1995 ANNUAL REPORT 

OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

CONCERNING ITS CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM PLAN 

Prepared for the Court 

by 

Members of the CJRA Advisory Group 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

John H. Tucker, Esquire 

Chairperson 

Professor Martin A. Frey 

Reporter 

May 2,1995 
CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION . • • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

v. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

Systematic Differential Treatment of Civil Cases. 

Case Management Plan . • • • • 

Early JUdicial Case Management 

Dispositive Motions 

Trial Procedures 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Need to Increase Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Technology 

Educational Mission 

Reforming Local Rules • 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

XI. contingent Fee Reform • 

ADR Brochure . . • . . . . • . 

1 

3 

4 

4 

6 

7 

9 

11 

11 

12 

13 

13 

14 
INTRODUCTION 

On April 1, 1990, Chief Judge H. Dale Cook of the United states 

District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma appointed an 

Advisory Group pursuant to the civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. 

On December 31, 1991, Judge Cook took senior status and on 

January 1, 1992, James o. Ellison became Chief Judge. On 

December 11, 1992, the Advisory Group submitted its Report to Chief 

Judge James o. Ellison and the Court. On November 30, 1993, Chief 

Judge Ellison and District Judge Thomas R. Brett approved and 

adopted a "Cost and Delay Reduction Plan for the united states 

District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma." 

On June 10, 1994, District Judge Kern and District Judge Burrage 

assumed positions on the Court. Judge Burrage's official duty 

station is the Eastern District of Oklahoma although he is 

designated .5 for the Northern District. The appointment of Judges 

Kern and Burrage increased the actual number of judges for the 

Northern District to 3.5 (plus one senior judge). with the 

appointment of Judge Burrage, the number of authorized judgeships 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma changed from 3.67 to 3.5. 

On November 7, 1994, Chief Judge Ellison took senior status and 

Judge Brett became Chief Judge on November 8. This change reduced 

the actual number of judges for the Northern District to 2.5 (plus 

two senior judges). The current vacancy will be filled on March 8, 

1995, when Sven Holmes joins the Court. 

On February 28, 1995, the Court's Cost and Delay Reduction Plan 

will be fifteen months old and the original Advisory Group will 

complete its term of appointment. As a conclusion of its work, the 

original Advisory Group submits this Report. This Report reviews 

the implementation of the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan for the 

united states District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. 

The new Advisory Group will study the impact of the Plan on cost 

and delay reduction for the District. 

since the Court adopted its Plan on November 30, 1993, a number of 

significant events have taken place that will reduce the cost and 

delay of litigation within this District. Some of these events are 

as follows: 

o The number of pending civil cases has remained in the 1100 to 

1200 range although the number of pending civil cases has 

steadily decreased since July 1, 1994, when the number of 

pending civil cases reached its high of 1220 

o The additional Article III judge, authorized for the Northern 

District of Oklahoma by the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990, has 

been filled 

1 
o The vacancy created when Chief Judge Cook took senior status 

has been filled 

o For six months in calendar year 1994 (June 10, 1994 

November 7, 1994), the Court has operated with no vacancies 

o The vacancy created when Chief Judge Ellison took senior 

status will be filled on March 8, 1995, and the Court will 

then operate with no vacancies 

o with the new judges and the Senior Judges taking cases (25% or 

more of a district judge's caseload), the number of pending 

cases per judgeship has been significantly reduced 

o A number of cases have been assigned to the Magistrate Judges 

with the consent of the parties (principally social security 

cases) 

o A third united states Magistrate Judge position has been 

allocated to the District and should be filled early this 

spring 

o Article III judges have increased their early involvement in ir 

the management of new cases 

o A joint case management plan, which includes a discovery plan, }-

a settlement plan, an es' tion of Ii' tion costs, a 

disclosure of anticipated disposltive motions, and a 

recitation of stipulations, is now required for the early case 

management conference 

o 

o 

Friday has become a non-trial day so the frequency of inter- r 

ruptions of matters in trial has been reduced and the Court 

has block time to devote to disposing of dispositive motions 

The backlog of dispositive motions and pro se matters has been 

reduced 

o A full functioning PACER (Public Access to Computerized 

Electronic Records) system has been installed thus allowing 

attorneys with PC capability to dial into the court's docketing system and extract data 

