures and Penalties - 32 

II E-Real Property - 324 ~ F-Labor Suits - 72 

[!J D G-Contracts - 294 

11 H-Torts - 375 

I-Copyrights, Patents, Trademark 

OJ II J-Civil Rights - 362 

II K-Antitrust - 0 

II L-AII Other Civil Cases - 148 

(iii) 
Chart IV 

Distribution of Weighted Civil Case Filings 

Case Type/Filing Trends 

SY 1985-1994 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 

o Contract. • Civil Right. 

• Soci.1 Security 

• Torts 

(iv) 
types with decreasing and increasing trends. 

Burden on the Court. It is noteworthy that in one of the areas of growth, prisoner 

filings, the greatest burden here is on magistrate judge time. This type of case is routinely 

referred to a magistrate judge-in accordance with the Plan for the Prisoner Litigation Track 

in our differential case management system. Magistrates judges enter such orders as are 

necessary in a case and prepare a Report and Recommendation for the court. Four 

magistrate judges and each of their law clerks and 1 full time pro se law clerk (a law clerk 

who in our court does only prisoner litigation - habeas and civil rights) do the bulk of this 

work. Chart V on the following page (v) graph total prisoner filings by year since 1989. 

Because of the workload involved for magistrate judges, the "moratorium" on referrals 

to magistrate judges of civil consent cases, discovery disputes and other routine ,civil matters 

that was instituted in 1993 was continued well into the Fall of 1994 when the number of 

prisoner filings began to subside. 

While total number of cases filed is an important figure, numbers combined with case 

types provides information about the work the cases will impose on the court. Just as civil 

filings have decreased, obviously civil filings per judgeship has decreased annually as well. 

This averages to 411 total case filings per judgeship in SY 1994 with 379 of those civil case 

filings each. However, to help assess the workload burden on the judiciary, the Judicial 

Conference uses a system of case weights based on measurements of judge time devoted to 

different types of cases. Chart VI on the following page (vi) employs the current case 

weights (revised in August, 1993) to show the approximate distribution of demands on judge 

time among the case types accounting for the past three years' filings in this district. The 

chart does not reflect the demand on magistrate judges. 

While this court was first in the nation in 1985 in the number of weighted cases per 

judgeship, it has continued to have an active workload. It appears that the difficulty and 

degree of judicial time that cases take has remained fairly constant due to change in case 

types and weighted cases per judgeship. 

Civil Trials: Another indicator of burden is the incidence of civil trials. According 

to our court's own JS-lO Forms for the calendar year 1994, it appears that the court 

completed 97 civil trials. ( See Chart 2 concerning civil trials compared to criminal trials.) 

6 
CHART V 

Prisoner Litigation Filings 

SY 1989-1994 

~ -

~ ~ U) § " z .-

:J 

u: 

D: 

W 

Z ~ 0 >-

fa 

III:: 

A. ii ...I - ~ 

e 

(v) 
Chart VI 

Distribution of Weighted Civil Case Filings, SY92-94 

Western District of Oklahoma 

T Asbestos I 

Bankruptcy MatLers _ 

Sanks and Banking J 

Civil Rights 

Commerce: ICC Rates. etc. 

Contract 

Copyright. Patent. Trademark • 

ERISA :. 

Forfellure and Penalty (e.cl. drug) J 

Fraud. Truth in Lending _ 

Labor. 

und Condemnation. Foreclosure _ 

Personal Injury •••• 

Prisoner 

RICO. 

Securities. Commodllics )I 

SOClai Secunty 

Student Loan & V Oleran's 

- Tn. 

Other 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 

PercenUlge of All SY92-94 Weighted Filings 

(vi) 

25.0 
Thus civil trials represented 55% of all trials conducted. There were 3 civil trials that lasted 

2 weeks or longer and, other than certain civil matters needing judicial decision lasting only 

1 day, most civil trials appeared to average 3 days each. 

CASE PROCESSING: 

Median Times to Disposition: 

This section is intended to assist in assessments of "delay" in civil litigation in this 

district. These data are commonly used to assess the dispatch with which cases have moved 

through a court in the past. When enough years are shown and the data for those years are 

looked at collectively, reasonable assessments of a court's pace might be made. 

