THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

THURGOOD MARSHALL FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUILDING

ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE, N.E.

WASHINGTON, DC 20002-8003

Joe Cecil TEL.: 202-502-4084

Research Division FAX: 202-502-4199

EMAIL: jcecil@fjc.gov

August 13, 2008

Memorandum

To: Judge Michael Baylson

From: Joe Cecil and George Cort

Subject: Report on Summary Judgment Practice Across Districts with

Variations in Local Rules

Purpose: The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to 

examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing 

the potential impact of proposed amendments to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

1 Those proposed amendments will, among other things, require the movant to

“state in separately numbered paragraphs only those material facts that the movant asserts

are not genuinely in dispute and entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law.” The

respondent must then address each of those facts in similarly numbered paragraphs. We

compared summary judgment practice across three groups of federal district courts that

vary in the extent to which their local rules incorporate the proposed practice. The three

groups are: (1) districts with local rules that place the proposed requirements on both the

movant and respondent; (2) districts with local rules that place the proposed requirements

only on the movant; and, (3) districts with no similar requirement in their local rules. We

examine both the nature and outcome of individual summary judgment motions (Tables 1 

through 5), and the cases in which the summary judgment motions are filed and resolved 

(Tables 6 through 12). Each table first reports the results for all cases in each of the three

groups of districts, and then reports the results for five broad types of cases – contracts,

torts, employment discrimination, other civil rights, and other remaining cases.

Findings: We undertook this study to determine whether there were differences in the

litigation of summary judgment motions in districts with local rules that follow the proposed procedure. The study compared rates of filing, types of motions, rates of resolution,

time to resolution, and outcomes. The analyses revealed very few differences across the

three types of districts. Nor is it possible to attribute such differences as do appear to the

 1 This report builds on two preliminary reports submitted to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules on

November 2, 2007, and April 2, 2008, and a supplemental analysis submitted on May 30, 2008. The information in this report supersedes those earlier reports.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 2

differences in local rules or the absence of local rules. We found that the three types of

districts vary in other characteristics that may independently account for the differences.

Overall, 17% of the cases have at least one motion for summary judgment, and of these,

37% have more than one motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment motions are

filed at approximately the same rate by plaintiffs and defendants across all three groups

(Tables 6 through 9). Defendants in districts with the proposed structured format for the

movant and respondent are somewhat less likely to file a summary judgment motion in

civil rights cases (Tables 6 and 7), a difference that is difficult to interpret. We found no

large differences across the three groups of districts in the percentage of cases with summary judgment motions granted (Tables 10 and 11) and in the percentage of cases terminated by summary judgment (Table 12).

When we examine individual summary judgment motions rather than cases, it appears

that motions are more likely to be resolved in districts that require a structured format for

movants and respondents, with a tendency for more motions to be granted (Table 3). Perhaps the structured format leads to more meritorious motions or perhaps it eases the

judge’s task in resolving such motions.

2 The increased rate of resolution, however, appears to have little effect on the overall rate of grants or denials. If we consider only those

motions resolved, there are no large differences across groups in the percentage of motions granted and denied (Table 4).

More time is required to resolve motions in districts with local rules that specify a structured format for the movant and respondent (see Table 5). However, a supplementary 

analysis indicated that in these districts even cases without motions for summary judgment require more time to reach a disposition, suggesting that the longer time to disposition may be due to factors other than the local rule regarding summary judgment.

3 As indicated in Appendix B, districts with local rules requiring a structured format for the

movant and respondent also have greater weighted case filings, more pending cases per

judge, fewer case terminations per judge, and longer case disposition times. These district

characteristics may have a greater effect on summary judgment motion practice than the

structure of the local rule.