o An ICMS (Integrated Case Management System) has been installed 

allowing both civil and criminal docketing to be automated 

o New Local Rules have been adopted by the Court to implement 

the Plan 

The following Report will detail these and other changes within the 

Northern District of Oklahoma 

2 
I. systematic Differential Treatment of civil Cases 

A. Case Management Tracks 

The Court has established five tracks for all civil 

cases: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Prisoner Litigation 

Social Security Appeals 

Bankruptcy Appeals 

Standard Management 

special Management 

B. Assignment of Tracks 

Cases falling with the Prisoner Litigation, Social 

Securi ty Appeal, or Bankruptcy Appeal tracks are now 

assigned to the appropriate track by the Court based on 

the initial pleading. All other cases are assigned to 

ei ther the Standard Management track or the Special 

Management track by the Court at the Case Management 

Conference. The Standard Management and Special 

Management tracks are reflected on the Case Management 

Forms which were developed by the Court as a part of its 

Cost and Delay Reduction Plan. 

C. Management Procedures 

1. Prisoner Litigation. Most habeas corpus petitions 

and prisoner civil rights cases are routinely 

screened by the pro se law clerk upon filing. Case 

management conferences are not being conducted in 

prisoner cases unless ordered by the Court. The 

overflow from the pro se law clerk is being handled 

directly by the Magistrate Judge's Office without 

the pro se law clerk. 

The Magistrate Judges enter such orders as are 

necessary for the efficient management of the case. 

Some orders are issued directly by the District 

Court Judges rather than by the Magistrate Judges. 

2. Social Securi ty Appeals. All social securi ty 

appeals go through the Magistrate Judges' office. 

Upon filing, the social security appeals are 

routinely assigned between the two Magistrate 

Judges. To reduce the existing backlog, seventy 

cases were taken from the Magistrate Judges and 

processed directly through the District Court 

Judges' offices. Many consents have been approved 

authorizing the Magistrate Judge to decide the 

social security appeal with direct appeal to the 

Court of Appeals. 

3 
3. Bankruptcy Appeals. The Magistrate Judges have 

been conducting bankruptcy appeals hearings on an 

advisory basis with the District Court making final 

adjudication. 

4. Standard Management. Cases assigned to the 

Standard Management Track are managed in accordance 

with the standard practice and procedures of the 

Court. 

5. special Management. If the Court determines that a 

case is appropriate for special management, the 

Court has followed the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.p. 

16 and the Local Rules, unless the Court has 

6therwise ordered. Counsel has an opportunity to 

indicate on the Case Management Plan form that the 

case is one requiring additional, specialized case 

management. 

Currently, several cases, 

(environmental cleanup) cases, 

management track. 

II. Case Management Plan 

including CERCLA 

are on the special 

To implement its Plan, the Court developed a Case Management ~ Plan form. Under new Local Rule 16.1, this form must be 

jointly completed by the parties prior to the case management 

conference. 

III. Early Judicial Case Management 

A. Case Management Conference 

Case management conferences have now been completely 

switched from the Magistrate Judges' offices to the 

District Judges' offices. The Magistrate Judges only do 

case management conferences in consent cases or 

occasionally when a District Judge gets committed in a 

lengthy trial. 

B. Intensive Management of Discovery Disputes 

1. Effort by Parties to Resolve Discovery Disputes. 

Local Rule 37.1 now requires a good faith personal 

conference between opposing counsel as a condition 

precedent to filing a discovery motion. 

2. Approval of Extensions of Time. The Court has 

continued its cost saving practice of permitting 

counsel, rather than the client, to request 

extensions of time. 

4 
3. Voluntary Disclosure and cooperative Discovery. 

The Court has continued its practice of encouraging 

voluntary disclosure and cooperative discovery. 

Local Rules 16.1(C) (6), 26.1(E). In addition, the 

Local Rules do require disclosure of insurance 

agreements. Local Rule 26.2. The Court, however, 

opted out of the other mandatory disclosure 

portions of the new Fed.R.Civ.p. 26. (Local Rule 

26.1.E, Local Rule 26.3.A). Its absence has not 

been noticed. 

4. Adjunct Discovery Judges. The Court has success- iL 

fully used adjunct discovery judges in several r 

cases. The Court anticipates the use of adjunct 

discovery judges to increase. 

