1993 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT UNDER THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT 

OF THE STATE OF THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL DOCKETS AND OF 

THE CJRA EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLAN 

OF THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

Prepared for the Court by: 

Members of the CJRA Advisory Group 

for the District of Kansas 

Roger Stanton, Esquire 

Mikel Stout, Esquire 

Co-Chairmen 

Professor Kim Dayton 

Ralph DeLoach, Clerk of the Court 

Co-Reporters 

October 18, 1994 
1 

I. Introduction 

On December 16, 1991, the federal district and magistrate judges of the District of Kansas 

adopted a Civil Justice Reform Act Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, pursuant to the provisions 

of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990,28 U.S.C. §§ 471-82 ('ICIRA"). The Plan was based on 

the findings and recommendations of the Courtls CJRA Advisory Group, which were set forth and 

explained in Report and Recommendations of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group 

for the District of Kansas (October 25,1991) [hereinafter CJRA Report]. The Plan 

envisioned immediate implementation of some aspects of the Plan, and gradual implementation of 

other aspects. The District of Kansas has been certified by the Judicial Conference as an "early 

implementation district" pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 471. 

Section 475 of the Civil Justice Reform Act requires each district court which has adopted 

a CIRA Plan to 

"assess annually the condition of the civil and criminal dockets with a view to 

determining appropriate additional actions that may be taken by the court to 

reduce cost and delay in civil litigation and to improve the litigation management 

practices of the court. In performing such assessment, the court shall consult [with 

the advisory group]." 

In accordance with this requirement, the Honorable Patrick Kelly, Chief Judge of the District of 

Kansas, has requested the Courtls CJRA Advisory Group to prepare an assessment of the 

condition of the courtls civil and criminal dockets, and, where practicable, to report on whether 

the Plan adopted on December 3 1, 1991 has made progress towards achieving its intended goals. 1 

1 The Advisory Groupls 1·992 Annual Assessment, filed with the Court in July 1993, is 

available from the Clerk's office. 
2 

On January 27-28, 1994, the Advisory Group met with the judges and magistrate judges 

of the Court and with the Court's Local Rules Committee to discuss, inter alia, whether and to 

what extent the Advisory Group should recommend changes to the Court's CJRA Plan in view of 

the Court's experience after two years under the Plan. The Advisory Group also participated in 

discussions concerning how the Court should approach the 1993 amendments to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, some of which contain a local option opt-out provision, 2 in light of its 

adoption in 1991 of a comprehensive CJRA Plan. It was agreed at the January meetings that the 

1993 annual assessment should include a discussion of the Court's approach to the 1993 rules 

amendments. 

This report constitutes the section 475 annual assessment for the District of Kansas for the 

federal fiscal year 1993. The assessment is based on (1) review and analysis of1993 Federal 

Court Management Statistics (Administrative Office 1994) and of the District of Kansas's 

own internal case management statistics provided to the Advisory Group by the Clerk's Office, (2) 

several documents prepared by the Clerk's Office for use by the Advisory Group at its January 

1994 meeting which encompass a variety of case management information specific to the District 

of Kansas, (3) internal information related to pending motions and related matters which is 

compiled monthly by the Clerk's Office; (4) information on pending motions and cases in the 

District of Kansas reported by the Administrative Office in Civil Justice Reform Act Report of 

2 The wording of the opt-out provisions in the 1993 amendments is such that the amendments 

automatically took effect in a district court unless that court specifically opts out. The District of 

Kansas took no action regarding the amendments until January, when, as will be discussed below, 

the Court elected to opt-in to most aspects of the 1993 amendments. Thus, from December 1, 

1993 until the Court's Standing Order 94-1 (pertaining to the 1993 amendments) became 

effective, the Court was operating under the 1993 amendments as promulgated by the Supreme 

Court. 
3 

Motions Pending Over Six Months, Bench Trials Submitted Over Six Months, Civil Cases 

Pending Over Three Years on September 30, 1993 (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 476; (5) a working paper prepared for the Advisory Group by CoReporter Professor Kim Dayton entitled Summary of the Federal Judicial Center's Analyses 

of Case Management Statistics for the District of Kansas, 1990-93 (January 13, 1994); and 

(6) the Advisory Group's discussions at its meeting January 1994 of the need for additions or 

changes to the Plan. 3 

Part IT of this report discusses those changes in the Court's pre-trial procedures which 

were adopted pursuant to the 1993 amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

which have the potential to impact the Court's CJRA Plan. Part III contains an assessment of the 

state of the civil and criminal dockets of the District of Kansas as of September 30, 1993,4 and 

trends in this District's case management statistics compared to national trends. Part IV discusses 

the extent to which the Court has met certain case management goals articulated in the Plan in 

1991. Finally, Part V discusses briefly those matters which are the subject of on-going study by 

Advisory Group subcommittees, and also contains the Advisory Group's recommendation that the 

Plan remain intact, except as it is implicitly affected by the 1993 rules amendments, at least until 

3 Copies of all documents, memoranda, and other materials to which this assessment cites or 

upon which it relies are on file with the Co-Reporters. 