 2 Supplemental analyses revealed some differences across groups in the cases with unresolved motions.

Cases in the structured format districts with one or more motions that remain unresolved are less likely to

settle (33% in the structured format districts, compared with 38% and 39% in the other two types of districts), more likely to persist beyond the first pretrial conference (36% in the structured format districts,

compared with 29% and 32% in the other two types of districts), and somewhat more likely to be resolved

after trial (8% in the structured format districts, compared with 5% in each of the other two types of districts). Such cases were also more likely to have other summary judgment motions that have been either

granted or denied (14% in structured format districts, compared with 8% and 10% in the other two types of

districts). Resolution of the other summary judgment motions in these cases may have mooted the issue

raised in the unresolved motions. 3 Supplemental analyses of a subset of cases also revealed that the additional time to disposition of summary judgment motions in structured format districts is due almost entirely to additional time that judges

have the summary judgment motions under consideration. In structured format districts judges require a

median time of fifteen weeks from the submission of the last brief to rule on a summary judgment motion,

compared to nine weeks in each of the other two groups.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 3

As in previous research,4we found great variation in summary judgment practice across

individual districts. Some of this variation is due to differences in types of cases filed in

the districts, but considerable variation in summary judgment practice still exists across

districts in the same types of cases.

While we found few differences across the three groups in employment discrimination

cases, the prominent role of summary judgment in such cases is striking. Summary judgment motions by defendants are more common in such cases (Table 7), are more likely to

be granted (Tables 10 and 11), and more likely to terminate the litigation (Table 12). This

is true without regard to the nature of the local rules regarding summary judgment.

In assessing the differences across the three groups, it is helpful to keep in mind that

these groups of districts differ in many ways other than the structure of their local rules

governing summary judgment practice. Some of these differences are recorded in Appendix B, but there are certainly other group differences that we did not assess. Some of the

findings in the tables are undoubtedly related to these other group differences rather than 

the structure of the courts’ local rules. For this reason it is difficult to attribute differences

across the groups solely to the presence or absence of local rules requiring a structured 

response for summary judgment motions.

Research Methodology: We classified each federal district court into one of three groups

based on the district’s local rules governing summary judgment, relying on the analysis

of local rules by Jeffrey Barr and James Ishida.

5 The first group consisted of twenty federal districts that have local rules with summary judgment requirements similar to those

of the proposed amendment. In general, local rules in these districts require the moving 

party to include a statement of individual undisputed material facts with its motion for

summary judgment, and require the non-moving party to respond to the movant’s statement, fact by fact. We refer to these districts as having local rules that require a structured

format for the movant and respondent. We assumed that summary judgment practice in 

these districts follows a pattern that will become common in other federal districts if the

proposed amendments are adopted.

The second group consisted of thirty-four federal district courts with local rules that require the moving party to include a statement of undisputed facts, but do not require the

respondent to address each fact. We refer to these districts as having local rules that require a structured format for the movant only. We believe that summary judgment prac-

 4 Joe S. Cecil, Rebecca N. Eyre, Dean Miletich & David Rindskopf, Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975–2000 (Federal Judicial Center 2007); and republished with additional analyses as A QuarterCentury of Summary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District Courts, 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 861–907 (2007). 5 Memorandum to Judge Michael Baylson from Jeffrey Barr and James Ishida, Survey of District Court

Local Summary Judgment Rules (March 21, 2007). Mr. Barr and Mr. Ishida are Attorney Advisors in the

Office of Judges Programs of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 4

tice in these districts may have some but not all of the characteristics of summary judgment practice under the proposed amendment.

The third group consisted of thirty-seven federal district courts that do not require the

moving party to submit a statement of undisputed facts with its summary judgment motion, either because these districts do not have a local rule governing summary judgment

practice (thirty-one courts) or because the courts’ local rules do not require the movant to 

file a list of undisputed facts in support of its motion (six courts).

6 We refer to these districts as having local rules that do not specify the structure or response to a motion for

summary judgment. We believe that summary judgment practice in this third group may 

be most affected by the proposed amendment. A list of the districts in each of the three

groups is presented in Appendix A. Characteristics of the three groups of districts are

presented in Appendix B.

