S.2027 - Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990101st Congress (1989-1990)
|Sponsor:||Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] (Introduced 01/25/1990)|
|Committees:||Senate - Judiciary|
|Latest Action:||06/26/1990 Committee on Judiciary. Hearings concluded. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 101-1097. (All Actions)|
This bill has the status Introduced
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
Text: S.2027 — 101st Congress (1989-1990)All Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.
Text available as:
- Bill and resolution texts for 1989-1992 (101st-102nd Congresses) predate authenticated digital publishing.
Introduced in Senate
S 2027 IS 101st CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2027 To require certain procedural changes in United States district courts in order to promote the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of civil actions, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 23), 1990 Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SIMON, and Mr. METZENBAUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To require certain procedural changes in United States district courts in order to promote the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of civil actions, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the fundamental objectives of the civil justice system, as expressed in Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are the `just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action'; (2) some minimal level of efficiency and economy is a precondition for the delivery of justice to all; (3) the delivery of justice is also dependent upon the availability of sufficient time for the thoughtful and deliberate adjudication of cases on the merits, since such adjudication is a principal function of the trial court judge; (4) litigation transaction costs, in complex as well as in relatively routine cases, are high and are increasing; (5) delays throughout the course of litigation not only often inure to the benefit of one side over another but also increase court backlog, often inhibit the full and accurate determination of the facts, interfere with the deliberate and prompt disposition and adjudication of cases and thereby contribute to high litigation transaction costs; (6) high and increasing litigation costs cast doubt upon the system's fairness and its ability to render justice, because those costs unreasonably impede access to the courts and make it more difficult for aggrieved parties to obtain proper and timely judicial relief, or, in some cases, to obtain any relief at all; (7) high and increasing litigation costs also burden American businesses, which are compelled to spend increasingly more money on legal expenses at a time when they are confronted with intense international competition and to divert valuable resources from the essential functions of making better products and delivering quality services at the lowest possible cost; (8) given current litigation practices, litigation costs and delays and the problems attendant thereto will increase substantially during the next decade; (9) the dual problems of excessive litigation costs and delays indicate that the civil justice system is not fulfilling its fundamental objectives of adjudicating and resolving cases fairly, promptly, and inexpensively; (10) each Federal district court should develop a comprehensive plan to reduce excessive costs and delays and thereby to improve the system's over-all fairness and its ability to render justice; (11) in developing its plan, each district court should draw upon the expertise in the bench, the bar and the public, thereby maximizing the prospects that workable plans will be developed and stimulating a much-needed dialogue about methods for improving the fairness of the system and for streamlining litigation practice; (12) in light of the diversity of caseloads, types of litigation, local characteristics of the caseflow process, and the number of judges and support staff available across different Federal jurisdictions, each district court should have sufficient flexibility to formulate the specific details of its plan within certain well-defined and uniformly applied parameters; (13) by improving the quality of the process of civil litigation, the plans will contribute to improvement of the quality of justice that the civil litigation system delivers; (14) the substantially changed civil litigation system, evidenced by the burgeoning cost, complexity and volume of civil litigation, suggests that in the development of district court plans, the same set of generic procedures need not, and should not, apply to all types of cases; (15) the plans should also recognize that there has not been adequate utilization of available and existing tools to respond to this substantially changed civil litigation system, to control costs and delays and thereby to secure the `just, speedy and inexpensive' determination of civil disputes; (16) as part of their effort to manage civil cases more effectively and otherwise respond to the changing litigation system, some district courts on a formal basis, and some district court judges on an informal basis, already apply different types of procedures to different types of cases; (17) evidence from these courts suggests that an effective case management program should incorporate several interrelated components, including-- (A) mechanisms to take early, active control of each case filed; (B) time goals for case adjudication and other disposition; (C) court participation in decisions relating to case progress; (D) control over the discovery process; (E) deadlines, in appropriate cases, for completion of required case events; (F) court monitoring of compliance with the deadlines; and (G) credible trial dates; (18) differentiated case management, of the type implemented in several State courts through case tracking systems that assign each case to a distinct processing path, is the logical