4 In 1992, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts changed the 12-month period 

for reporting case management statistics from the "statistical year" (July 1 to June 30) to the 

federal government's fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). Except as noted, all references in 

this report and assessment to years 1987-92 are references to the federal fiscal year. 

It should also be noted that, with respect to some case and motions dispositions statistics 

discussed in this assessment, the Advisory Group evaluated statistics covering periods other than 

the federal fiscal year. See, e.g., Part III, infra (discussing case and motions dispositions for 

calendar year 1993). 
4 

federal case management statistics for FY 1994 become available for the Group's review and 

assessment. 

II. Effect of the 1993 Amendments to the Federal Rules 

on the Court's CJRA Plan 

On December 1, 1993, sweeping amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

took effect. The amendments were extensive and affected many areas of pre-trial procedure, 

particularly discovery. By their very nature, the amendments had the potential to overlap with 

and in some instances disrupt the mechanics of the CJRA Plans adopted in particular district 

courts. Some of the more controversial provisions of the 1993 amendments contained language 

allowing individual district courts to "opt-out" of the amendments through a standing order or 

local rule. S 

At the January 1994 meetings with the Court, the CJRA Advisory Group for the District 

of Kansas and the Court's Local Rules Committee engaged in extensive discussions of the merits 

of and potential drawbacks to the 1993 amendments. Advisory Group members heard from the 

Court about how the amendments could be expected to operate if they remained in effect in the 

Court. Federal District Judge John Lungstrum detailed the changes effected by the Rules 

amendments. Magistrate Judge Ron Newman, who had been utilizing many of the procedures 

articulated in the 1993 amendments since November 1, 1993, described the experiences of 

litigants operating under the procedures and indicated areas of potential conflict between the 

Court's local rules and the newly amended Federal Rules. Martin Bauer, an attorney and member 

S For a complete discussion of the changes wrought by the 1993 amendments to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, see, e.g., Nick Badgerow, A Practical Approach to Using the New 

Federal Rules, Journal of the Kansas Bar Association, April 1994, at 26. 
5 

of the Advisory Group, provided a practitioner's view of the amendments' potential impact. 

Ultimately, the CJRA Advisory Group and the Local Rules Committee agreed that the Court 

should, at least temporarily, "opt-in" to most aspects of the 1993 amendments. On January 1994, 

the Court entered D .Kan. Standing Order Number 94-1 [hereinafter Order 94-1], which adopts 

with minor modifications most aspects of the 1993 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedures. A copy of Order 94-1 is attached to this assessment as Appendix A. 

The effect of Order 94-1 is to clarify that the 1993 Rules amendments (as modified by 

Order 94-1) are applicable to all cases pending as of December 1, 1993, and to modify slightly the 

amended rules as applicable in the District of Kansas. The Order as entered provides, inter alia, 

that in the event of conflicts between the amended national rules and local rules of the District of 

Kansas, the federal rules shall prevail; that certain types of cases, including social security appeals, 

pro se prisoner matters, forfeiture proceedings, eminent domain proceedings, and bankruptcy 

appeals, are not subject to amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 16's scheduling require~ents; that discovery 

may commence in certain kinds of cases despite the provisions of the amended federal rules; and 

that the rules amendments shall not apply retroactively to cases files before December 1, 1993 

unless the court specifically so orders. The effect of Order 94-1 (due to its conformity in most 

respects with the 1993 amendments) is to alter in some significant respects the conduct of pretrial litigation in Kansas. 

The extent to which the Court's new procedures under Order 94-1 will require 

modification of the CJRAPlan was, in January 1994, unclear. It was the consensus view of the 

Advisory Group that the new discovery procedures envisioned by the amendments were, at least 

facially, compatible in all respects with the Plan adopted in December 1991. The Group thus 
determined that no major changes were needed in the Plan to accommodate Order 94-1. This 

determination will be evaluated at the close of FY 1994, once the Court has accumulated 

significant experience with the standing order. 

ill. State of the Civil and Criminal Dockets 

Section 475 of the CJRA requires each district court which has adopted a CJRA Plan to 

assess annually the state of its civil and criminal dockets, in much the same way that it was 

required to do prior to adopting a Plan. 6 The time frame spanned by this year's assessment is FY 

1988-93. The Advisory Group evaluates trends over the given time frame with full knowledge 

that 1) the Plan adopted by the District of Kansas had been in place for only nine months at the 

conclusion ofFY 1992, with some components in place for an even shorter time period, and 2) 

the Court's adoption of a number of new pretrial provisions pursuant to the 1993 amendments to 

6 It has been the view of the Advisory Group and this Court that the state of an individual 

district court's dockets cannot be evaluated in isolation, but only relative to those of other 

6 

courts. Thus, in June 1992, in accordance with a requirement of the Plan, the Advisory Group 

identified a total of twelve federal district courts which, by virtue of their caseloads, case 

management histories, and other factors, constitute "peer" courts to the District of Kansas. Three 

categories of peers and twelve total peer courts (four courts per category) were identified: 

"structural peers", that is, district courts whose historic caseloads have been very similar to those 

of the District of Kansas; "administrative peers", that is, those courts whose case management 

statistics, have in the recent past been very similar to this court's; and "absolute peers", that is, the 

district courts which, overall, have historically "looked" the most like the District of Kansas. By 

comparing these peer districts to the District of Kansas over time, the Advisory Group hopes 

eventually to make judgments about the relative success of this Court's CJRA Plan in meeting the 

statutory goals of expense and delay reduction. 