We used Case Management / Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) data as our source of information on summary judgment practice in the federal district courts. These data are the

primary federal court electronic records reported for each civil case and provide the

foundation of the federal courts’ administrative and statistical reporting system. We were

unable to obtain useable CM/ECF data and local rule information from three districts—

Western District of Wisconsin, District of the Northern Marianas Islands, and District of

the Virgin Islands—and excluded these districts from the analyses. Data from all other

federal districts were included in the analyses.

We began by identifying 62,938 summary judgment motions and their related court orders in the 276,120 civil cases terminated by the federal district courts in fiscal year 2006.

Where necessary, we recoded these orders to indicate the final action on the motion taken 

by the court. We then determined for each case the number and type of summary judgment motions, number of motions by plaintiffs and defendants, number of motions

granted in whole or in part, number of motions denied, the number of motions in which 

the court took no action, whether the case was terminated by summary judgment, and the

time required to resolve the motion.

We included in the analyses only cases originally filed in the specified district and cases

removed to the district from state courts. We excluded cases designated as class actions

(although we have learned from other research that the attorney designation of a class action is an imprecise indicator of such cases), cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation

proceedings, cases reopened or remanded from the courts of appeals, cases involving a

change of venue,

7 and cases appealed from magistrate judges’ rulings. We then excluded 

asbestos personal injury product liability cases, bankruptcy appeals and withdrawals (be-

 6 Those six courts are the Northern District of California, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of

Illinois, the Western District of Tennessee, the Eastern District of Washington, and the Northern District of

West Virginia. 7 In previous analyses we had included cases that transferred to a district through a change of venue. However, upon close inspection we found that such cases included approximately 15,000 cases transferred to

the Eastern District of Michigan relating to bankruptcy proceedings in the Silicone Gel Breast Implant

Multidistrict Litigation. For this analysis we excluded these cases and approximately 1,000 other cases that

had arrived in the districts through a change of venue.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 5

cause summary judgment motions are not filed), Social Security cases (because summary 

judgment motions are the procedural device used to review the decision of the administrative law judge), and prisoner cases (because such cases are likely to be exempt from

the proposed rule due to the pro se nature of the plaintiff). We also removed from the

third group of districts those cases terminated by twenty-eight judges who, according to

the district web site, routinely use a standing order that requires the parties to engage in

the kinds of structured summary judgment motions and responses required by the proposed local rule.

After these exclusions, we were left with 139,247 cases, or 50% of cases terminated in 

FY 2006. Of these, 23,332 cases contained at least one motion for summary judgment. In

total, we analyzed activity in 45,827 separate motions for summary judgment.

The analyses presented in the first eleven tables are based on records for all federal civil

cases terminated in FY2006 (other than the cases excluded for the reasons noted above)

rather than a sample of those cases, and therefore do not require statistical tests to determine if the differences across groups may be due to sample variation. The analyses of

cases terminated by summary judgment in Table 12 are unlike the previous analyses in 

that they are based on examination of docket sheets in a stratified random sample of cases

and do require tests of statistical significance.

8 To study the rate at which cases are terminated by summary judgment we selected a random sample of cases designed to ensure

that each of the three groups included 500 cases in which one or more summary judgment

motions were granted. Attorneys reviewed and coded docket sheets in these 1,500 cases

to determine if the grant of the motion resolved all outstanding merits claims by all parties.

9 Validation studies indicated that the coders agreed in their assessment in 98% of the

cases.

