Opinion ID: 1199950
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sources other than Alaska law

Text: Some jurisdictions set forth criteria for determining the propriety of referring a discovery dispute to a master. For example, California's rule gives courts discretion to appoint a master over one party's objection only when it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes. [21] California courts have interpreted this rule to permit reference over the parties' objection where that procedure is necessary, not merely convenient. [22] A recently proposed Michigan rule would allow courts to appoint discovery masters only if there are complex or numerous discovery issues and a master's assistance would facilitate a more speedy and economical determination of those issues. [23] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 similarly requires that an exceptional condition exist before a master can be appointed. [24] Although this restriction does not exist in Alaska Civil Rule 53, we believe a discussion of the use of discovery masters in federal courts is still an important source of guidance given our endorsement of a restricted view of the use of masters in Dean. Alaska District Court Local Rule 53.1(a) allows courts to appoint discovery masters in order to assist the parties in the speedy and economical conduct of discovery and resolution of discovery disputes. As a condition of such appointment, and especially in complex cases involving numerous, significant disputes, the court may require the parties to pay the fees of the discovery master. (Emphases added.) This provision discourages courts from forcing parties to pay for a referee unless the case is complex or time consuming, although the decision remains within the court's discretion. The Manual for Complex Litigation counsels that judges should reserve the use of masters for cases where the financial stakes justify imposing the expense on the parties and where the amount of activity required would impose undue burdens on a judge. It is generally preferable to appoint special masters with the parties' consent. [25] Special masters are sometimes appointed during discovery in complex [federal] cases to limit massive discovery requests, to rule on claims of privilege and to make factual determinations necessary to rule on the admissibility of evidence. [26] A referee may be appropriate where disclosure is complicated by an intractable opponent, discourteous and uncooperative attorneys, [or] constant rulings on disclosure disputes. [27] Both federal and state courts have justified appointing discovery masters based on the contentious or unwieldy nature of discovery disputes. In one federal case in which the parties filed twenty-seven motions to compel or for protective orders, the court appointed a discovery master but acknowledged that [t]he use of a special master in this district for the purpose of discovery management is an extraordinary event, occurring perhaps once a decade. [28] The court lamented that the case is a mess because the lawyers are out of control. [29] Another federal court similarly appointed a discovery master because of what it described as the acrimony between counsel; the court believed this hostility necessitate[d] the provision of day care for counsel who, like small children, cannot get along and require adult supervision. [30] The California Court of Appeal has approved use of discovery masters to reduce [] the tension between contentious discovery disputants. [31] Our research uncovers no universally applied list of factors for determining when a court's appointment of a discovery master is appropriate. Still, certain principles repeatedly surface in those authorities that have considered the issue. Based on a review of our own case law, the law of other jurisdictions, academic literature, and policy considerations, we believe that appointment of a discovery master should generally be reserved for cases (1) where the issues are unusually complex or specialized; (2) where discovery is particularly document intensive; (3) where resolving discovery disputes will be especially time consuming; (4) where the parties are particularly contentious or obstructionist; or (5) where a master will facilitate a more speedy and economical determination of the case. We believe that these factors reflect a respect for the immense and often unreasonable burdens placed on trial courts' time and resources, while avoiding an undesirable shift in the role of trial courts to that of quasi-appellate courts. [32] Perhaps more importantly, the guidelines attempt to ensure nonwealthy litigants' access to the courts.