Florida Caselaw on Granting Civil Trial Continuances
Judicial Management Council plan would reshape how civil cases are processed
'The goals are to improve the clearance rate of civil cases, reduce the time and cost of litigation making it a more attractive alternative for resolving disputes, and make more effective use of court resources'
The Supreme Court has released a report recommending procedural rule changes that would impose more judicial control on civil cases, tighten rules (including tougher sanctions) for discovery, depositions, and continuances, and have reports to the Supreme Court when judges don't expeditiously rule on motions and decide cases.
The Judicial Management Council's Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases is proposing numerous changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration.
(Although the report addressed civil cases, the proposed new rule requiring judges to rule expeditiously would apply to all cases.)
"Just about every state and every jurisdiction has made an effort to manage this [civil cases] — the federal system did it decades ago," said Second District Court of Appeal Judge Robert Morris, who chaired the workgroup and delivered a report at the December Bar Board of Governors meeting. "We need to do something about this and it's our time to try and work on it."
He added: "People don't like change. This is a major paradigm shift."
Bar President Mike Tanner called the proposals "sobering."
Some of the workgroup's proposals have already been implemented by the court. In a March 5, 2021, interim report to the court the workgroup proposed, with some exceptions that most civil cases be divided into three categories and be actively managed by judges. Those three categories are streamlined for simpler cases, complex for the most involved matters, and general for other cases.
The court accepted those recommendations and incorporated them as Section III.G in AOSC20-23 on April 13, 2021, on dealing with the backlog of COVID-19 pandemic cases.
The workgroup's report, which has been approved by the full JMC, spells out the details, including rule amendments, for making the new system work. It sets out four key steps: 1) case management including early judicial intervention that includes setting discovery deadlines and a trial date early in the process; 2) passing rules that emphasize keeping to that case management schedule; 3) public reporting on case management data including the time it takes judges to rule on motions and decide cases; and 4) continuing education for both judges and lawyers, both on the necessity of active case management and how it works.
The goals, the workgroup said, are to improve the clearance rate of civil cases (which even before COVID was not keeping up with new cases filed), reduce the time and cost of litigation making it a more attractive alternative for resolving disputes, and make more effective use of court resources.
The workgroup report conceded there was only scattered empirical evidence on its proposals but said it felt it was necessary to suggest changes and explained its rationale for the recommendations.
"[O]ne has to start somewhere. With clearance rates in the Florida's circuit civil courts stagnating and with existing court rules on case management ranging from the aspirational to the mostly optional, the Workgroup has reached a consensus on recommendations for amendments to relevant court rules based on the existing empirical evidence, recommendations made by experts around the country, and the members' collective decades of experience as litigators and judges in Florida's trial courts," the report said.
For case management, rule amendments or new rules have been proposed for Civil Procedure Rules 1.200 (case management in general), 1.201 (complex cases), 1.440 (setting cases for trial), 1.271 (creating a new pretrial coordination court for multiple related cases such as tobacco litigation), and 1.275 to codify sanctions available to the courts for litigation-related offenses. Also proposed is new Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.546 that requires parties to inform the court when cases go on or come off inactive status and sets deadlines for court orders under Rules 1.200 and 1.201.
For maintaining the court schedule, new or amended rules have been proposed for Rules 1.280(a) (initial fact disclosure requirements); 1.280(f) and (g) (duty to supplement initial disclosure and responses to interrogatories and requests for production and admission); 1.279 (general discovery conduct and deposition conduct); 1.340, 1.350, and 1.351 (timely response to interrogatories and requests for production including to nonparties); 1.335 (conduct standards for depositions); 1.380 (sanctions for discovery abuse); deleting Rules 1.090(d) and 1.110 (b) and incorporating them into expanded Rule 1.160 (motion practice) and Rule 1.161 (scheduling motion hearings); Rule 2.215(f) (reasonable time for a judge to rule on a motions and decide trials); Rule 1.420(e) (failure to prosecute); Rule 1.460 (disincentives for seeking continuances); and Rule 2.550(c) (to require the presiding judges to resolve trial conflicts).