The Court has developed a procedure whereby the 

case is assigned to an adjunct discovery judge. 

The task is defined. The adjunct discovery judge 

submits a report to a Magistrate Judge. The 

Magistrate Judge submits the report to the parties 

with a request to identify reversible error. On 

occasion a party will identify possible reversible 

error. The Magistrate Judge will evaluate the 

adjunct discovery judge's report along with the 

parties' comments as to reversible error. The 

Magistrate Judge will then adopt the report, with 

modifications, as the discovery . order which is 

appealable to the district court 

s. Abatement of General Discovery During the Pendency 

of Dispositive Motions. The Court has done some 

abatement of general discovery during the pendency 

of dispositive motions as a major cost saving 

measure. The Court has been much more amenable to 

abatement since the Plan has been adopted. 

6. Emergency Telephone Conferences. The Magistrate 

Judges have continued the pre-Plan policy making 

themselves available for emergency telephone 

discovery conferences. The Court readopted this 

procedure in Revised Local Rule 37.2(B). 

7. Mandatory Disclosure. In light of the uncertainty 

surrounding the parameters of proposed Rule 26 of 

the Federal Rules of civil Procedure disclosure, 

the intense local opposition to mandatory 

disclosure not directed or supervised by the court, 

and the resultant likelihood of disclosure-related 

ancillary litigation, the Court has continued its 

cautious approach. The Court continues to carefully 

5 
circumscribe the use of pretrial disclosure to 

those areas historically required by the Court. 

The one addition has been in the area of charts 

disclosure. 

The Court has adopted Rule 26(a) (2) of the Federal 

Rules of civil Procedure with regard to the 

disclosure of expert witnesses and reports. This 

has been incorporated in the Court's Case Management Format and Scheduling Order which requires 

expert witness disclosure. Rule 26 (a) (2), Local 

Rule 16.1.H.10 and Local Rule 26.2). 

8. Discovery Limitations and Advisories. In order to 

reduce cost and delay in connection with discovery, 

the Court has incorporated limitations and advisories into its revised local rules. 

o Revised Local Rule 26.1(0) provides that all 

discovery requests be served in sufficient 

time to allow a response prior to the 

discovery cut-off date. 

o Revised Local Rule 30.1 permits video depositions without a prior application; sets a 

presumptive time limit per deposition of six 

hours; requires an enforceable agreement of 

counsel to take depositions outside the 

regular business hours; and presumptively 

restricts the number of depositions to be 

taken by each side to ten. 

o Revised Local Rule 33.1 presumptively limits 

the number of interrogatories to 25 per party 

and defines subparts as separate interrogatories. 

o Revised Local Rule 37.2 makes a general 

referral of all discovery motions to the 

assigned Magistrate Judge and states that all 

discovery orders of a Magistrate Judge will 

remain effective until modified or reversed by 

a district judge, using an abuse of discretion 

standard of review. 

IV. Dispositive Motions 

A. Quicker Decisions 

The Court believes that rulings are being made more 

quickly on dispositive motions. The Court adopted new 

local rules when the Plan was adopted in 1993. A year 

6 
later, the Court modif ied the Local Rules to permit 

partial consent so a Magistrate Judge could rule just on 

dispositive motions. See Revised Local Rule 16.1(F) (7) 

(effective January 1, 1995). Such appeals from the 

Magistrate Judge's ruling can be taken directly to the 

Circuit Court. The Court has modified its consent form 

so it now has a consent form and a partial consent form. 

B. Dilatory Motions Disapproved 

The Court has continued its firm stance against dilatory 

motions. 

C. Fewer Expanded Orders 

The Court has not limited written expanded explanatory 

orders. 

D. Full Use of Magistrate Judges 

The Court has continued its policy of fully using 

Magistrate Judges in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 

636(1) (B) and (C). The only significant change is that 

the Magistrate Judges are usually not being used for case 

management unless the parties have consented to trial 

before a Magistrate Judge. 

v. Trial Procedures 

A. Magistrate Judge Consent Cases Encouraged 

The number of consent cases has increased since the 

Court's adoption of its Plan. With regard to Social 

security Appeals, the majority consent to trial before a 

Magistrate Judge. 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

4.4 

92.8 

Average Number of Cases Pending 

Before the Magistrate Judges 

(FY - fiscal year begins on October 1 

and ends on September 30) 

B. Limiting the Number of witnesses and the Time for 

Testifying 

Some judges are limiting the number of expert witnesses, 

the number of fact witnesses and the time given to 

testify at trial. Generally, there is more of a willingness to impose reasonable limitations now that the Court 

7 
has adopted its Plan. 