In its Annual Assessment for 1992, tendered to the Court in July 1993, the Advisory 

Group presented an extensive comparison of case management statistics for the District of Kansas 

and its twelve peers. At its meeting in January 1994, the Group determined that such an extensive 

comparison need not be included in the 1993 Assessment, in part because many of the peer courts 

did not adopt CJRA Plans until the end of 1992. The Group believes that another complete 

comparison of the District of Kansas and its peers will be useful only after all peer courts 

have implemented their Plans and have developed experience under them. 
7 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may ultimately confound the Advisory Group's ability to 

assess the impact of the Plan, as distinguished from the Court's new procedures prompted by the 

1993 amendments, on the Court's case management statistics. 

A. State of the Civil Docket' 

During the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, a total of2239 new cases were filed in 

the District of Kansas, of which approximately 1987 were civil cases. This is an increase of 4.0% 

from FY 1992. In FY 1993, 2352 cases were terminated, an increase of3.3% over the prior 

year's terminations. At the close ofFY 1993, 1930 cases were pending before the court, down 

167 cases, or 8.0%, from the close of the previous year. 

Expressed in terms of per judgeship statistics, these figures reflect 331 civil and 42 

criminal felony filings per judgeship, 322 pending cases per judgeship, 388 weighted filings8 per 

judgeship, and 392 terminations per judgeship. Each judge in the district completed an average of 

35 trials in FY 1993, down from 38 in FY 1992. 

7 This assessment does not include any specific discussion of the District's pro se prisoner civil 

docket. The Advisory Group's subcommittee on the pro se docket anticipates that it will produce 

a separate report shortly 011: this aspect of the Court's civil caseload. 

8 Until last year, the Administrative Office calculated each district's weighted caseload 

according to a formula developed in 1979. The weighted filings formula was revised for FY 

1993, and the Administrative Office has recalculated weighted filing rates going back to FY 1988 

using the new formula. The AD's weighted filings formula "weights" civil cases according to their 

presumptive complexity. For additional infonnation on the subject of the AD's weighted filings 

formula, see How the Judicial Conference Assesses the Need for More Judges (GAO, 

January, 1993), at 73-74~ 1993 Federal Court Management Statistics, at 167. 

In the past, some judges and administrators in the District of Kansas have expressed the 

view that 1979 formula did not accurately reflect the realities of processing different categories of 

cases, and that the court's weighted caseload was actually higher than the AD's calculations would 

suggest. When the District of Kansas' weighted caseload for FY 1988-92 was recalculated using 

the new formula, however, its weighted caseload declined. 
8 

The median time from filing to disposition9 of a civil case in the District of Kansas was 9 

months in FY 1993, down one month since 1992. The median time from issue to trial,'o in cases 

going to trial, was 18 months, up one month from the 1992 figure. Only 4.0% ofthe court's civil 

cases were more than three years old, reflecting a decrease from 4.4% in 1992. The Advisory 

Group regards the continued downward trend in the median filing-to-disposition time and the 

reduction in the docket of three-year-old cases as an indication that the Plan as implemented is 

capable of achieving its intended goals. 

B •. Trends in the Civil Docket 

Several figures set out below illustrate the trends in various civil caseload and case 

management statistics for the District of Kansas FY 1988 through FY 1993. 11 Trends are 

describ~d first in terms of all-court statistics, and then in terms of per judgeship statistics. Trends 

in national case management statistics are incorporated in some figures for comparison purposes 

but are not discussed separately. In describing the trends that these figures illustrate, the Advisory 

Group refrains for the most part from attempting to draw any conclusions from or make value 

9 The median time from filing to disposition reflects the time interval in months from the filing 

of the complaint to termination of the case, whether by trial or other disposition, for the middle 

(median) cases. In determining the median time from filing to disposition for civil cases, the 

Administrative Office excludes land condemnation, recovery of overpayments, and enforcement of 

judgments cases, prisoner petitions, and deportation reviews. 1990 Federal Court Management 

Statistics f (Administrative Office 1990). 

10 The median time from issue to trial reflects, for all cases going to trial during the year in 

question, the time interval in months from the filing of an answer or other response to the date 

trial begins for the middle (median) case. 1990 Federal Court Management Statistics f 

(Administrative Office 1990). 

11 Last year's annual assessment included as part of its discussion of current trends information 

concerning trends in the courts twelve peer districts. Trends for peer districts are not 

included in this year's assessment for reasons explained above. 
9 

judgments based on the numerical infonnatiol), because such conclusions and judgments would at 

this point be premature. 

Figure 1 below illustrates the trend in total filings (civil and criminal) for the District of 

Kansas. 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

(Average) 

This figure shows that total filings have largely stabilized for the District of Kansas, with only a 

slight upward trend during the last two years. 