 8 Since these estimates of cases terminated by summary judgment were based on samples, we used the

Goodman and Kruskal tau statistical test to determine if difference in termination rates between courts in

the first group and courts in the other two groups combined meet conventional standards of statistical

significance. L.A. Goodman & W.H. Kruskal, Measures of Association for Cross-Classification, 49 Journal

of the American Statistical Association 732–64 (1954). See generally the discussion of statistical testing at

David H. Kaye & David A. Freedman, Reference Guide on Statistics, in Reference Manual on Scientific

Evidence 115–17 (Federal Judicial Center 2d ed. 2000). We were unable to use population measures to

assess rate at which cases are terminated by summary judgment since this measure is not recorded by the

individual federal district courts as part of the CM/ECF system. We initially attempted to construct a variable for case termination by combining existing variables available for all cases, and we reported the results

for one of these efforts in Table 12 of the memorandum of April 2, 2008. After preparing that memorandum we learned that data recording practices for those variables differ greatly from district to district; those

estimates are inaccurate and should be disregarded. 9 Some docket sheets recorded court actions on peripheral matters after the last summary judgment motion

was granted (e.g., motions for reconsideration, a new trial, attorneys’ fees, sanctions, post-judgment relief,

etc.). We disregarded such activity and recorded the case as terminated by summary judgment if after the

grant of summary judgment there were no docket entries indicating further consideration of the merits of

the litigation.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 6

Table 1: Party Moving for Summary Judgment

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent Movant Only

Neither

Party

Total

Motions

Motions in:

Defendant 71% 72% 68% 32,221

Plaintiff 26% 26% 23% 11,360

All Cases

No Moving Party 3% 2% 8% 2,242

Defendant 56% 60% 57%

Plaintiff 43% 40% 35%

Contracts

No Moving Party 2% 1% 8%

Defendant 85% 85% 87%

Plaintiff 14% 14% 12%

Torts

No Moving Party 1% 1% 1%

Defendant 90% 90% 91%

Plaintiff 9% 9% 9%

Employment

Discrimination

No Moving Party 1% 1% 0%

Defendant 83% 82% 84%

Plaintiff 17% 17% 16%

Other Civil

Rights

No Moving Party 1% 2% 1%

Defendant 58% 59% 62%

Plaintiff 40% 39% 38%

Other

No Moving Party 2% 3% 1%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 7

Table 2: Type of Summary Judgment Motion

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent Movant Only

Neither

Party

Total

Motions

Motions in:

Summary Judgment 91% 85% 89% 39,159

Partial Summary

Judgment 9% 14% 11% 5,094

All Cases

Rule 54 Motion 1% 1% 0% 215

Summary Judgment 87% 79% 85%

Partial Summary

Judgment

12% 21% 15%

Contracts

Rule 54 Motion 1% 1% 1%

Summary Judgment 90% 84% 87%

Partial Summary

Judgment

10% 16% 13%

Torts

Rule 54 Motion 0% 1% 1%

Summary Judgment 96% 92% 95%

Partial Summary

Judgment

4% 7% 5%

Employment

Discrimination

Rule 54 Motion 0% 0% 0%

Summary Judgment 94% 90% 92%

Partial Summary

Judgment 6% 10% 8%

Other Civil

Rights

Rule 54 Motion 0% 0% 1%

Summary Judgment 88% 83% 88%

Partial Summary

Judgment

11% 16% 12%

Other

Rule 54 Motion 1% 1% 0%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 8

Table 3: Action on Summary Judgment Motion

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent Movant Only

Neither

Party

Total

Motions

Motion in:

Denied 17% 14% 15% 6,865

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

24%

8%

18%

5%

19%

7%

9,052

2,914

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0% 6

Moot 2% 2% 2% 811

All Cases

No Disposition 50% 62% 58% 26,175

Denied 18% 16% 17%

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

18%

8%

14%

5%

15%

7%

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0%

Moot 2% 1% 2%

Contacts

No Disposition 55% 64% 59%

Denied 17% 16% 17%

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

19%

7%

17%

4%

19%

4%

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0%

Moot 2% 2% 2%

Torts

No Disposition 55% 60% 57%

Denied 14% 12% 12%

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

37%

9%

27%

8%

25%

10%

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0%

Moot 2% 1% 1%

Employment

Discrimination

No Disposition 39% 52% 53%

Denied 15% 9% 13%

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

27%

9%

20%

6%

24%

8%

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0%

Moot 2% 1% 3%

Other Civil

Rights

No Disposition 47% 65% 51%

Denied 20% 16% 18%

Grant in Whole

Grant in Part

20%

6%

14%

5%

20%

6%

Adopt Mag R&R 0% 0% 0%

Moot 3% 2% 2%

Other

No Disposition 51% 64% 54%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 9