Also proposed are changes to Florida Small Claims rules to set a deadline for service on defendants, to conform with amended Rule 1.200 when civil rules are involved, and to require court approval before engaging in discovery under civil rules. The workgroup proposed changing Mediation Rule 10.420(a) to allow mediation orientation in groups rather than by individual cases.
Finally, the workgroup proposed new Rule 2.250(b) to encourage trial judges to engage in active case management. The amendment requires "the chief judge of each circuit to serve on the chief justice and the state courts administrator an annual report listing all active civil cases that were pending three years or more as of the end of the fiscal year."
Rule 2.215(f), noted above, already requires judges to decide motions and "cases submitted for determination after trial" within 60 days. "The proposed rule applies to all categories of cases, not only civil cases," the workgroup report said. "Judges must self-report to the chief judge when a matter has not been decided within 60 days. The chief judge must attempt to rectify any reported delays and, if the delay cannot be rectified and no just cause for the delay exists, to report the matter to the chief justice."
The report explained how litigation would proceed in each of the three tracks under the new case management system.
For cases in the "General" category: "The parties must meet and confer within 30 days after initial service of the complaint on the first defendant served (unless this deadline is extended by the court) and work out projected deadlines in seven categories, including discovery, potential dispositive motions, and anticipated trial readiness date. Within 120 days after the case is filed or within 30 days after service on the last defendant, whichever is earlier, the parties must file a joint case management report and proposed case management order based on the meet and confer, failing which the court will issue its own case management order. The contents of the joint case management report are delineated in [Rule 1.200] subdivision (e)(3)(C). The contents of the proposed case management order are listed in subdivision (e)(3)(D), which requires the parties to set numerous deadlines, to propose a trial period or a date for a case management conference to set the trial period, and to state the anticipated number of days for trial. The court must issue the case management order as soon as practicable after receiving the parties' proposed order; the court may also call a case management conference before issuing the case management order. In short, the case management order sets a comprehensive master timetable for the remainder of the case's pretrial proceedings."
Many of the rules address not only discovery, depositions, and continuances, but sanctions against parties and attorneys. Sanction standards are consolidated in proposed Rule 1.275. On discovery matters, the proposed rules would make attorneys as well as parties subject to sanction for some abuses and specifically banned are the misuse or abuse of "discovery rules for tactical advantage or delay" or that "interfere with the court's ability to adjudicate the case."
Aside from those standards, under proposed case management rules, the court can consider compliance or noncompliance with case management orders "and impose sanctions without resort to a prefatory order to show cause, given that the parties are on notice, under the case management order, of what is required of them." And the court "if both parties fail to appear at a case management conference…may assume that the case has been resolved and dismiss it without prejudice."
Proposed new Rule 1.279 addresses discovery standards. As the workgroup explained, "Subdivision (a) summarizes essential principles. Subdivision (b) lays out the obligations of attorneys and parties. In particular, subdivision (b)(3) directs attorneys to advise clients of their discovery obligations and states that courts may presume that attorneys have done so. Subdivision (b)(2)(C) lists multiple sources delineating appropriate standards of conduct, including the Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, The Florida Bar Professionalism Expectations, and the Florida Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice. Finally, subdivision (c)(1) reminds the court of its authority to sanction parties and attorneys for discovery abuse and of its obligation to prevent unreasonable litigation delay, and subdivision (c)(2) directs courts to take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the discovery rules."
Similar rule changes address depositions, continuances, motion practice, and a new requirement on initial fact disclosure. The workgroup considered but rejected requiring initial expert disclosure.
whitcombarely1990.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/judicial-management-council-plan-would-reshape-how-civil-cases-are-processed/
0 Response to "Florida Caselaw on Granting Civil Trial Continuances"
Post a Comment