Figure 2 illustrates the trend in total tenninations for FY 1988-93. 
Figure 2 . 

ITotal Tenninations-FY 1988-931 

3000 

------------------------------ 2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

~----~----~-----+----~----~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

--- D.Kan. 

------ National 

(Average) 

10 

It shows that the termination rate in the District of Kansas has essentially stabilized and correlates 

roughly to total filings figures. 

Figure 3 shows the trend in total pending cases at the close of the relevant fiscal year for 

the District of Kansas. 

3000 

Figure 3 

Total Cases Pending at Close of Fiscal Year, 

FY 1988-93 

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

2500 r--------~ 2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

~----~----~-----+------~--~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

(Average) 
It indicates that the pending caseload has been declining in the District of Kansas, thus 

documenting that tenninations continue to exceed filings in this Court. The favorable ratio of 

tllings-to-tenninations in tum contributes to reduced congestion in the District of Kansas since 

adoption of the Plan. 

Figure 4 shows the number of civil cases filed per judgeship for FY 1988-93. 

Figure 4 

Total Cases Filed Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

500 r----_ 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

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

O~----~----~------~-----T----~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

This figure indicates that per judgeship civil filings had been in decline in recent years but have 

increased slightly in each of the last two fiscal years in this Court. 

Figure 5 shows the trend in case terminations per judgeship for FY 1988-93. 

11 
600 

200 

100 

-----

Figure 5 

Terminations Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

~----~----~------+-----~----~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

12 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

This figure shows that per judgeship case tenrunations were up slightly in the District of Kansas 

for both FY 1992 and FY 1993. 

Figure 6 illustrates the pending caseload per judgeship in the District at the close of SY 

1987-92. 

Figure 6 

Total Cases Pending at Close of Fiscal Year, Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

-----------

O~----~----~------+------+----~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 
13 

This figure suggests that the number of pending cases has largely stabilized in recent years. In this 

District, the modest decrease in the per judgeship pending caseload since 1990 is partially 

attributable to an increase in the number of judgeships authorized to the District of Kansas by the 

Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, from five to six. 

Figure 7 reflects the trend in the number of civil filings per judgeship for FY 1988-93. 

450 

Figure 7 

Civil Cases Filed Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

400 ------ 350 ------- ---- -- 300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

O+-----~----~------+-----~----~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

--- D.Kan. 

------ National 

It indicates that civil filings per judgeship have declined significantly since 1988, with slight 

increases in each of the last two years. This decline is attributable in part to increased judicial 

capacity in the federal courts. 

Figure 8 reflects the trend in the number of weighted case filings per judgeship for the 

District of Kansas and nationally.12 

12 As noted, the AO recalculated the weighted filings formula for use in FY 1993. Figure 8 is 

based on weighted filings for FY 1988-93 under the new formula. Figure 8 thus uses different 

weighted filings figures than the comparable figure in last year's annual assessment. 
!!gure 8 

Weighted Filings Per Judgeship 

FY 1988·93 

500 

450 

400 ------ ------ --------- 350 

300 D.Kan. 

250 ~ 1-00 -- ----- - National 

150 

100 

50 

0 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

It indicates that weighted caseloads had generally been in decline since FY 1988, but increased 

substantially in FY s 1992 and 1993. 

Figure 9 shows the number of trials completed per judgeship for the District of Kansas 

from FY 1988-93. 

45 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

'88 '89 

Figure 9 

Trials Per Judgeship 

FY 1988·93 

-----

'90 '91 '92 '93 

--- D.Kan. 

-- --- - National 

14 
It indicates that the individual judges of the District are trying fewer cases than in years past, 

which is certainly due in part to increased judicial capacity on the Court. 

Figure 10 shows the trend in median months from filing to disposition from 1988-93. 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

Figure 10 

Months from Filing to Disposition (Median) 

Civil Cases 

FY 1988-93 

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

~----------~~----~----------~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

15 

It indicates that, although the District of Kansas' filing-to-disposition median exceeds the national 

average, the Court continues to make progress towards reducing delay as to this variable. 

Figure 11 shows the trend in median months from issue to trial (for cases going to trial). 
16 

Figure 11 

Months from Issue to Trial (Median) 

Civil Cases 

FY 1988-93 

25 

120 ~ - 15 ----- D.Kan. ------------- ------------

10 ------ National 

5 

0 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

The median time from issue to trial has consistently been higher than the national average, but the 

Court has shown some improvement in this median time in recent years. The one-month increase 

in the issue-to-trial median in FY 1993 corresponds to an identical one-month increase in the 

national average median time. 

Figure 12 shows the trend in percentage of civil cases more than three years old during 

FY 1988-93. 
17 

Figure 12 

Percentage of Civil Cases Over Three Years Old 

FY 1988-93 

12.00% 

10.00% ----~~ 

----- -... ....... 

--- -, "" 

8.00% " " ....... _----- D.Kan. 