Criminal. The 1994 Federal Court Management Statistics rates the Western District 

of Oklahoma fifth nationwide for timely disposition of criminal felony cases with a median 

time of only 4.1 months while the national average was 6.5 months. We are up from 3.5 last 

year and the national average is up from 6.3 months. Our court has always maintained 

excellent ratings in this area and at least since 1991, our court has ranked at between 2nd 

and 5th in the nation and in 1994 is 2nd in the 10th Circuit in prompt disposition of criminal 

felony cases. 

Civil: According to the 1994 Federal Court Management Statistics, in 1994 our court 

ranked eleventh in the nation and second in the circuit in median time (months) from filing 

to disposition in civil cases. The national average was eight months, while our court's 

average was seven months. Furthermore, our court ranked sixth in the nation in the median 

time (months) from issue to trial of civil cases. The national average was eighteen (18) 

months while our court's average was only eleven (11) months. It can be observed that this 

year we are up both in median time to disposition and from filing to trial but still well below 

the national average. However, we are not experiencing any problem from this slight 

fluctuation. 

Relationship of Civil Terminations to Civil Pending Cases. Another measure of how 

well the court is processing and managing its civil caseload is to review the relationship of 

terminations to number of cases pending at the end of given year. See the following annual 

7 
comparison: 

Western District of Oklahoma Comparison of Total Civil Terminations and Pending Cases, 

SY1990 - 1994 

Civil Terminations: 

Civil Pending: 

1734 

1595 

1993 1992 

2378 1988 

1679 1571 

1991 

2092 

1296 

2470 

1344 

The 1994 data demonstrates a decrease in terminations and in pending cases from 

the immediate prior year. The pending cases at the close of 1993 increased slightly to 1679 

over 1571 in 1992 and prior years but terminations increased. A comparison of terminations 

and pending cases demonstrates the life expectancy/lifespan of cases (i.e. some cases are 

"living longer"). This year, therefore, while the life expectancy of some civil cases is slightly 

shorter (less pending cases), considering the type of cases/case mix, weighted caseload in our 

court and decrease in case filings in 1994, even though we had a decrease in terminations, 

it appears that we are not experiencing any significant problem and we are still disposing of 

cases in a timely fashion. 

Number of Cases Over 3 Years Old. This measure has long been seen as a guideline 

for determining delay problems in court processing. Currently we are first in the circuit and 

7th in the nation in the fewest older cases. We only had 22 such cases in 1994 down from 

the high 40's in the late 1980's. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs: 

The court's ADR programs and settlement procedures for civil cases go a long way 

in assisting with prompt case processing and management as well as potentially positively 

affecting costs. This court has utilized a variety of dispute settlement procedures since the 

early 1980's. The volume or number of cases utilizing non-binding arbitration is decreasing 

while those utilizing mediation and the settlement conference did not vary much from prior 

years under review. The use of the summary jury trial continues to decrease due to better 

case evaluation for use of such an expensive process, because different types of cases are 

reaching the final trial preparation stages than in the past and surveys of attorneys by the 

initial CJRA Advisory indicating the costly nature of this process. The following comparison 

8 
data is prepared for review by the CJRA Advisory Group. 

Non-binding arbitration: 

1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 

Cases referred 113 177 201 190 223 

mandatory (96 138 150) 

voluntary (17 39 51) 

Hearings Scheduled 48 119 188 

Hearings Held 29 60 92 130 89 

Trial de Novo Demand 18 36 54 69 39 

Again we can note the real significance in this program is in the setting of an early 

firm deadline resulting in case disposition prior to the hearing. Of those who do utilize our 

panel of arbitrators, again the result is case resolution due to award evaluation and often 

further discussion of the award and what was learned at the arbitration with the settlement 

conference judge. 

There were originally approximately 350 attorney arbitrators on the panel. There are 

approximately 315 still remaining. Many from the first (1985) and second( 1989) 

appointments are deceased, moved out of state, took the bench or other government 

positions that preclude their service. Only 29 arbitrators actually served in calendar year 

1994. Today virtually every case that enters the arbitration track wishes to choose an 

arbitrator with subject matter knowledge desiring to focus on the evaluative nature of this 

settlement procedure. That was not so true in the early days of the program. Many of the 

cases that get referred to this process are Fair Debt Collection Act cases, some ERISA, low 

dollar personal injury, insurance, and quite a few employment discrimination have 

volunteered for the process. Those arbitrators with expertise in these areas are continuously 

selected. 