extension of these components and now is warranted on a regularized and formalized basis; (19) differentiated case management enhances the quality of the civil litigation process by-- (A) customizing procedures for each case category; (B) encouraging consensus management of each case to the maximum extent possible; (C) monitoring and facilitating the movement of the case; (D) facilitating access to the court in a timely manner to resolve problems that develop; and (E) ensuring that judges have adequate time to adjudicate issues pending before them; (20) each case tracking system should implement the two interrelated procedures of establishing early, firm trial dates and imposing time limits on the completion of discovery, with related controls over the filing and resolution of motions; (21) this linkage is necessary, in part, because the early completion of discovery can be counterproductive if the trial is then long delayed; (22) because statistical studies demonstrate that approximately 95 percent of all civil cases are resolved or otherwise terminated without a trial, and because pretrial processing expenses, particularly for discovery, are often disproportionate to the case, greater attention should be devoted to the pretrial process; (23) a critical element of the pretrial process is early and active judicial intervention, which can aid greatly in-- (A) defining the issues to be litigated and limiting pretrial activity to relevant matters; (B) controlling pretrial discovery and other activity to avoid unnecessary expense and burden; (C) arriving at a settlement in appropriate cases as early as possible or attempting to identify methods for resolving it as expeditiously and economically as possible; (D) facilitating an adjudication on the merits in appropriate cases; and (E) ensuring that any trial will be well focused and well prepared; (24) a 1981 General Accounting Office study found the establishment and enforcement of time standards for different stages of civil cases to be a critical factor in reducing delay; (25) a recent study by the National Center for State Courts presenting the most broadly based empirical evidence ever collected regarding the extent and nature of court delay indicates that-- (A) early court control over the scheduling of case events, including early resolution of motions, and firm trial dates are characteristic of the courts with the least amount of delay; and (B) time goals for case processing are also an important predictor of shorter case processing times; (26) the importance of case processing time standards has been recognized by the organized bench and bar, with standards developed by the National Conference of State Trial Judges adopted by the American Bar Association in 1984, and with similar standards developed by the Conference of State Court Administrators adopted in 1983 and endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices in 1984; (27) while some courts already set early and firm trial dates, discovery deadlines and other case event deadlines pursuant to their authority under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, others are reluctant to do so, as recent data suggest that-- (A) the extent to which judges comply with the requirement to prepare scheduling orders varies, as does the extent to which they issue such orders within required time limits; (B) in those cases with scheduling orders, approximately one-half have at least one extension to that order; (C) in some districts, most cases are by local rule exempted from the scheduling requirement; and (D) the use of status conferences varies substantially from district to district and from judge to judge; (28) a broader requirement is necessary in light of the view of many experts that fixing early, firm dates and other case event deadlines is the single most effective device for encouraging prompt and well-focused case development; (29) discovery deadlines, in the form of presumptive time limits for the completion of discovery for different categories of cases, are particularly important because if implemented as part of an overall case management system, they can provide much needed controls on a discovery process often characterized by obstructionist, dilatory, and redundant discovery tactics that lead to the `overdiscovery' of cases rather than to attempts to focus on controlling issues; (30) time limits on discovery can encourage litigants and their attorneys to-- (A) narrow their areas of inquiry to those that are truly relevant and material; (B) establish priorities for completion of the most important tasks as quickly as possible; and (C) devote more attention to weighing the value of uncovering every single item of `relevant' material against the value of resolving the dispute more fairly, quickly and inexpensively; (31) presumptive time limits are consistent with the now recognized need to structure and narrow discovery as reflected in part in Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits the court to limit discovery where it will be `unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation'; (32) delays in deciding fully briefed motions contribute to the costs of litigation by preventing the narrowing of issues, encouraging the parties to conduct unnecessary discovery and requiring rediscovery; (33) the reduction of such delays can be encouraged by substantially expanding the availability of public information about backlogs in undecided motions; (34) another important element of the pretrial process that can reduce litigation costs is the exploration of the wide range of alternative means of dispute resolution, including arbitration, mediation, the minitrial and the summary jury trial; (35) another element of the pretrial process that can reduce litigation costs is the intervention of a neutral party in the early stages of the litigation process-- (A) to force the parties to confront the merits of their case and their opponents' case; (B) to identify those questions of fact and law that actually are in dispute