6.00% ~ ------ National 

4.00% - 2.00% 

0.00% 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

The District of Kansas has consistently had one of the lowest percentages of older civil cases 

among all federal courts in the nation. The Advisory Group is pleased to note that this percentage 

figure has shown a steady decline in this District since 1988. 

c. Civil Docket Statistics Reported 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 476 

Section 476 of the CJRA requires that certain case management statistics be reported on a 

semi-annual basis to the Administrative Office, which in tum makes these statistics available for 

review in a public document. Statistics reported include, for each active, senior, and magistrate 

judge maintaining a caseload: the number of motions pending for more than six months, the 

number of bench trials submitted for more than six months, and the number of civil cases that are 

more than three years old. These statistics are published twice a year, but only those statistics 

reported at the close of the fiscal year (September 30, 1993) are included in this assessment. 

At the close ofFY 1993, there were 474 pending motions more than six months old 

among the court's 12 active, senior, and magistrate judges. 298 of these, or 63%, however, were 
18 

motions filed in pro se prisoner actions. The 176 non-prisoner-related six-month motions reflects 

an increase of 10% in the number of non-prisoner six-month pending motions since the end of 

FY 1992 in this variable. Figure 13 shows the September 30, 1992 _and September 30, 1993 

submitted pending motions figures for the District of Kansas for both prisoner and non-prisoner 

related civil cases. 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

o 

All motions 

Figure 13 

Motions Pending Over Six Months 

at Close of Fiscal Year 

District of Kansas, FY 1992, 1993 

Prisoner motions Non-prisoner 

motions 

.'92 

0'93 

At the close ofFY 1993 there were no bench trials that had been submitted more than six 

months reported by the District of Kansas. This is comparable to the national norm. 
19 

Finally, at the close ofFY 1993, there were 63 three-year old civil cases pending in the 

District of Kansas, compared to 80 at the end ofFY 1992. Figure 14 shows the total number of 

80 

70 

60 

SO 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Figure 14 

Total Pending Cases Over Three Years Old 

Close of Fiscal Year 

District of Kansas, FY 1992, 1993 

'92 '93 

three-year old cases pending in the District of Kansas as of September 30, 1992 and September 

30, 1993. As noted previously, the 63 three-year-old civil cases pending on September 30, 1993 

represent only 4.0% of the total pending civil caseload. 

D. State of the Criminal Docket13 

During FY 1993, 252 criminal felony indictments or informations were filed in or 

transferred to the District of Kansas, the same number as in FY 1992. There were an average of 

1.5 felony defendants prosecuted per criminal filing, up from 1.3 per filing in 1992. This resulted 

13 Beginning in 1993, the Administrative Office began calculating criminal case weights based 

in part on the number of defendants tried jointly in a single case. Criminal case management 

statistics affected by this new practice were recalculated for prior years. See 1993 Federal Case 

Management Statistics, at 167. Thus, criminal caseload figures in this section may not be 

directly comparable to those contained in last year's assessment. 
20 

in a total of378 individuals prosecuted. Criminal cases made up about 11.3% of total filings in 

the District in FY 1993, up only slightly from the prior year. 

The defendants prosecuted in the District represented a per judgeship defendant load of 

about 63 felony defendants per judgeship. 

The median time from filing to disposition ofa felony case was 5.9 months in FY 1993, 

the same median time for these cases as in 1992. 

E. Trends in the Criminal Docket 

Figures 15-19 below illustrate certain trends in the criminal caseload of the District of 

Kansas from 1988-93, and the national trend. Figure 15 shows the trend in criminal felony 

filings per judgeship for FY 1988-93. 

60 

Figure 15 

Criminal Felony Cases Filed Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

------ 50 "---"=-----........ - -----------------

30 

20 

10 

~----~-----+------r_----4_----_4 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

It indicates that total criminal filings are comparable to such filings at the beginning of the relevant 

time period. 

Figure 16 depicts the trend in the total number of felony defendants charged per judgeship 

from 1988-93. It shows that the number of defendants prosecuted per judgeship has declined in 

recent years. 
90 

Figure 16 

Felony Defendants Prosecuted Per Judgeship 

FY 1988-93 

--- 80 -----------------_---- -----

70 

60 

50 

20 

10 

o~---+---+----+ --+---~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

21 

----:-- D.Kan. 

------ National 

Figure 17 illustrates the criminal caseload as a percentage of total caseload for the District 

---of-K-ansas-eompared to the national average criminal caseload. 

10.00% 

Figure 17 

Criminal Filings as a Percentage 

of Total Filings, FY 1988-93 

9.00% l-_-_-_-_---

8.00% -------_ --- ------- 7.00% ---- --

6.00% 

5.00% 

4.00% 

3.00% 

2.00% 

1.00% 

0.00% +----+---_----+- o---~ 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

---D.Kan. 

------ National 

It indicates that the criminal caseload has changed little as a percentage of the total caseload over 

the last several years. 
22 

Figure 18 shows the median filing-to-disposition time, in months, for criminal felony 

cases. 

Figure 18 

Months From Filing to Disposition (Median) 

Criminal Cases, FY 1988-93 

7 

6 ----- ------ 5 ~---

----- 4 r-- D.Kan. 

