Guidelines and Best Practices for Implementing 2018 Amendments to Rule 23 Class Action Settlement Provisions

In 2016, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) hosted a conference to develop Guidelines and Best Practices in light of new amendments to Rule 23 on Class Actions, which were scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2018. The conference laid the groundwork for the Class Action Settlement Guidelines and Best Practices, which were drafted by 38 prominent defense and plaintiff practitioners and experts well experienced in class action litigation — with significant input and comment from six federal and state court judges. This document is intended to help the bench and bar comply with the 2018 amendments to Rule 23. It adds detail to the general guidance provided in the amended rule and committee note. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization

Guidelines and Best Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Third Edition)

This third edition of The Guidelines and Best Practices to Achieve Proportionality was developed following a proportionality conference in June 2019, at which practitioners and judges reviewed and discussed the results of several studies evaluating the 2015 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. A small working group convened by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School, led by Judge Paul Grimm and including practitioners David Kessler and Jennie Anderson, gathered these insights, revised the guidelines, issued them for public comment, and made further revisions in light of the comments. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization. We now offer these revised Guidelines in the hope that they will help judges and practitioners by offering balanced, fair, practical, and principled advice about how to navigate the sometimes turbulent waters of proportionality

Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines

In the winter of 2016, more than 50 e-discovery experts volunteered to develop and draft guidelines providing guidance to the bench and bar on the use of technology assisted review (TAR). This document explains the TAR process and offers “best practices,” which are intended to provide a protocol on whether and under what conditions TAR should be used. It provides a strong record and roadmap for the bench and bar, which explain and support the use of TAR in appropriate cases. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization

Guidelines and Best Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Second Edition)

In November 2014, the Duke Law Judicial Studies Center, which became the Bolch Judicial Institute in 2018, held a conference on the discovery proportionality amendments with more than 70 practitioners and 15 federal judges. Drafting teams were subsequently formed, consisting of 32 practitioners, who worked for nine months on an initial draft set of GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES prepared by Judge Lee Rosenthal and Prof. Steven Gensler. The team’s work product, the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 2015 DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE PROPORTIONALITY, was published in 99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, along with several related articles. Most of the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES’ recommendations represented general consensus views, but a handful were not universally endorsed. To address these and future unforeseeable concerns, the Institute planned to regularly revise and update the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES in light of case-law developments and actual practice. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization

Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs (Second Edition)

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth. Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and legal practitioners understand and efficiently navigate complex MDL procedures. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization

Guidelines and Best Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Second Edition)

In November 2014, the Duke Law Judicial Studies Center, which became the Bolch Judicial Institute in 2018, held a conference on the discovery proportionality amendments with more than 70 practitioners and 15 federal judges. Drafting teams were subsequently formed, consisting of 32 practitioners, who worked for nine months on an initial draft set of GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES prepared by Judge Lee Rosenthal and Prof. Steven Gensler. The team’s work product, the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 2015 DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE PROPORTIONALITY, was published in 99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, along with several related articles. Most of the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES’ recommendations represented general consensus views, but a handful were not universally endorsed. To address these and future unforeseeable concerns, the Institute planned to regularly revise and update the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES in light of case-law developments and actual practice. As with any group product of this nature, where some consensus must be reached, the drafters and other participants are not individually responsible for any particular statement or provision, and may or may not agree with any particular statement or provision. This document does not represent the views of Duke Law School, Duke University, their faculties, or any other organization