C. presenting Direct Testimony by Narrative 

The Court is permitting some witnesses, in addition to 

medical experts, to present their evidence on direct 

examination through a narrative format or through a 

partial narrative format. The proposed narrative must 

first be provided in written form to opposing counsel so 

counsel has a fair opportunity to present objections. 

This format was proposed regarding experts in asbestos 

cases in the Northern District and has been used from 

time to time on a case by case basis. 

D. Presenting Testimony by Deposition 

The Court is permitting some witnesses, in addition to 

medical experts, to present their evidence through 

deposition, even though that witness may be subject to 

subpoena. If the deposition was by audible video, the 

Court no longer requires a transcript to accompany the 

video. 

E. Exhibits 

since the Court adopted its Plan, exhibit conferences and 

preadmission of exhibits and demonstrative aids are used 

more frequently. Almost all the Judges now will admit 

exhibits en masse at the beginning of trial. 

F. Jury Selection 

1. Pre-Service screening Questionnaire. The Court has 

not increased its use of questionnaires. The Court 

has concluded that the present juror screening 

questionnaire was adequate in most cases. 

2. Voir Dire. Two district judges and two Magistrate 

Judges are permitting limited attorney voir dire. 

3. Consecutive Jury selection. Consecutive jury 

selection is' often done on the Court's trailing 

docket. 

G. Notetaking by Jury 

Judges permit jurors to take notes. The litigants have 

not objected to the practice. However, jurors are 

reminded the court reporter's record is the official 

record in case of a conflict with the juror notes. 

8 
H. Four-Day Trial Week 

The Court has scheduled jury trials for four days a week, 

rather than five. By leaving Fridays free from jury 

trials, civil matters requiring the Court's attention and 

criminal hearings can be scheduled on that day. This 

practice has somewhat reduced the interruptions during 

the trial of civil cases. 

I. court-Appointed Experts 

The use of court-appointed experts has been sparse. The 

theory may be better than the practice. The Court has 

some difficulty finding truly independent experts. The 

Court has found that in addition to the court-appointed 

expert, each side wants its own expert. Therefore, the 

costs may increase rather than decrease. Usually, one 

party does not want the expert to be identified to the 

jury as the court-appointed expert. 

VI. Alternative Dispute Resolution 

A. Permanent Case Management and ADR Advisory Committee 

The Court is in the process of constituting its permanent 

Case Management and ADR Advisory Committee. The Court 

anticipates completion of the appointment process by the 

end of February 1995. The Committee will assist the 

Court in studying and implementing civil Justice Reform 

measures generally, including new ADR initiatives. See 

Revised Local Rule 16.3(K). 

B. Existing ADR Programs in the Northern District 

1. Pre-trial Settlement Conference 

a. Early Conferences Encouraged. The judges are 

currently qrdering almost all cases that go 

through their case management conferences to 

pre-trial settlement conference. 

b. ADR Brochure. The Court, with the assistance 

of the Center on D~spute Resolution of The 

University of Tulsa College of Law, has 

developed an ADR brochure for the Northern 

District. The court clerk is distributing the 

brochure to counsel to be provided to and 

discussed with clients. For a copy of the 

brochure, see pp. 14-15. 

c. Assessment 

contemplates 

9 

Questionnaire. 

developing an 

The Court 

assessment 
questionnaire to be completed by both the 

attorneys and the litigants who participated 

in the settlement conference. This project 

will be assigned to the Case Management and 

ADR Advisory Committee. 

d. Development of Additional Resources. The Case 

Management and ADR Advisory Committee will be 

assigned the development of a mechanism to 

make a settlement conference available at any 

time before trial if, in the view of the 

parties, it would be beneficial to a potential 

settlement of the case. 

2. Adjunct settlement Judqe Proqram 

a. Proqram Made Permanent. As part of its Plan, 

the Court recognized the Adjunct Settlement 

Judge (ASJ) Program as a permanent program. 