3 ----- - National 

2 •• 

1 

0 

'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 

llL Status Report on the Court's CJRA Plan 

The Plan that the District of Kansas's CJRA Advisory Group proposed, which the Court 

adopted with relatively minor revisions on December 31, 1991, focused on several measures 

designed to reduce needless expense and delay within the district. The specific components of the 

Plan are summarized in detail in the Advisory Group's 1992 assessment. This subsection 

discusses the extent to which the Court has achieved various quantitative case management goals 

articulated in the Plan. 14 

14 It should be noted that the Plan contained a number of provisions designed to encourage the 

District's judges and magistrate judges to take a more active role in pre-trial case management. It 

also required or recommended certain actions by the Clerk's Office and the Local Rules 

Committee. The Advisory Group did not discuss these aspects of the Plan at its January meeting, 

and therefore this assessment does not address them. 
23 

Effect of monthly status reports. The practice of the Clerk's Office to circulate a 

monthly status report to all active and senior judges in the District of Kansas continued in FY 

1993. This status report indicates specific docket information for each of the district, senior 

district, and magistrate judges on the court. The circulation of these monthly status reports 

coincides with a record of more timely disposition of motions and cases in the District by most of 

the court's judges and magistrate judges. The monthly status reports required by the Plan are 

internal documents and not available for public inspection. The Court's public semi-annual 

pending motionslbench trial reports filed with the Administrative Office1s show that from 

September 30, 1991-September 30, 1993, the Court reduced the total number of six-months or 

older pending motions in civil cases by 395, down from 869 to 474. Sixty-three percent of the 

474 six-month-old motions were motions filed in pro se prisoner cases and are a product of the 

court's heavy backlog in that portion of its civil docket. When these pro se prisoner-related 

motions are excluded from the total, the number of older pending motions went from 261 on 

The Plan also contained provisions relating to the Court's pro se prisoner caseload. As 

noted earlier, the Advisory Group's assessment of the pro se docket will be reported in a separate 

document prepared by the relevant subcommittee, which is chaired by Professor Bill Rich. The 

subcommittee has already made certain recommendations to the Chairs of the Advisory Group, 

and a follow-up report will be provided to the Court within the next sixty days. 

Finally, the Court's Plan required implementation of a mediation program pursuant to 

amended Local Rule 214, with an evaluation of the program to follow once mediation programs 

were underway. For a more complete discussion of mediation under the Court's CJRA Plan, see 

the 1992 Assessment, at 33-35. An empirical evaluation of the mediation program is on-goinK 

results of that evaluation will be reported in a future assessment or in a separate report. 

IS Section 476 of the CJRA requires the semi-annual public reporting of certain case 

management statistics for each federal district judge in the nation. These statistics are compiled 

and published by the Administrative Office. See. e.g .. Civil Justice Reform Act Report of 

Motions Pending Over Six Months, Bench Trials Submitted Over Six Months, Civil Cases 

Pending Over Three Years on September 30, 1993 (Administrative Office 1994). 
24 

September 30, 1991 to 159 on September 30, 1992 to 176 on September 30, 1993, for an overall 

decline of32.5% since 1991. The Advisory Group interprets this improvement as an indication 

that the circulation of status reports may be having its intended effect of reducing the Court's 

backlog insofar as six-month, non-prisoner pending motions are concerned. 

2. Effect of articulating case management goals. The District of Kansas was one of 

the few federal district courts which used its CJRA Plan as a vehicle for articulating specific 

quantitative case and motions dispositions goals for various categories of civil cases and civil 

administrative appeals. In recommending that the Court articulate such goals, it was the Advisory 

Group's understanding that these goals are not "time limits" for the disposition of particular kinds 

of motions or cases, but rather reflections of what the Advisory Group and the Court agree to be 

reasonable disposition times for most cases or motions subject to a particular goal. 16 

The Court appears to have made some progress since the Plan was implemented towards 

achieving the case and motions disposition goals set by the Plan. The Advisory Group's analysis 

of the Court's internal case and motion management statistics indicates that the Court has made 

the following progress towards meeting these goals: 

1. Goal: Median filing to disposition time reduced to national median by the end ofFY 

1993. One of the Plan's most important objectives was to bring the median civil filing-todisposition time in the District of Kansas in line with the national median, which in SY 1990 was 

nine months. In FY 1993, the national median filing-to-disposition time dropped to eight months 

(see Figure 10). The median civil filing-to-disposition time in the District of Kansas during FY 

16 The goals articulated in the Plan are applicable only to cases and motions filed after 

December 31, 1992. 
25 

1993 dropped to nine months from SY 1990's figure of eleven months and FY 1992's figure often 

months. Because, as noted, the national median filing-to-disposition time declined from nine to 

eight months over FY 1992-93,17 the Court did not achieve the specific goal articulated in the 

Plan. Nevertheless, the Advisory Group views the Court's progress in reducing its filing-todisposition median to nine months as an indication that the Plan is having its intended effect on the 

problem of delay, and that the Plan's overall objective to achieve the national median is feasible 

and will ultimately be met. 

