NCJ Number
186320
Date Published
2000
Length
133 pages
Annotation
This report examines how pretrial and posttrial special master activity can take place under a rule designed to limit special master appointments to trial-related fact-finding in exceptional cases.
Abstract
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules’ Subcommittee on Special Masters commissioned the study to learn how special master activity had expanded beyond its traditional boundaries. Specific issues were how often and under what authority judges appointed special masters to serve at the pretrial and posttrial stages of litigation, whether any special problems arose in using special masters, how courts’ use of special masters compared with their use of magistrate judges, and whether rule changes were needed. The analysis used information from docket entries and documents in a random national sample of 136 closed cases in which the appointment of a special master was considered. Information also came from follow-up interviews of judges, attorneys, and special masters in 33 of those cases. Results revealed that the incidence of special master consideration, appointment, and activity was rare and occurred primarily in high-stakes cases that were especially complex. Party initiative, consent, or acquiescence provided the foundation for appointments; rules did not appear to be a driving or limiting factor. Nevertheless, some participants offered suggestions for clarifying the rules regarding some problem areas, especially relating to ex parte communications issues and to methods of selecting masters. The analysis concluded that judges, attorneys, and special masters all indicated that problems exist that the rulemaking process might well address. Tables, figure, footnotes, and appended methodological information and instruments