as early as possible; (C) to develop an efficient approach to discovery; and (D) to provide a frank assessment of the case and its overall value. SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE. Title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of part I the following new chapter: `CHAPTER 23--CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION `Subchapter I--Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plans `Sec. `471. Civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. `472. Model plan. `473. Report by Federal Judicial Center. `474. Backlogs in district courts. `475. Automation. `476. Manual for litigation management. `477. Authorization. `478. Congressional review. `Subchapter II--Case Management Training `Sec. `479. Judicial case management training programs. `480. Authorization. `Subchapter I--Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plans ` 471. Civil justice expense and delay reduction plan `(a)(1) On or before the expiration of the 12-month period following the date of the enactment of this chapter, each United States district court shall develop a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan in accordance with this chapter. Such plans shall apply to all civil proceedings. Each United States district court shall develop its plan with a view toward facilitating deliberate adjudication on the merits in appropriate cases, streamlining discovery, improving judicial case management, and renewing its commitment to the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil disputes. `(2) The civil justice expense and delay reduction plans shall be developed in each district by a planning group or similar advisory committee with membership from the bench, the public, and the bar. Such groups shall be appointed by the chief district court judge of the district and shall include the chief district court judge of the district, a magistrate in the district, the district court clerk, public representatives, lawyers who represent the Federal, State and local governments in the district, and lawyers practicing in law firms of diverse sizes, in corporations and for public interest groups so that each of the major categories of litigants in the district shall be represented. Such groups shall also include a person designated by the chief district court judge as the reporter. `(3) Each United States district court shall implement its civil justice expense and delay reduction plan by local rule in accordance with the provisions of section 2071 of this title. `(b) Each civil justice expense and delay reduction plan shall include the following: `(1) A system of differentiated case management designed to-- `(A) make an early assessment of each case filed according to criteria including-- `(i) case complexity, including the number of parties involved, the number of claims and defenses raised, the legal difficulty of the issues presented, and the factual difficulty of the subject matter; `(ii) amount of time needed to prepare the case; `(iii) anticipated trial length; and `(iv) judicial and other system resources required for the preparation and disposition of the case; `(B) assign cases on this basis to appropriate processing tracks that operate under distinct and explicit rules, procedures and timeframes for the completion of discovery and for trial; `(C) apply the necessary level of court supervision and resources to each case consistent with its management requirements; `(D) establish appropriate mechanisms to monitor case progress and assure observance of deadlines for completion of case events; and `(E) assure the expeditious processing of each case by counsel and judicial system officials in accordance with the tasks required. `(2) To effectuate the early assessment of each case as set forth in paragraph (1)(A), in each district's differentiated case management system-- `(A) cases shall be classified on intake through an expanded civil cover sheet, which the clerk of each district court, designated track coordinator or other person to whom track assignment responsibilities have been delegated would use in making the initial track assignment; `(B) counsel shall have the opportunity to indicate within a short time period that a different track applies; `(C) disputes over the track assignment shall be raised first with the district court clerk, designated track coordinator or other person to whom track assignment responsibilities have been delegated, and, if not resolved, addressed by the judge at the mandatory discovery-case management conference described in paragraph (3), or, if no such conference is held, decided by the judge, who shall include a statement of reasons, within 30 days of the original track assignment; and `(D) cases shall be reassigned to a different track if warranted and with reasons stated based on a changed assessment of the factors set forth in clauses (i) through (iv) of paragraph (1)(A). `(3) A requirement that, subject to paragraph (4), a mandatory discovery-case management conference, presided over by a judge and not a magistrate, be held in all cases within 45 days following the first responsive pleading to the complaint, motion, or other paper, whichever occurs first, and that at such discovery-case management conference, the judge to whom the case is assigned shall-- `(A) explore the parties' receptivity to and propriety of settlement or proceeding with the litigation; `(B) identify or formulate the principal issues in contention and, in appropriate cases, provide for the staged resolution or bifurcation of issues consistent with Rule 20(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; `(C) prepare a discovery schedule and plan consistent with the presumptive time limits for the completion of discovery as set forth in paragraph (6) and the discovery controls as set forth in paragraph (7); `(D) require, in all cases assigned to the complex track, the attendance of an attorney for each party with authority to bind the party to the same extent as trial counsel regarding all