2. Goal: Median issue to trial time reduced to national median by the end ofFY 1993. 

Another important objective of the Plan was to reduce the issue-to-trial time, for cases going to 

trial, from its SY figure of20 months to what was then a national median of 14 months. In FY 

1992, the national median civil issue-to-trial time increased to 15 months, and in FY 1993, it 

increased to 16 months. During those years, the median issue-to-trial time for civil cases in the 

District of Kansas dropped to 17 months in FY 1992 but increased to 18 months in FY 1993. It is 

unclear why the median issue-to-trial time increased both nationally and within this district in light 

of the overall decline in civil filings and the increase in judicial capacity experienced within the 

district. Nevertheless, the Advisory Group is confident that the Court will ultimately achieve its 

goal concerning its median issue-to-trial time. 

3. Goal: Average life expectancy reduced from 14 to 12 months by the end ofFY 1993. 

The average life expectancy ofa civil case in the District of Kansas was 14 months in SY 1990. 

17 In its Report to the Court, the Advisory Group explicitly recognized that national median 

case disposition times might decline during the seven year life of the CJRA. See CJRA Report, 

at 51. 
26 

In FY 1993, that figure had dropped to 11 months. 18 The Court has met and exceeded the Plan's 

goal respecting average case life expectancy. 

4. Goal: Social security appeals decided with 60 days of submission. As of December 

31, 1993, the Court had met this goal with respect to 25% of all social security appeals subject to 

the Plan's goal. 19 

5. Goal: Bankruptcy appeals decided within 120 days of when reply brief filed or due. 

As of September 30, 1993, the Court attained this goal with respect to 66% of all bankruptcy 

appeals subject to the Plan's goal. 

6. Goal: Pro se prisoner habeas corpus actions resolved within 180 days of filing (interim 

goal). The Court met this goals with respect to 37% of all habeas cases subject to the Plan's goal. 

7. Goal: Non-dispositive motions in pro se prisoner cases decided within 90 days of filing 

(interim goal). The Court met this goal with respect to 64 % of all non-dispositive motions 

subject to the goal. 

8. Goal: Non-dispositive motions in all other cases decided within 60 days of filing. The 

Court met this goal with respect to 80% of all non dispositive motions subject to the Plan's goal. 

18 See Guidance to Advisory Groups Appointed Under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 

1990, SY93 Statistics Supplement (Federal Judicial Center, September 1993) (prepared for the 

District of Kansas) (on file with the CO-Reporters). 

19 All goal-accomplished percentages are based on figures reported as of December 31, 1993. 

The percentages are based on appeals or motions filed on or after January 1, 1992, when the Plan 

formally took effect. . As noted, the Plan's goals are applicable only to those cases and motions 

filed after the Plan was implemented. The Court must, of course, attend to older cases and 

motions not subject to the Plan's goals as well as newly filed cases which are. The Advisory 

Group anticipates that as the backlog of, for example, older social security appeals is reduced, the 

percentage of cases disposed of within the Plan's recommended time frame will increase. 
27 

9. Goal: Dispositive motions. all cases. decided within 120 days of filing of reply brief or 

due date?O The Court met this goal with respect to 60% of all dispositive motions subject to the 

goal. 

v. Advisory Group Recommendations 

The Advisory Committee agreed at its January meeting that no changes or additions to the 

Plan were warranted at this time. The Court's case management statistics, particularly those 

relating to its pending motions docket and its pro se prisoner docket, suggest that the substantive 

components of the Plan may be having their intended effect of reducing needless delays, which in 

turn will contribute to reducing the cost oflitigation in the District. The Court's embrace of most 

of the substance of the 1993 Rules amendments through Order 94-1 also militates against 

modification of the Plan during 1994. The Advisory Group anticipates that, with the Court's 

assistance, it will have the opportunity in early 1995 to re-evaluate its judgment that the Plan 

should remain intact in light of the District's experience with another full year of the Plan and with 

those new pre-trial procedures which have been adopted pursuant to Order 94-1. 

### 

20 In calculating motion-disposition figures, the Clerk's office uses a period of 150 days from 

the date of filing to approximate the period which is "120 days of filing of reply brief or due date", 

with the agreement of the Advisory Group. The Group recognizes that using the 150 day-period 

as a surrogate for the time period actually specified in the Plan does not account for extensions of 

time that may have been granted in particular cases. 
Appendix A 
NOT ICE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

MEMORANDUM AND RESOLUTION 

J~M 31 9 30 r~H '94 

P,AL::·;~ ._~~ ~-:':!,~H 

vL_ ... , 

BY .D~?UTY 

hT iil:i-;;~':", :5. 

On January 27 and 28, 1994, Chief Judge Patrick F. Kelly 

convened a j oint meeting of the civil Justice Reform Committee, the 

Rules Committee, and the District Court. The purpose of the 

meeting was to review the newly amended Federal Rules of civil 

Procedure which became effective on December 1, 1993, and to 

consider the impact with regard to the court's local rules. 

Following full discussion and deliberation, the Rules 

Committee elected not to opt out from Fed.R.Civ.p. 26 as amended, 

and proposed certain changes in the District of Kansas Local Rules 

which have the concurrence of the Kansas Court. 

In summary, the following transpired and is now in place: 

1. The Kansas Court adopted Standing Order No. 

1994-1, a copy of which is attached hereto. 