The program continues to serve the purpose of an early settlement devise as can be 

shown by the differential between cases referred and hearings held. The fact of having to 

participate and/or of having a firm date has always caused these usually less complex cases 

to get resolved. The Judicial Amendments Act of 1994 re-authorized the 10 pilot mandatory 

and the 10 pilot voluntary court-annexed arbitration programs until December 31, 1997. 

9 
Mediation: 

This early mediation program began as a result of a recommendation from the Civil 

Justice Reform Act Advisory Group and their experience with both attorney and client 

satisfaction with the process in the state courts. The following compares the statistical 

information for the past 3 years since program inception. 

1994 1993 1992 

Cases referred 135 145 109 

Court-ordered (0 0 28) 

Voluntary (135 145 81) 

Sessions Held 114 108 62 

Settled at Mediation 41 51 27 

Not Settled at Session 68 52 35 N.B. many do settle shortly thereafter 

Virtually all sessions were held during the early discovery period according to our 

Mediator Reports suggesting that for those cases that did settle, costs were saved and for 

those cases which did not settle, issues were narrowed and discovery more focused. 

Selection of the mediator is by agreement of the parties from the entire list; therefore, the 

market place has determined selection since the program began in 1992. Attorneys and 

mediators continue to report using the mediators on the court's panel, who are also private 

mediators, even earlier than the court anticipated i.e. pre status/scheduling conference or in 

the pre-filing or pre-litigation setting. Also several mediators report service in federal court 

cases in progress at counsel's request and not by court referral or order. 

Although the setting of cases for mediation within a "window of time" was intended 

to be flexible to allow necessary discovery needs to be met, many mediators report the that 

necessary discovery is not always done thus causing either a fruitless mediation or the need 

to continue or re-set the session after the window necessitating additional paperwork and 

cost. Another problem that this causes is that by allowing continuances of the session after 

the "window," some cases run up on the regularly scheduled judicial settlement conference. 1 

Both are probably not needed at the end of the litigation process. 

Individual education of certain mediators has occurred so that they now inquire and 

determine that the necessary work gets done prior to the mediation. However, some 

attorneys seem to need education on the benefits of building settlement discussions or 

10 
settlement procedures into their discovery and litigation management plans early or mid 

discovery rather than waiting for the settlement judge just before trial when trial preparation 

costs are expended. 

Summary Jury Trials: 

1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 

Cases referred 3 5 19 20 46 

Settled Prior 0 0 3 6 17 

SJT Held 2 5 14 11 25 

Settled After SJT1 4 12 10 13 

Trial after SJT 1 3 1 1 10 

Most judges have discontinued use of the SJT except for very particular cases or 

circumstances. 

Settlement Conferences: The magistrate judge-hosted settlement conference or 

judicial settlement conference continues to be the most popular of the court's settlemen! 

procedures. Approximately 500 settlement conferences were held in 1994 by the full-tim~ 

settlement magistrate judge with occasional settlement conferences held by other federal and 

magistrate judges. The court schedules settlement conferences in all civil cases placed on 

trial dockets and in cases where district judges determine that a settlement conference 

should be held either on their own motion or at the request of the parties. It was originally 

designed for utilization at the end of the litigation process after most all of the discovery has 

been done and most motions have been judicially ruled on. It is normally used as a rightsbased, evaluative process. 

Consent to Civil Trials before a U.S. Magistrate Judge: 

The Advisory Group in its initial report was supportive of the increased use of 

Magistrate Judges for civil case management and resolution. Earlier CJRA Reports said 

that in late 1993, due to increasing numbers of matters that were traditionally handled by 

our magistrate judges such as prisoner civil rights and habeas cases, social security appeals 

and the like, in addition to their regular criminal misdemeanor dockets, the court ordered 

that fewer other civil matters be referred to magistrate judges. Therefore, for the last 

quarter of 1993 to the last quarter of 1994, the Article III judges did not refer civil cases that 

11 
consented to magistrate trials, retained discovery disputes and rarely referred any summary 

jury trials or other civil matters to magistrates in an effort to allow the magistrate judges to 

handle their own caseload. 