matters that the court has previously identified will be discussed and that the participants should on that basis reasonably anticipate may be discussed, and permit, in cases not assigned to the complex track, some or all of the required participants to participate by telephone; `(E) fix the time to file, hear, and decide motions in accordance with the procedures as set forth in paragraph (9); `(F) fix the date or dates for additional conferences before trial, and a date for the final pretrial conference; `(G) fix a time certain for trial consistent with the procedures as set forth in paragraph (5) and in cases assigned to the track designated for complex litigation, the court shall, to the fullest extent possible, apprise the parties of the period of time after discovery is completed within which the trial will occur; `(H) decide whether to enlist the services of a magistrate and, if so-- `(i) to make every effort before the conference to select the person who will serve in that capacity and to arrange for him or her to be present at the conference; and `(ii) specify the tasks to be referred and the scope of the magistrate's authority; `(I) for cases assigned to the track designated for complex litigation, calendar a series of monitoring conferences, presided over by a judge and not a magistrate, for the purpose of extending stipulations, refining the formulation of issues and focusing and pacing discovery; and `(J) address any other matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case. `(4) Procedures for exempting cases assigned to the track designated for expedited or simple litigation from the discovery-case management conference requirement on the basis that the issues raised by such cases are sufficiently limited that the court can issue, within 45 days of the first responsive pleading to the complaint, motion, or other paper, whichever occurs first, a standard order scheduling-- `(A) a trial date; `(B) discovery, including discovery cutoff dates; and `(C) dates for filing and deciding substantive and discovery motions. A judge may, in his or her discretion, hold a discovery-case management conference in a case assigned to the track designated for expedited or simple litigation. `(5)(A) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (B), a requirement that the court set a time certain for trial whether by specific day, week, 2-week period or month, at the mandatory discovery-case management conference or, as to those cases in which such conference is not held, in the order referred to in paragraph (4). `(B) In cases assigned to the track designated for complex litigation, the court shall, not later than 120 days before the date that discovery will be completed, set a date for trial. Each district's plan may include a provision for extending the trial date by order of court for good cause shown. `(6)(A) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (B), a requirement that each processing track in the district's tracking system establish presumptive time limits for the completion of discovery so that parties are apprised upon track assignment of the time within which discovery must be completed. `(B)(i) Deadlines for the completion of discovery may be extended only by order of the court for good cause shown such as subsequent discovery will not delay trial. `(ii) All requests for extensions of the deadline for completion of discovery shall be signed by the attorney and the party making the request. `(iii) In cases assigned to the track designated for complex litigation, the court may establish at the initial conference time limits for the completion of intermediate steps in the discovery process and identify a date certain by which it will set a final discovery cutoff date. `(7) Procedures for making the discovery process track-specific, so that, with respect to each processing track in the district's tracking system, consideration is given to-- `(A) identifying and limiting the volume of discovery available to avoid unnecessary or unduly burdensome or expensive discovery; `(B) phasing discovery, including the phased use of depositions upon oral examination under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, depositions upon written questions under Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatories to parties under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, production of documents and things and entry upon land for inspection and other purposes under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and requests for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, into two or more stages; `(C) developing means for the voluntary exchange of information; and `(D) encouraging new and more cooperative discovery devices. `(8) Procedures specifying that the court will not entertain any discovery motion, except those motions brought by a person appearing pro se and those brought pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a person who is not a party, unless counsel for the moving party has filed with the court, at the time of filing the motion, a statement showing that a reasonable good faith effort has been made to reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth in the motion. `(9) Procedures for resolving motions necessary to meet the trial dates and the discovery deadlines established pursuant to the plan, including the adoption of time guidelines for the filing and disposition of substantive and discovery motions. `(10) A comprehensive program providing for adjudication and, in appropriate cases, alternative dispute resolution, which would make available to the parties and their counsel the full range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, arbitration, minitrial, and summary jury trial. If such program includes the mandatory reference of certain cases to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, provision shall be made for motions to exempt a case from the mandated procedure. `(11) An early neutral evaluation program, to which certain categories of