An additional ASJ training program is being 

developed for May 1995. It is anticipated 

that in addition to training ten new adjunct 

settlement judges, the program will be open to 

the new district court and magistrate judges 

in this district as well as several from other 

districts who have expressed an interest. 

Revised teaching materials are being developed 

and th~ training program may include a 

settlement day where the new ASJs will conduct 

settlement conferences under the supervision 

of an experienced magistrate judge or ASJ. 

b. Institutionalization. The Court has not moved 

toward institutionalizing the ASJ Program as 

of this time. 

c. special project Assiqnments. Although most of 

the ASJ settlement conferences have been on a 

pro bono basis, several ASJs have been 

assigned to special projects on a paid basis. 

d. Liberal Disqualification policy. The Court 

has continued its liberal disqualification 

policy of ASJs in order to preserve the actual 

and perceived integrity of the ASJ Program. 

e. PACER Access. The Court has encountered 

bureaucratic obstacles that have made it 

impossible to provide ASJs with cost-free 

access to PACER (Public Access to Computerized 

Electronic Records) in connection with cases 

10 
assigned to them for settlement purposes. The 

Court is continuing its efforts with the 

Federal Judicial Conference. 

3. other Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution. 

The Court has continued to experiment with other 

alternative methods of dispute resolution, 

including summary jury trial, minitrial, and 

executive summary jury trial. The Court will 

continue to emphasize the availability of these 

processes. 

C. Court-Annexed Arbitration 

The Court has developed a dialogue with the western ~ 4# 

District of Oklahoma so some Northern District of 

Oklahoma cases might gain access to its court-annexed 

arbitration program. Some western District cases have 

gained access to the ASJ Program of the Northern 

District. The Northern District does not anticipate 

initiating a court-annexed arbitration program. 

D. Early Neutral Evaluation 

The Court continues to provide ENE where appropriate in 11 

the early settlement conferences conducted by Magistrate 

Judges and ASJs. The settlement conference includes both 

facilitative and evaluative mediation techniques. The 

Court does not anticipate instituting a separate ENE 

program. 

E. ADR Ethical Standards 

The Court has not formalized ADR Ethical Standards. 

Ethical considerations have, however, been incorporated 

into the ASJ training programs. The Case Management and r 

ADR Advisory Committee may be asked to develop a formal 

set of written guidelines to institutionalize the ethical 

standards and principles that now govern the Court's 

settlement conference and other ADR procedures. 

VII. Need to Increase Personnel 

A. Magistrate Judges 

This spring, the number of Magistrate Judges will 

increase from two to three. The third Magistrate Judge 

has been nominated and , his nomination is proceeding 

through the FBI and IRS clearance checks. 

11 
VIII. 

B. court Clerk Personnel 

The ASJ Program continues to be administrated through 

Magistrate Judge John Leo Wagner's office. The Court 

Clerk's office has not received an increase in personnel 

for this position. 

Technology 

The Court has been successful in obtaining funding to 

pursue hardware and software applications to assist the 

management and processing of lawsuits. wi thin the Court, 

ICMS (Integrated Case Management System) has been 

installed allowing both civil and criminal docketing to 

be automated. The Court no longer uses paper dockets. 

Management reports now automated include a monthly Motion 

Pending Report by chambers. Although the regular cycle 

is monthly, this report is often generated on an as 

needed basis. All chambers have been computer networked 

along with the courtrooms and Clerk's office. Some 

advantages are docket entries are immediately available 

to chambers, inquiries and calendaring may be performed 

in the courtroom by courtroom deputies, and staff drafts 

of orders are readily available to judicial officers for 

revision. 

A full functioning PACER (Public Access to Computerized 

Electronic Records) system has been installed. This 

system allows attorneys with PC capability to dial into 

the Court's docketing system and extract data. Frequent 

users of the dial-in feature are the United states 

Probation and united states Attorney's offices. 

The staff in the Clerk's office are able to receive 

computer based training using CD ROM technology. They 

also have access to the Administrative Office's 

nationwide bulletin board system. 

In the near future, the Federal Rules of civil and 

Criminal Procedure, the Local Rules, jury instructions 

and several other reasonably static data bases will be 

loaded into a centralized computer which can be accessed 

through the network system. This will release memory in 

the PCs in chambers, thus increasing response time. 