Therefore, in all of 1994, only 11 civil consent trials were referred (33 in 1993 and 66 

in 1992), and only 20 discovery matters were referred. 

Case Disposition: 

How cases get resolved or terminated is relevant to our analysis of cost and delay. 

The following list shows termination by category and percentage of cases in SY 1992-94: 

Transferred to another district - 3% 

Remanded to state court - 2.5% 

Dismissed for want of prosecution- 4% 

Dismissed or settled· before answer - 15% 

Dismissed or settled· after answer, before pretrial - 12% 

Dismissed or settled· during or after pretrial conference - 25% 

Default judgment - 16% 

Judgment on pretrial motion (e.g. Rule 12 or 56) - 12% 

Judgment on jury verdict -

Judgment on bench trial -

Other -

(·Includes consent judgment 

and VOluntary dismissal) 

3.5% 

2% 

5% 

TOTAL 100% 

ADDITIONAL INFLUENCES ON THE COURT, THE DOCKET, OR THE CIVIL 

JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLAN. 

New Federal Rule 26 and Voluntary Discoverv Disclosure: 

With the changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1993 regarding discovery, 

our court opted out of 26(a)(1) leaving Local Rule 17(C) governing voluntary disclosure in 

12 
place. We also opted out of the filing requirement in 26(a)( 4), declined to stay discovery, 

and did not require discovery/planning meetings pursuant to 26(f). Instead the provisions 

of Local Rule 17 (A) - (E) shall control. The local bar and the Civil Justice Advisory Group 

were given an opportunity to comment. 

This was "codified" as Local Rule 1.5 on April 20, 1994. Therefore, our court 

continued the discovery provisions adopted by the Plan in 1991 with amendments to Local 

Rule 17 in June of 1993 and April of 1994. 

Judicial Events: 

The Honorable Lee R. West served as Chief Judge from July, 1993, through 

November of 1994 when he took senior status and The Honorable David R. Russell became 

Chief Judge. In December of 1994, the Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange was sworn is as 

our 6th active Federal District Judge, replacing Judge West. 

Technological Advances within the Court: 

In early 1994, the clerk's office provided the CHASER (CHambers Access to Selected 

Electronic Records) solution to chambers staff. CHASER allows courtroom deputies, 

secretaries, and law clerks to easily obtain case management reports. It also provides a 

much user-friendly interface to print or view docket sheets. 

Also in early 1994, ICMS (Integrated Case Management System) was moved from 

an aging Unisys 5000 to a new Dell 486 computer. The new system is faster and provides 

more hard disk storage space. The clerk's office also continued to expand a Novell network. 

cc:Mail was implemented. Because of the network connectivity, now electronic mail (EMail) can be sent 10calIy within the clerk's office, locally to the Bankruptcy Court, locally to 

the Probation Office, to the Tenth Circuit staff in Denver, and to the staff at the 

Administrative Office of the Courts. 

Space and Facilities: 

The first phase of the $10 million project of remodeling and realignment of the entire 

federal building/courthouse was almost complete in 1994. During the month of August, 

1994, all magistrate judges were moved to the first floor of the federal courthouse to new 

chambers, courtrooms and settlement conference and ADR hearing rooms. The Tenth 

Circuit court of Appeals and library moved to the second floor - east side. 

13 
ornER CJRA INFORMATION. 

RAND - Preliminary Report. In July of 1994, the RAND Corporation's Institute for 

Civil Justice (selected by Congress to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the Civil 

Justice Reform Act) gave an "interim report" entitled "Preliminary Observations on 

Implementation of the Pilot Programs of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990." This Report 

can be found at 46 Stanford Law Review 1303. One of its early conclusions concerning pilot 

districts is that case-management procedures vary greatly among districts and variation has 

been increased by implementation of the CJRA but that this process has heightened 

awareness of lawyers, judges and clerks to the problems of litigation costs and delay. 

All 10 pilot courts were studied vis-a-vis a comparison district. The Western District 

of Oklahoma is teamed up with the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Our court is also a 

pilot ADR court for our mediation program. 

The Judicial Amendments Act of 1994 extended the due date until December 31, 

1996, for the RAND Corporation's final report or study of civil litigation and the impact the 

CJRA has had on the federal courts. 