cases identified in each plan will be assigned and through which the parties and their counsel present the legal and factual bases of their case to a neutral court representative at a nonbinding conference that takes place at the earliest possible stage in the litigation. `(12) A requirement that, upon notice by the court, representatives of the parties with authority to bind them in settlement decisions be present or available by telephone during any settlement conference. `(13) Procedures for the regular publication of pending undecided motions and caseload progress for each individual judge to enhance judicial accountability. `(14) Procedures for identifying, and reviewing from time to time, functions performed in the district by magistrates with a view to determining which functions within constitutional and statutory limits can best be performed by judges or by magistrates. `(15) Procedures for judges to exchange information about their role in adjudicating contested motions and other matters. `(c) Once developed, each United States district court, when it provides copies of its plan to the judicial council of the relevant circuit and to the Administrative Office of the United States courts in accordance with section 2071 of this title, shall also submit a report explaining how such plan complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. `(d) The judicial council of the relevant circuit shall exercise its authority in accordance with subsection (c)(1) of section 2071 of this title to review and evaluate a district court's plan and, if necessary, modify or abrogate elements of the plan to ensure that the plan complies with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. `(e) The Judicial Conference may review and evaluate any determinations of the circuit judicial councils in accordance with subsection (d) of this section. ` 472. Model plan `(a)(1) The Judicial Conference of the United States and the Federal Judicial Center shall develop, in consultation with the individuals and groups from whom membership of the district court planning groups or similar advisory committees as set forth in section 471(a)(2) is drawn, a model civil justice expense and delay reduction plan in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 471(b) on or before the expiration of the 180-day period following the date of enactment of this chapter. `(2) Such model plan shall be accompanied by a report explaining how the plan addresses the criteria set forth in section 471(b). `(3) The model plan and the accompanying report shall be made available to each district court to use in developing its specific plan. `(4) The model plan and the accompanying report shall also be submitted to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. `(b) If, at the expiration of the 12-month period following the date of the enactment of this chapter, a district court has failed to develop a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan, the model plan shall, after appropriate public notice and comment, immediately take effect in that district. ` 473. Report by Federal Judicial Center `(a) On or before the expiration of the 24-month period following the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Federal Judicial Center shall report to the Congress with respect to the establishment and implementation of civil justice expense and delay reduction plans transmitted to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts by United States district courts. Such report shall include, among other things, information showing the number of United States district courts establishing and implementing plans in accordance with section 471, the contents of such plans, and the number of such courts implementing the model plan in accordance with section 472. `(b) In reporting on the contents of the district court plans implemented in accordance with section 471, the Federal Judicial Center shall specify how each plan addressed, among other things-- `(1) the acquisition of initial case information and the creation of a case tracking record; `(2) the number of case processing tracks; `(3) the criteria for differentiating among cases and assigning them to one of the tracks; `(4) the development of a disposition plan and timetable; `(5) trial scheduling; `(6) the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques; `(7) the notification and communication among the court and attorneys, including mechanisms by which judges and administrators both within and outside the court consult concerning management and administrative issues affecting the court; `(8) the management and monitoring of case progress; `(9) the means for data input and case recordkeeping; and `(10) the procedures for evaluating system performance. The Federal Judicial Center's report shall also analyze the impact of the plans on the time available to judges to address complex, novel, or difficult issues of law or fact. `(c) It shall be the function of the Federal Judicial Center to study on a continuing basis the effects of the various procedural reforms adopted pursuant to this chapter. It shall be the function of the Judicial Conference of the United States to develop, based on the findings arising out of such studies, new procedural recommendations from time to time, for United States district courts. Each United States district court shall make available to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Federal Judicial Center such data and other information that the Administrative Office and the Federal Judicial Center determine to be necessary to enable them to carrying out their functions under this chapter. ` 474. Backlogs in district courts `(a) In conjunction with developing and implementing its plan in accordance with section 471, each United States district court shall develop and implement a transition program for handling any backlog of cases within such district. Such program shall include an assessment of the current backlog problem experienced by such district court, a requirement