NCJ Number
94822
Date Published
1984
Length
83 pages
Annotation
This report discusses how district courts have responded to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which requires scheduling orders except in cases exempt by rule, and presents examples of local rules passed to carry out the amendment's purposes since it became effective on August 1, 1983.
Abstract
The promulgation of rule 16(b) included a clear expectation that the rule would be fleshed out and given operational validity by local rules. Such rules have been passed by 33 districts. Nine courts are in the process of amending their rules, and 42 courts have yet to take action. Developing and promulgating a local rule regarding scheduling orders, however, is rarely an easy enterprise. Even when the philosophy of the pre-1983 local rules is in tune with the new amendment, the local rules do not necessarily address specific elements of rule 16. Courts have assessed differently the relative merits of fixed-time scheduling and case-specific scheduling orders, and a choice between the two will relate to a very basic policy decision concerning what type of structure and organization to impose on the pretrial process. Courts also vary in where they place primary responsibility for formulating the preliminary scheduling order. Local rules should address sanctions for noncompliance with a scheduling order and designation of the desired method of consultation. The report appends 15 local rules which illustrate varying approaches to the following procedural elements: exemption of cases, division of labor between judges and magistrates, elements of the scheduling order, and extension of scheduling order deadlines.