Table 4: Outcome of Summary Judgment Motions Granted or Denied

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent Movant Only

Neither

Party

Total

Motions

Motions in:

All Cases Denied 35% 38% 37% 6,865

Grant Whole or Part 65% 62% 63% 11,966

Contracts Denied 41% 45% 45%

Grant Whole or Part 59% 55% 55%

Torts Denied 39% 44% 42%

Grant Whole or Part 61% 56% 58%

Employment Denied 23% 26% 25%

Discrimination Grant Whole or Part 77% 74% 75%

Other Civil Denied 30% 26% 29%

Rights Grant Whole or Part 70% 74% 71%

Other Denied 44% 45% 41%

Grant Whole or Part 56% 55% 59%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 10

Table 5: Median Weeks to Disposition for Motions Granted (Whole or Part) or Denied

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent Movant Only

Neither

Party

Total

Motions

Motions in:

All Cases 23 17 15 18,283

Contracts 22 15 14

Torts 22 13 12

Employment

Discrimination 25 17 16

Other Civil Rights 21 19 15

Other 23 17 15
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 11

Table 6: Cases with at least One Summary Judgment Motion Filed by Any Party

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant & Respondent Movant Only Neither Party

Total

Cases

All Cases

No Motions 85% 83% 83% 115,915

At Least One

Motion Filed 16% 17% 17% 23,332

Types of Cases with

at Least One Motion

Contracts 15% 18% 19%

Torts 12% 13% 10%

Employment Discrim. 35% 35% 37%

Other Civil Rights 20% 25% 27%

Other 9% 12% 13%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 12

Table 7: Cases with at least One Summary Judgment Motion by Defendant

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant & Respondent Movant Only Neither Party

Total

Cases

All Cases

No Motions 87% 85% 85% 119,439

At Least One Motion 13% 15% 15% 19,808

Types of Cases with at

Least one Motion by a

Defendant

Contracts 10% 13% 14%

Torts 11% 12% 9%

Employment Discrim. 35% 34% 37%

Other Civil Rights 19% 23% 25%

Other 7% 9% 9%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 13

Table 8: Cases with at least One Summary Judgment Motion by Plaintiff

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Neither

Party

Total Cases

All Cases

No Motions 95% 94% 94% 131,460

At Least One Motion 5% 6% 6% 7,787

Types of Cases with at

Least one Motion by a

Plaintiff

Contracts 9% 10% 11%

Torts 2% 2% 2%

Employment Discrim. 3% 3% 3%

Other Civil Rights 4% 6% 5%

Other 6% 7% 7%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 14

Table 9: Cases with at Least One Summary Judgment Motion by a Plaintiff and at least

One Summary Judgment Motion by a Defendant

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Neither

Party

Total Cases

All Cases

No Motions 97% 97% 97% 134,861

At Least One Motion 3% 3% 3% 4,386

Types of Cases with at

Least one Motion by a

Plaintiff and One by a

Defendant

Contracts 5% 5% 6%

Torts 1% 1% 1%

Employment Discrim. 3% 3% 3%

Other Civil Rights 3% 4% 4%

Other 3% 4% 4%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 15

Table 10: Cases with at least One Summary Judgment Motion Granted in Whole

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Neither

Party

Total Cases

All Cases

No Motions 94% 95% 95% 131,826

At Least One Motion 6% 5% 5% 7,421

Types of Cases with at

Least one Motion

Granted in Whole

Contracts 5% 5% 5%

Torts 4% 3% 2%

Employment Discrim. 16% 13% 12%

Other Civil Rights 8% 8% 9%

Other 3% 3% 4%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 16

Table 11: Cases with at Least One Summary Judgment Motion Granted in Whole or Part