2. certain local rules are under consideration for 

change and changes to others have been adopted, all of 

which are subject to the statutory notice requirements. 

At the instance of those in attendance at the meetings, the 

Rules Committee further proposed the following resolution, which, 

in turn, was adopted by the Kansas Court: 

IT IS AGREED that while the new amendments to the 

Federal Rules of civil Procedure are in place, they are 

deserving of close scrutiny as time and experience 

dictate. The Court assures the lawyers and litigants 
that the application of these rules will be closely 

monitored, and from time to time within the year they 

will be reviewed for further modification. 

FOR THE COURT: 

2 
This 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

STANDING ORDER NUMBER 1994-1 

Standing Order is adopted by the 

FilED 

:: :'- ~\' ""-°1"'-'" . . .~- ---. :J i ~ J" \: it:O U R T D::;TP.iCTr:~ K .. :;SA.\:: 001' I.r-" ••• 1-; ..... 

I - rJuH La I 18 PH '9y 

guidance to litigants and counsel concerning the applicability of 

the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which became 

effective December 1, 1993. The following rules were amended: 

1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 

38, 50, 52, 53, 54, 58, 7~, 72, 73, 74, 75, and 76; new Rule 4.1 

was adopted. It is necessary for the court and its bench-bar 

committee to make a detailed study of the local rules of this court 

in order to bring them into conformity with the amendments. The 

court and its committee have not had sufficient opportunity to make 

such a study. Therefore, it is 

ORDERED: 

1. All provisions of the local rules of this court which 

conflict with or provide direction other than that which is 

supplied in the amendments to the Federal Rules of civil Procedure 

which became effective December 1, 1993, are abrogated. Where such 

conflicts occur, the provisions of the Federal Rules of civil 

Procedure shall be controlling. 

2. Within 15 days of receipt of an executed waiver of service 

under Fed.R.Civ.p. 4(d), the plaintiff shall file such waiver with 

the Clerk of the District Court. 

3. The following categories of actions shall continue to be 

exempted from the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.p. 16 as inappropriate 
for the holding of scheduling conferences and the issuance of 

scheduling orders: 

(a) Social security cases and other actions for 

review of administrative decisions; 

(b) All cases filed by pro se prisoners or directly 

related to the litigants' incarceration; 

(c) Governmental administrative enforcement 

proceedings; 

(d) Forfeiture proceedings; 

(e) Eminent domain proceedings; 

(f) Bankruptcy appeals; provided, however, cases in 

which reference is withdrawn by order of the district 

court remain subject to the rules. 

4. Except as otherwise stipulated in writing by the parties 

or ordered by the court in a particular case: 

(a) Formal discovery under Fed.R.Civ.p. 30, 31, 33, 

34 and 36 may not be commenced before the meeting of the 

parties under Fed.R.Civ.p. 26(f) except in the following 

cases: 

( i) cases exempted under paragraph 5 

from the requirement of ' a meeting of the 

parties; 

(ii) cases in which a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunction is 

sought: and 

2 
(iii) cases in which discovery is needed 

to resolve a preliminary motion such as an 

objection to personal jurisdiction or venue. 

5. Unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular 

case, the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.p. 26 (a) (1), Fed.R.civ.p. 26(f), 

and the limitations on the nUlIlber of depositions under Fed.R.Civ.p. 

30 and interrogatories under Fed.R.Civ.p. 33 apply to all civil 

actions in this court, except for the following: 

(a) cases filed in, removed to, or transferred to 

this court before December 1, 1993; 

(b) cases instituted pro se by prisoners or directly 

related to the litigants' incarceration; 

(c) cases consolidated with a case in which the 

parties have met as provided in Fed.R.civ.p. 26(f) or in 

which a scheduling order under Fed.R.Civ.p. 16(b) has 

been entered; and 

(d) cases transferred to this court under 28 U.S.C. 

§1407 or consolidated with cases so transferred, and 

cases subj ect to potential transfer to another court 

under 28 U.S.C. §1407 pursuant to a motion pending before 

the Judicial Panel on Mul tidistrict Litigation or a 

conditional transfer order entered by that Panel; 

(e) cases exempt under paragraph 3 above. 

6. Unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular 

case, the parties may, if the offices of their principal counsel 

3 
are not within 100 miles of one another, agree to conduct the 

meeting pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.p. 26(f) by telephone. 

7. Without leave of court or written stipulation, the number 

of written interrogatories which any party may serve upon any other 

party shall not exceed 30 in number incl uding all discrete 

subparts. 

This standing order shall be effective upon its adoption by 

the court and shall remain in effect until June 1, 1994, unless 

sooner revoked. 

'jA 

ADOPTED this c?"Lday of January, 1994. 

, 

u. S. D!STRtCT COURT) 

DISTnlCT OF KANSAS )ss: 

! heieby certify that 

the f~icgoinQ Is e. true copy 

oi the original Oi"l f~~ in 

this court and -;ause. 

RA:?~De~OAC~. Cler~ 

By rd..LW ~, c.J.u,.A 

Deputy 

Dated: / -~ 1'- ,/y 

FOR THE COURT: 

PATRICK F. KELLY, CHIEF JUDGE 

4