Opinion ID: 1162719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Authority for the Trial Court's Adoption of the Pretrial Order

Text: We still must determine whether the trial court was acting within its authority when it issued the filing and service procedures in the Pretrial Order. In December 1985, the trial court proposed the adoption of a scheduling order to aid in the management of this massive litigation. The court's proposed order was circulated for comments and objections. The trial court received written comments from various parties and held two formal hearings at which all counsel who sought to be heard participated. The Pretrial Order that emerged from this process addressed not only procedures for the filing and service of pleadings, but also procedures for the filing, briefing, and scheduling of hearings on motions; steering committees to represent the various interests of the parties before the court; the identification and resolution of legal issues before trial; the timing of and procedures for discovery; the procedure for hearings on DWR's Hydrographic Survey Reports; and the projection of an overall schedule for the adjudication. [21] The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure govern general water adjudications unless they conflict with the water rights adjudication statutes. A.R.S. § 45-259. [22] It is to those rules that we turn. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, procedures for filing and serving pleadings (after service of process) are governed by Rule 5, which requires that every order, pleading, discovery paper, written motion, and other similar paper be served on every party to an action. Rule 5, Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S. (hereinafter Rule ___). [23] The filing and service provisions adopted by the trial judge in the Pretrial Order, requiring service only on the parties on the court-approved mailing list, are therefore in conflict with Rule 5. We believe, however, that the trial court properly adopted the special procedures for the filing and service of pleadings pursuant to Rule 16, which governs pretrial conferences and orders. [24] Rule 16 authorizes the trial judge to conduct pretrial consultations and conferences with attorneys and unrepresented parties and to issue scheduling and pretrial orders. Among the purposes of this active pretrial judicial participation are: 1. expediting the disposition of the action; 2. establishing early and continuous control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management.... Rule 16(a). The special filing and service provisions, along with the rest of the Pretrial Order, provide a comprehensive framework for the expeditious management of the adjudication. Such a purpose is squarely within the stated objectives of Rule 16. Moreover, Rule 16 specifies matters appropriate for consideration at a pretrial conference, including: 9. the need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal problems, or unusual proof problems; and 10. such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action. Rule 16(c) [25] The filing and service provisions adopted by the trial court represent a well-conceived attempt to reconcile the purpose of Rule 5 with the demands of an extremely unusual case. We conclude that the trial court was acting within the authority and discretion vested in it under Rule 16 in adapting Rule 5 to facilitate the conduct of the adjudication. It would be foolish to hold to the contrary, for such a holding would prevent a judge from adapting procedures to meet the exigencies of unusual cases, and could make it impossible to conduct such cases. Such an outcome would contravene the purpose of the rules. See Rule 1 (rules of civil procedure shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.). Finally, nothing in our decision in State v. Lambright, 138 Ariz. 63, 69, 673 P.2d 1, 7 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 267, 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984), in which we held that the use of dual juries in a criminal trial was unauthorized as a local rule not approved by this court, [26] prevents a trial judge in a civil case from employing the case-management techniques authorized by Rule 16.