In March the Court is scheduled to have the DCN (District 

Court Network) system installed. This will replace the 

current network system and provide a link with the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals and the Administrative Office in 

Washington. 

12 
IX. Educational Mission 

A. Continuinq Leqal Education 

The Court continues to work with the Oklahoma Bar 

Association in presenting an annual CLE program regarding 

practice in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The last 

program was held in December 1994 and another is 

scheduled for December 1995.' 

B. Judicial Internships 

The Court continues to use Judicial Interns from The 

University of Tulsa College of Law. This program gives 

law students an opportunity to see the court in action. 

X. Reforminq Local Rules 

A. New Local Rules 

The Court adopted new Local Rules which were consistent 

with its Cost and Delay Reduction Plan (November 30, 

1993). These rules were subsequently revised and became 

effective January 1, 1995. 

B. uniform Rules Amonq the Oklahoma Districts 

The dialogue concerning uniform rules among the three 

Oklahoma District Courts continues. Although the 

prognosis is not too promising, work continues to 

encourage uniformity and cooperation wherever possible. 

XI. continqent Fee Reform 

The Court has considered involvement in controlling or setting 

contingent fees, and the concept has been rejected. The topic 

will be presented to the Case Management and ADR Advisory 

Committee for its further consideration. 

13 
I 

AL TERNATIVE 

METHODS 

OF DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION 

(ADR) 

in the 

UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

NORTHERN 

DISTRICT 

OF OKLAHOMA 

UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

NORTHERN DISTRICT 

OF OKLAHOMA 

Party's Request for ADR 

Case Name: v. 

Case Numbtr. ________ _ 

I wish to participate"in the following ADR 

procedure (check one): 

o Settlement Conference conducted by an 

Adjunct Settlement Judge 

o Settlement Conference conducted by a 

Magistrate Judge 

o Mini-Trial 

o Summary Jury Trial 

Signature ___________ ....,..._ 

Name (Please type or print) 

I am a (please check one): 

o Plaintiff 

o Defendant 

o Other 

Mail to: 

Richard M. Lawrence, Clerk 

U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma 

411 U.S. Courthouse 

333 West Fourth Street 

Tulsa. OK 74103 

14 

ALTERNATIVE METHODS 

OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

(ADR) 

in the 

UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

NORTHERN DISTRICT 

OF OKLAHOMA 

Historically. more than 90 percent of civil 

cases settle before trial. Therefore. it makes 

sense to explore settlement early in a case. 

before substantial costs and expenses are 

incurred. 

To obtain earlier. more satisf.acrory results. the 

coon has made the following methods of alternatM: dispute resolution available. You are 

encounged to seriously consider using these 

alternativc procedures. " 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

The settlement conference is thc most commonly used. and most successful ADR procedure offered by the court. A scrdement conference is a coon-sponsored mediation conducted 

by an officer of the court. Settlement conferences generally should be scheduled early in 

the case, but you may request one at any lime 

before ttial. 

The scrdemcnt conference is usually hosted by 

an adjunct settlement judge (ASJ). An ASJ is a 

lawyer who has been specially selected and 

trained by the court to conduct scrtlement 

conferences. Each ASJ has one or more areas 

of special legal expenisl: and is assignl:d only 10 

cases involving those areas of expertise. 

The court encourages settlement conferences 

hosted by adjunct settlement judges bcc.:ause the 

magistrate judges and district COUrt judges have 

very limited availability for settlement conferences. The court. however. never requires parties 

to appear before an AS} against their will. In the 

rare instance where a settlement conference is 

requested" and universal consent to proceed 

before an ASJ is not freely given, the conference 

will be set before a disinterested judicial officer 

of the coun when one becomes available. 

When all parties do consent to the use of an 

AS}, the court carefully selects a highly qualified 

ASJ to conduct thc settlement conference, and 

the conference is scheduled as conveniently as 

possible for the parties. 

Ordinarily. there is no charge for the services of 

an AS}. A modest hourly charge, however. may 

be imposed in exceprionally complex cases that 

require muhiple conferences. When appropriate. 

these charges are equitably apportioned among 

the panies. 

A settlement conference provides significant 

advantages over trial. 