that any case pending for more than 12 months be scheduled for a discovery-case management conference, an analysis of current judicial productivity, possible revision of current local rules to address the backlog, and a schedule for terminating the transition program, with interim goals leading to the full implementation of the district's civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. `(b) In developing a transition program, each district shall establish an accurate inventory of pending cases if such inventory does not exist. Such inventory will enable the district to undertake steps that can be taken to reduce the number and age of its actual pending civil caseload, including setting older cases for a monitoring or other status conference or directly for the trial. `(c)(1) In assessing its current backlog, each district shall prepare a backlog index, which is the ratio of the number of civil cases pending on January 1 of the preceding full calendar year divided by the number of civil cases disposed of during that year. `(2) When transmitting its transition program to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts according to subsection (d), each district shall record its backlog ratio. When the Federal Judicial Center submits its report according to section 473, it shall prepare a civil case backlog index showing the ratios for all of the Federal district courts. `(d) A copy of each transition program developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the plan and report submitted in accordance with section 471(c). ` 475. Automation `(a) For purposes of enabling United States district courts to implement the provisions of section 471, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall automate the court's docket, in each district where such automation has not yet been established. `(b)(1) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall ensure that such automation enables each court, in implementing the provisions of section 471(b)(13), to make available to the public a quarterly report listing all pending submitted motions before each judge that are unresolved for more than 30, 60, and 90 days, and all succeeding 30-day increments. Such report shall include data for each judge of the district indicating the aging of his or her caseload in each of the tracking categories developed by the district under its civil justice expense and delay reduction plan, as well as data indicating the number of written opinions, the number of bench trials and the number of jury trials. `(2) To facilitate the reporting required under subsection (1), the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall standardize court procedures for categorizing or characterizing judicial actions, including defining what constitutes a `dismissal' and how long a case has been `pending'. ` 476. Manual for litigation management `The Judicial Conference shall take such action as may be necessary to prepare a Manual for Litigation Management. Among other things, the manual shall provide commentary on the civil justice expense and delay reduction plans, explain the rationale behind various decisions underlying such plans, and identify how provisions in the plans have increased the time available for trials and for the deliberate adjudication of cases on the merits. It shall be the purpose of such manual to set forth the basic management tools as well as provide commentary on what experience has taught about the effective use of such tools. ` 477. Authorization `(a) For the purpose of enabling the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide automated systems to implement the civil justice expense and delay reduction plans in accordance with section 471, there is authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $10,000,000, as may be necessary. `(b) For the purpose of assisting financially the United States district courts to develop plans required by this chapter, carrying out the study required by section 473(b), carrying out the provisions of section 474, carrying out the provisions of section 476, and other provisions of this subchapter, there is authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $5,000,000, as may be necessary. ` 478. Congressional review `Upon the completion of the 5-year period following the date of enactment of this chapter, the Federal Judicial Center, based on its continuing study in accordance with section 473(b), shall prepare a report on the effectiveness of the civil justice expense and delay reduction plans in reducing litigation transaction costs and delays, in increasing the time of judges that is available for trial of cases and for the adjudications of cases on the merits and in otherwise securing the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of civil actions. Such report shall be submitted to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. If the report determines that the plans have not been effective, Congress shall review this subchapter and assess whether modification or termination of the program of civil justice expense and delay reduction plans is warranted. `Subchapter II--Case Management Training ` 479. Judicial case management training programs `The Federal Judicial Center shall take such action as may be necessary to expand current judicial training programs to include a new curriculum and emphasis on case management so that the accumulated learning on management and adjudicatory techniques is communicated on a regular and formal basis to all district court judges, magistrates, clerks of the district courts, and other court personnel whom the Center may designate. ` 480. Authorization `For the purpose of enabling the Federal Judicial Center to carry out the provisions of section 479, there is authorized to be appropriated such sum, not to exceed $1,000,000, as may be necessary.'. SEC. 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Part I of the table of contents of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 471.'. S 2027 IS----2 S 2027 IS----3