On December 1, 1994, the Judicial Conference of the United States submitted to 

Congress its comprehensive report on the implementation of the CJRA. It contained the 

contents of all 94 District Court Expense and Delay Reduction Plans. Many innovative 

procedures adopted by the courts that address cost and delay issues. are found in those Plans. 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 adds a number of new 

federal offenses that may affect the court's workload. 

The CJRA Advisory Group assisted the court by surveying members and making 

recommendations concerning the discovery disclosure provisions of the new Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Also by Administrative Order dated December 28, 1994, Chief Judge 

Russell appointed 4 new members to the Civil Justice Advisory Group to fill the positions 

of members whose terms had expired. 

A Criminal Justice Act Committee was appointed by the Court in late 1994, Chaired 

by Judge Tim Leonard at the request of the Judicial Conference to study cost containment 

measures in the criminal justice system. 

14 
CONCLUSION 

The court's way of doing business under the Plan in 1994 did not differ much from 

1993 and 1992 or for several years before the Plan. This court basically codified as our Plan 

the case-management and ADR procedures we were already doing plus added a courtannexed early mediation program and the voluntary discovery disclosure concept. The Plan 

continues to have a positive impact. Early and continuous control of the pretrial process 

with status/ scheduling conferences and the filing of status reports for all civil cases is a 

staple of our court management system. The smooth operation of the systematic differential 

treatment of civil cases and standard or special management track assignments still appears 

to work well. However, there are very few cases on the special tract. 

This court has for many years resolved both civil and criminal matters before it 

expeditiously. The court continues to adapt well to changes in its docket and is able to do 

so, in part, because of a very flexible Plan and case management as incorporated in the Plan. 

Excellent communication, cooperation between judges, and the overall management in the 

district are a secret of our success. It continues to appear that our Civil Justice Expense and 

Delay Reduction Plan promotes economy and efficiency and that satisfies the purpose of the 

Act. 

15 
ENDNOTES 

1. The Judicial Conference selected the Western District of Oklahoma as a pilot district for purposes of the 

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. See the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, § 105 of Pub.L. 101-650, as 

amended Pub.L. 103-420, § 4, Oct. 25, 1994, for a description of program requirements for Pilot Programs. 

N.B. In accordance with the above cited Act and amendments, after 1995, Pilot Courts do not appear to be 

required to keep the statutory requirements of their Plans in effect. 

2. Except the portions on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Consent to Civil Trials with Magistrate Judges, 

and some of the civil and criminal trial data, which is prepared by the court and is based on the calendar year, 

the statistical data used throughout this report was derived from the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 Federal 

Court Management Statistics, prepared annually by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Guidelines 

to Advisory Group Appointed Under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, February 1991, the SY 91 

Statistics Supplement, October 1991, the SY 92 Statistics Supplement, September 1992, the SY 93 Statistics 

Supplement, September 1993, and the SY 94 Statistics Supplement, October 1994 prepared by the 

Administrative Office of the Courts and the Federal Judicial Center. Also used were actual statistics from the 

Statistics Division of the Federal Judicial Center. These are some of the same resources utilized and given the 

Advisory Group for preparation for the Advisory Group Report in the Fall of 1991. Please recall that the 

assessment of the court's criminal and civil dockets used in the AdviSOry Group Report was based primarily 

on statistics from SY 1990. 

N.B. "SY" indicates statistical year. The SY year end date is June 30 for the data used for 1990 and 1991 

and September 30 for 1992, 1993 and 1994. The Judicial Conference approved the new statistical reporting 

period to coincide with the federal fiscal year. 

3. According to the Federal Judicial Center Research/Statistics Division, the definition of "trial" for statistical 

purposes as used by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Federal Judicial Center is broader than 

merely jury or non-jury trials and includes in-court proceedings completed with a court decision. For civil 

cases, hearings on preliminary injunctions and TRO's and a category entitled "all other" are included. For 

criminal trials the same is true and "all other" would include hearings that were completed by a court decision 

such as hearings on motions to suppress. Contested sentencing hearings are also considered trials for statistical 

purposes. The JS-lO Form itself that the court's statistical clerk furnishes the Administrative Office from much 

of this data is derived, includes these as "types of trial." 

16