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Neither

Party

Total Cases

All Cases

No Motions 93% 94% 94% 130,051

At Least One Motion 7% 6% 6% 9,196

Types of Cases with at

Least one Motion

Granted in Whole or Part

Contracts 6% 6% 7%

Torts 5% 4% 3%

Employment Discrim. 20% 16% 16%

Other Civil Rights 10% 10% 12%

Other 4% 4% 5%
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 17

Table 12: Cases Terminated by Summary Judgment

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Neither

Party

Total Cases

in Sample

All Cases

Not Terminated by

Summary Judgment

96% 97% 97% 26,769

Terminated by Summary

Judgment 5% ** 4% 4% 1,163

Types of Cases

Terminated by Summary

Judgment

Contracts 4% 3% 3%

Torts 3%* 2% 1%

Employment Discrim. 15%* 11% 11%

Other Civil Rights 6% 6% 7%

Other 3% 3% 3%

** p < 0.001

* p < 0.01
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 18

Appendix A: Classification of Individual Districts*

Local Rule Requires Structured

Motion

and Response

Local Rule Requires Structured

Motion

by Movant Only

Local Rule does not Address format of

Summary Judgment Motion

Arizona Alabama - Southern Alabama - Middle

California - Eastern Arkansas - Eastern Alabama - Northern

Connecticut Arkansas - Western Alaska

Georgia - Middle California – Central California - Northern

Georgia - Northern District of Columbia California – Southern

Illinois - Central Florida - Northern Colorado

Illinois - Northern Florida - Southern Delaware

Iowa - Northern Georgia - Southern Florida - Middle

Iowa - Southern Hawaii Guam

Maine Idaho Illinois - Southern

Nebraska Indiana - Northern Kentucky - Eastern

New York - Eastern Indiana - Southern Kentucky - Western

New York - Northern Kansas Maryland

New York - Southern Louisiana - Eastern Michigan – Eastern

Oregon Louisiana - Middle Michigan - Western

Pennsylvania - Middle Louisiana - Western Minnesota

Pennsylvania - Western Massachusetts Mississippi - Northern

Puerto Rico Missouri - Eastern Mississippi - Southern

South Dakota Missouri - Western North Carolina - Eastern

Tennessee - Middle Montana North Carolina - Western

Nevada North Dakota

New Hampshire Ohio – Northern

Ohio – Southern

New Jersey Pennsylvania – Eastern

New Mexico Rhode Island

New York - Western South Carolina

North Carolina - Middle Tennessee - Eastern

Oklahoma - Eastern Tennessee - Western

Oklahoma - Northern Texas - Northern

Oklahoma - Western Texas - Southern

Texas - Eastern Texas - Western

Utah Virginia - Western

Vermont Washington - Eastern

Virginia - Eastern Washington - Western

Wyoming West Virginia - Northern

West Virginia - Southern

Wisconsin - Eastern

* The districts of the Virgin Islands, Wisconsin – Western, and Northern Marianas Island were excluded

from the analyses due to missing data or missing information on local rules.
FJC Summary Judgment Local Rules Study, August 13, 2008 Page 19

Appendix B: Median Characteristics

of the Districts in Three Groups

Local Rule Requires Structured Format by:

Median Characteristics

Movant &

Respondent

Movant

Only

Not in

Local Rule

Weighted Case Filings per Judge 455 430 426

Pending Cases per Judge 404 375 371

Case Terminations per Judge 413 439 472

Months from Filing to Disposition 10 9 9

Percent Civil Cases over 3 yrs old 7 5 6