U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 23— CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLANS

28 U.S.C. § 473

Content of civil justice expense and delay reduction plans

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In formulating the provisions of its civil justice expense and delay reduction plan, each United States district court, in consultation with an advisory group appointed under section 478 of this title, shall consider and may include the following principles and guidelines of litigation management and cost and delay reduction:(1) systematic, differential treatment of civil cases that tailors the level of individualized and case specific management to such criteria as case complexity, the amount of time reasonably needed to prepare the case for trial, and the judicial and other resources required and available for the preparation and disposition of the case;(2) early and ongoing control of the pretrial process through involvement of a judicial officer in—(A) assessing and planning the progress of a case;(B) setting early, firm trial dates, such that the trial is scheduled to occur within eighteen months after the filing of the complaint, unless a judicial officer certifies that—(i) the demands of the case and its complexity make such a trial date incompatible with serving the ends of justice; or(ii) the trial cannot reasonably be held within such time because of the complexity of the case or the number or complexity of pending criminal cases;(C) controlling the extent of discovery and the time for completion of discovery, and ensuring compliance with appropriate requested discovery in a timely fashion; and(D) setting, at the earliest practicable time, deadlines for filing motions and a time framework for their disposition;(3) for all cases that the court or an individual judicial officer determines are complex and any other appropriate cases, careful and deliberate monitoring through a discovery-case management conference or a series of such conferences at which the presiding judicial officer—(A) explores the parties’ receptivity to, and the propriety of, settlement or proceeding with the litigation;(B) identifies or formulates the principal issues in contention and, in appropriate cases, provides for the staged resolution or bifurcation of issues for trial consistent with Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;(C) prepares a discovery schedule and plan consistent with any presumptive time limits that a district court may set for the completion of discovery and with any procedures a district court may develop to—(i) identify and limit the volume of discovery available to avoid unnecessary or unduly burdensome or expensive discovery; and(ii) phase discovery into two or more stages; and(D) sets, at the earliest practicable time, deadlines for filing motions and a time framework for their disposition;(4) encouragement of cost-effective discovery through voluntary exchange of information among litigants and their attorneys and through the use of cooperative discovery devices;(5) conservation of judicial resources by prohibiting the consideration of discovery motions unless accompanied by a certification that the moving party has made a reasonable and good faith effort to reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth in the motion; and(6) authorization to refer appropriate cases to alternative dispute resolution programs that—(A) have been designated for use in a district court; or(B) the court may make available, including mediation, minitrial, and summary jury trial.(b) In formulating the provisions of its civil justice expense and delay reduction plan, each United States district court, in consultation with an advisory group appointed under section 478 of this title, shall consider and may include the following litigation management and cost and delay reduction techniques:(1) a requirement that counsel for each party to a case jointly present a discovery-case management plan for the case at the initial pretrial conference, or explain the reasons for their failure to do so;(2) a requirement that each party be represented at each pretrial conference by an attorney who has the authority to bind that party regarding all matters previously identified by the court for discussion at the conference and all reasonably related matters;(3) a requirement that all requests for extensions of deadlines for completion of discovery or for postponement of the trial be signed by the attorney and the party making the request;(4) a neutral evaluation program for the presentation of the legal and factual basis of a case to a neutral court representative selected by the court at a nonbinding conference conducted early in the litigation;(5) a requirement that, upon notice by the court, representatives of the parties with authority to bind them in settlement discussions be present or available by telephone during any settlement conference; and(6) such other features as the district court considers appropriate after considering the recommendations of the advisory group referred to in section 472(a) of this title.(c) Nothing in a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan relating to the settlement authority provisions of this section shall alter or conflict with the authority of the Attorney General to conduct litigation on behalf of the United States, or any delegation of the Attorney General.(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title I, § 103(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5091.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a)(3)(B), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Pitman v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pitman v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003). “COURT’S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS District courts are specifically empowered to conduct settlement conferences under the Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 473 (b)(5). 2 Moreover, a district court may impose sanctions for failure to comply with a settlement conference…”
United States v. United States Dist. Court for N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “The statute lists litigation management techniques which the court should consider and may implement, including “a requirement that, upon notice by the court, representatives of the parties with authority to bind them in settlement discussions be present or available by…”
Ashland Chem. Inc. v. Barco Inc., 123 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 473 (b)(6) (1994). In addition, both Mesh and the district court direct our attention to Friends of the Earth, Inc.”
Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 933 P.2d 1036 (Wash. 1997). “Congress enacted, in response to the problems arising from increased discovery, the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C.A. § 473 (a), which mandates the early and ongoing judicial management of the pretrial process and includes judicial control of the extent and time of…”
Harleysville Mut. Ins. v. Sussex Cnty., 831 F. Supp. 1111 (D. Del. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 473 (a)(2)(B). Harleysville filed the first complaint in this consolidated matter on March 13, 1992.”
In Re Atl. Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2002). “Rule V of the CJR Plan states: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 473 (b)(4), this Court shall adopt a method of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) through mediation by a judicial officer.”
In Re Nlo, Inc., 5 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 1993). “§ 3, would have amended 28 U.S.C. § 473 (a) to permit courts to mandate such alternative dispute techniques as summary jury trials, but this bill did not pass.”
Nat'l Asbestos Workers Med. Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 139 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “Case Law Cases addressing district court certification have unanimously characterized it as discretionary even where the statutory criteria are met.”
Beightol v. UBS Painewebber (In Re Global Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig.), 311 B.R. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Like provisions of the federal Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 473 , or those of the federal Speedy Trial Act applicable to criminal cases, 18 U.”
Thorn Emi North Am., Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 837 F. Supp. 616 (D. Del. 1993). “See 28 U.S.C. § 473 ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 26; Fed.R.”
Suss v. Am. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 823 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “5089 , enacting 28 U.S.C. § 473 ; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.”
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Chevron Chem. Co., 885 F. Supp. 934 (E.D. Tex. 1995). · cites it 3× “In 28 U.S.C.S. § 473 , the CJRA enunciates eleven specific principles, guidelines and techniques for litigation management and cost and delay reduction which should be considered in formulating a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan.”
Show all 91 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.