• It is a relatively inexpensive, nonbinding 

process that often results in the immediate 

resolution of the dispute. 

• If a settlement can be reached, the parties 

will save discovery, litigation, and appeal 

COSts. 

• It is private and noncocrcive, and proceeds 

under the protection of a strict confidentiality 

order imposed by the court. 
• It is inrormal and unstructured with each litigant having an opponunity to discuss his or 

her case in private with the scltlement judge. 

an independent third pany. 

• Ie allows me litigants to control me outcome 

or their dispute. and encourages creative 

resolutions that arc not available through trial. 

• It is mon: cooperative and less confrontational 

than a trial. 

• It eliminates the uncenainties that arc inherent 

in a trial. 

• If settlement is not reached. the settlement 

judge will not panicipate in the uiaI track of 

me case. 

MINI·TRIAL 

The mini-trial is a nonbinding process mat is 

often useful in n:solving disputes bctwmI corporate panics. In a mini-trial. settlement authorized rcpracn.tativcs (usually senior cm:utivcs 

of the respective corporations) join a judge to 

form a three-person panel. The pand hears a 

summary presentation of the case by chc anornqs. After the presentation. me corporate memben of the panel discuss scnlcmenr. often with 

the judge's assistance. 

A mini-trial also provides scvcraI advantages 

over trial. 

• The ~caring lastS no mon: than one day. 

• The hearing crystallizes the case for all 

participants. 

• The corporate representatives hear both sides 

or the case, often ror the first time. 

• The post-hearing settlement discussions capilaliz.c on the senior executives' negotiating 

skills and the skills or the judge. 

• If scnlemer.t can be reached. the costs or discovery. trial. and appeal can be saved. 

SUMMARY JURY TRIAL 

The summary jury trial is a sophisticated settlement mechanism involving a summary pn:-

scntation by attorneys to a judge and jury. 

The p~un: is Oexible and tailored to the 

panicular requirements of each case. Although 

the summary jury trial may be suuctured so 

no witnesses an: used. when the aedibiliry of 

witnesses becomes imponant. a limited number of wimes:scs an: permined to testify. 

A regular jury is selected to hear the c:asc. At 

the conclusion of me evidentiary presentation. 

the jury is given a limited amount of time to 

deliberate. and sctdcmcnt discussions an: commenced. The litigants and their lawym an: 

permined to talk at length with me jurors after 

the verdier is retUmed. The ycrdier and comments of me juron an: then considered as the 

settlement negotiations proceed. 

In an executive summary jury trial. senior 

executives from the litigating corporations are 

asked to sit on the bench with ,he judge during the abbreviated jury trial. 

The preparation and presentation of a summary jury trial requires subsrantial efron. and 

they are not routindy used. In an appropriately selected case. however. a summary jury trial 

ofrers distinct advanr::agcs over trial. 

• A summary jury trial is normally condUCted 

in one day. 

15 

• The attorneys present the evidence in 

summary rash ion. and ,he rules of evidence 

and procedure arc: relaxed. 

• The jury verdier is nonbinding unless 

the parties agree that it shall be binding. 

• tf the jury verdict is nonbinding. the verdict 

provides the partics with insight into the 

probable outcome of the case. 

• tf me parties agree that the jury verdict shalJ 

be binding, no further trial is nC'CCSAry. 

The parties can stipulate to high and low 

parameters on the outcome. and thus control 

meir respective trial risks, as well as 

their costs. 

HOW DO I ASK FOR 

COURT·SPONSORED ADR? 

A litigant can ask for coun-sponsored ADR at 

any time by filling aut the arrached fonn and 

mailing it to the Coun Clerk. 

NON-COURT·SPONSORED ADR 

Non-coun-sponsored alternative mcchods of 

dispute resolution an: also available in our 

communiry. usually at nominal charge. Due to 

scheduling. liming. or other considCl2tions, the 

usc of these services may be preferable in your 

case. These private methods include mediation. 

arbitration. and private trials. Your anomcy 

can provide you with additional information 

conceming private ADR providers. 

This ADR pamphlet 

has been created by the 

United States District Coun 

for the 

Nonhern District of Oklahoma 

with the assistance of the 

Center on Dispute Resolution 

The University of Tulsa 

College of uw