Text: S.2027 — 101st Congress (1989-1990)All Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

Shown Here:
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