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

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

Access to Justice: Report on Selected Reform Initiatives in Canada

When the Sub-committee on Access to Justice (Trial Courts) first met we confirmed that we are concerned with access to justice, and in particular with mounting costs in the justice system. While Subcommittee members are aware of important initiatives designed to respond to the issue of costs at the trial level, it was felt that it would be helpful to know more about what is happening across the country so that we can identify promising practices to reduce costs. To that end we agreed that the starting point for the work of the Subcommittee is to develop a focused inventory of reforms which are designed to promote effective and affordable justice

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

Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the Courts. The Draft Report of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts

The Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts was appointed by two Chief Justices and charged with the duty of examining the problem of gender bias in the California courts, gathering information, and making recommendations to the Judicial Council to correct any problems identified. The committee has found that serious problems do exist in decison making, court practices and procedures, the fair allocation of judicial resources, and in the courtroom environment. The committee proposes a series of recommendations in the areas of: Civil Litigation and Courtroom Demeanor, Family Law, Domestic Violence, Juvenile and Criminal Law, and Court Administration. The committee also proposes a recommendation for implementing its suggestions and for developing judicial education programs on gender bias issues

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

Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the Courts. The Draft Report of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts

The Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts was appointed by two Chief Justices and charged with the duty of examining the problem of gender bias in the California courts, gathering information, and making recommendations to the Judicial Council to correct any problems identified. The committee has found that serious problems do exist in decison making, court practices and procedures, the fair allocation of judicial resources, and in the courtroom environment. The committee proposes a series of recommendations in the areas of: Civil Litigation and Courtroom Demeanor, Family Law, Domestic Violence, Juvenile and Criminal Law, and Court Administration. The committee also proposes a recommendation for implementing its suggestions and for developing judicial education programs on gender bias issues