Backstory: A Concrete Opportunity

Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 20:59

In his 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John G. Roberts uses the 1838 publication of a rule book for dueling to frame his extraordinary exhortation on the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on December 1.“Our Nation’s courts are today’s guarantors of justice,” Chief Justice Roberts writes. “Those civil tribunals, far more than the inherently uncivilized dueling fields they supplanted, must be governed by sound rules of practice and procedure.” Following are excerpts from Chief Justice Roberts’ report.

 

The amendments may not look like a big deal at first glance, but they are. That is one reason I have chosen to highlight them in this report. For example, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been expanded by a mere eight words, but those are words that judges and practitioners must take to heart. Rule 1 directs that the Federal Rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The underscored words make express the obligation of judges and lawyers to work cooperatively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation – an obligation given effect in the amendments that follow. The new passage highlights the point that lawyers – though representing adverse parties – have an affirmative duty to work together, and with the court, to achieve prompt and efficient resolutions of disputes. 

Rule 26(b)(1) crystalizes the concept of reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the common-sense concept of proportionality .... The amended rule states, as a fundamental principle, that lawyers must size and shape their discovery requests to the requisites of a case. Specifically, the pretrial process must provide parties with efficient access to what is needed to prove a claim or defense, but eliminate unnecessary or wasteful discovery. The key here is careful and realistic assessment of actual need. That assessment may, as a practical matter, require the active involvement of a neutral arbiter – the federal judge – to guide decisions respecting the scope of discovery.

The amended rules accordingly emphasize the crucial role of federal judges in engaging in early and effective case management. The prior rules – specifically Rule 16 – already required that the judge meet with the lawyers after the complaint is filed, confer about the needs of the case, and develop a case management plan. The amended rules have shortened the deadline for that meeting and express a preference for a face-to-face encounter to enhance communication between the judge and lawyers. The amendments also identify techniques to expedite resolution of pretrial discovery disputes, including conferences with the judge before filing formal motions in aid of discovery. Such conferences can often obviate the need for a formal motion – a well-timed scowl from a trial judge can go a long way in moving things along crisply. 

Recognizing the evolving role of information technology in virtually every detail of life, the amended rules specifically address the issue of “electronically stored information,” which has given birth to a new acronym – “ESI.” Rules 16 and 26(f) now require the parties to reach agreement on the preservation and discovery of ESI in their case management plan and discovery conferences. Amendments to Rule 37(e) effect a further refinement by specifying the consequences if a party fails to observe the generally recognized obligation to preserve ESI in the face of foreseeable litigation. If the failure to take reasonable precautions results in a loss of discoverable ESI, the courts must first focus on whether the information can be restored or replaced through alternative discovery efforts. If not, the courts may order additional measures “no greater than necessary” to cure the resulting prejudice. And if the loss of ESI is the result of one party’s intent to deprive the other of the information’s use in litigation, the court may impose prescribed sanctions, ranging from an adverse jury instruction to dismissal of the action or entry of a default judgment.

The 2015 civil rules amendments are a major stride toward a better federal court system. But they will achieve the goal of Rule 1 – “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” – only if the entire legal community, including the bench, bar, and legal academy, step up to the challenge of making real change.

I think we are off to a good start. The Federal Judicial Center, which is the educational and research arm of the federal judiciary, has created a training program for federal judges to ensure they are prepared to introduce the procedural reforms in their courtrooms. Training is necessary for lawyers too, and the American Bar Association and many local bar organizations have initiated educational programs and workshops across the country. The practical implementation of the rules may require some adaptation and innovation. I encourage all to support the judiciary’s plans to test the workability of new case management and discovery practices through carefully conceived pilot programs. In addition, a wide variety of judicial, legal, and academic organizations have supplied key insights in the improvement of both federal and state rules of practice, and they are continuing to provide their perspectives and expertise on the rollout of the new rules. I am confident that the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will continue to engage the full spectrum of those organizations in its ongoing work.

The success of the 2015 civil rules amendments will require more than organized educational efforts. It will also require a genuine commitment, by judges and lawyers alike, to ensure that our legal culture reflects the values we all ultimately share.

Judges must be willing to take on a stewardship role, managing their cases from the outset rather than allowing parties alone to dictate the scope of discovery and the pace of litigation. Faced with crushing dockets, judges can be tempted to postpone engagement in pretrial activities. Experience has shown, however, that judges who are knowledgeable, actively engaged, and accessible early in the process are far more effective in resolving cases fairly and efficiently, because they can identify the critical issues, determine the appropriate breadth of discovery, and curtail dilatory tactics, gamesmanship, and procedural posturing.

As for the lawyers, most will readily agree – in the abstract – that they have an obligation to their clients, and to the justice system, to avoid antagonistic tactics, wasteful procedural maneuvers, and teetering brinksmanship. I cannot believe that many members of the bar went to law school because of a burning desire to spend their professional life wearing down opponents with creatively burdensome discovery requests or evading legitimate requests through dilatory tactics. The test for plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel alike is whether they will affirmatively search out cooperative solutions, chart a cost-effective course of litigation, and assume shared responsibility with opposing counsel to achieve just results.

I am hardly the first to urge that we must engineer a change in our legal culture that places a premium on the public’s interest in speedy, fair, and efficient justice. But I am motivated to address the subject now because the 2015 civil rules amendments provide a concrete opportunity for actually getting something done.