FL Case Management Comments due 8/6

The Supreme Court of Florida recently put forth new Case Management procedures under Rules 1.200 and 1.201 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but because they did so without a formal comment period beforehand, members of the bar may weigh in by August 6, 2024. These rule changes would otherwise take effect on January 1, 2025. I have been working with the ADR Section of The Florida Bar on a comment regarding the lack of a clear definition for exactly what alternative dispute resolution processes are contemplated by the rule. We are seeking to add the following italicized language into the revised Rule 1.200(d)(2)(H) entitled Case Management Order for completion of alternative dispute resolution including mediation, arbitration and other processes available under Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defining what “alternative dispute resolution” includes or means (as it is not clearly defined in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) will reduce confusion by specifically mentioning the most commonly utilized methods and alluding to additional methods available under Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby supporting the Supreme Court's purpose to promote fair and timely resolution of cases. This also allows for future methods of dispute resolution to be incorporated without the need for rule amendments, such as perhaps Early Neutral Evaluation. In their commentary to the rules, the court notes Rule 1.200 as amended is intended to supersede any case management rules issued by circuit courts and administrative orders on case management to the extent of contradiction. The rule is not intended to preclude the possibility of administrative orders issued by circuit chief judges and local rules under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.215 that refine and supplement the procedures delineated in the rule, including rollover practices for situations where a trial is not reached during the scheduled trial period. See more here at case number SC2023-0962 here-- https://tinyurl.com/yujktxpf

FL S. Ct. Improved Resolution Workgroup Rules OA

The Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument today on a package of rules proposed by their appointed Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases that might forever impact our state court system in a major way. These amendments are proposed as a paradigm shift to change the legal community and the perceived problems such as that current rules engender delay culture and firmer deadlines move cases. Firm trial dates, dates for discovery cutoffs and dispositive motions that are enforced by active case management can promote efficient resolution of cases according to the judges creating these proposed rules. Hearing time is a precious commodity that is often wasted with cancellation as are trial weeks according to Chief Judge Morris of the 2d DCA who reports that a mere 0.04% of cases end up in trial. Some judges appearing advocated the integration of county clerks' computer systems and the judicial case systems to alleviate duplication and promote standardization such as PACER in the federal system. The Civil Rules Committee chair said the adoption of the federal summary judgment rule brought the case law relied on in that system for clarity, but cautioned that the wide swath of changes to aggressive case management would shock the system and create growing pains with litigation on those changes. Justice Canady, who oversaw the Covid-19 crisis in the courts, said serving the litigants was the reason emergency procedures were ordered and now the court wants to see how to institutionalize those changes that proved successful in getting cases at issue during the pandemic. Justice Polston expressed concern with cases that are falling far behind or that just plain languish. He was also concerned parties should be exempt from the case management rubric in cases that are subject to Arbitration. Justice Labarga said when he was a trial judge, lawyers did not adhere to deadlines, especially with experts. Justice Muniz questioned why not implement proportionality in discovery like federal court and was told by a sophisticated commenter that our state system was just not ready to address that. The bar's Business Law Section is in favor of proportionality and also agreed with imposing track rules on cases except for presumptive streamlining of bench trials. The Appellate Rules Committee did not like substantive standards of review found in a few of these procedural rules. Probate practitioners were concerned about the disparity in dockets around the state and increased judicial decisionmaking versus routine uncontested proceedings. Critics of the sweeping package took issue with the lack of resources to implement these changes and technical irreconcilable differences between some of the rules. Others feared increased sanctions and less continuances. Judge Bailey responded on behalf of her workgroup arguing that because civil justice costs too much and takes too long, the public has lost faith and these case management changes are needed. While there were concerns over standardizing hearing procedures, everyone agreed an educational effort is needed in conjunction with the rollout of these rules. See more here-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq8gHr2FQP8 and Case No. SC22-122 https://bit.ly/3UGns4K

Active Case Management Comes to FL 9th Circuit

At today's Judicial Town Hall meeting held by Chief Judge Myers, the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida rolled out a new Administrative Order implementing a much more active case management rubric than this jurisdiction has ever known. Counsel will now be required to designate at the outset whether a civil case in county or circuit court is on a complex (per civil rule), streamlined (12 months), or general (18 months) track. Much like federal court, with track designation the court will then issue a Standing Case Management Order imposing deadlines intended to move the case to conclusion under prescribed timelines based on its type. The active case management program will not apply to cases assigned to: (a) Business Court; (b) any civil case designated as complex under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.201; and (c) any civil cases filed on or before April 29, 2021. Existing cases in which the court has entered an order setting the case for pre-trial and/or trial will keep the dates and deadlines already set forth therein which shall govern the progress of those cases. With regard to dispute resolution, within 30 days after completion of the depositions of all parties, counsel shall meet and confer regarding whether an Early Mediation would be productive to resolution of certain issues or the entire case. A so-called Final Mediation shall occur no later than 30 days after completion of all discovery. The new program requires a plaintiff filing a case to include a standard case management plan with the complaint. Until a case management plan is filed by the plaintiff initiating a case, the Clerk will not issue a summons. See more in A.O. 2021-4 here-- https://www.ninthcircuit.org/sites/default/files/AO2021-04.pdf and forms found here-- https://www.ninthcircuit.org/civil-case-management

E-Discovery Challenges Can Be Overcome Through Mediation

According to a recent article in Law Technology News by William Hamilton, Executive Director of University of Florida's E-Discovery Project, United States Magistrate Judge John Facciola of the District of Columbia-- with whom I've had the honor of serving together with as a panelist at last year's Innovate conference-- presented on coming changes at last week's Fall 2014 Distinguished Lecture. Judge Facciola opined that E-Discovery cooperation is designed to address the problem of asymmetrical attorney competence. Transparency, he said, is consistent with advocacy and competency. Failures often occur when less sophisticated practitioners make incorrect representations to the court and opposing counsel. A lack of transparency can be cover for incomplete preparation and research about the case and the relevant ESI. According to the article, Judge Facciola also said discovery disputes are a cry for help. As such, a new mode of case management that aggressively intercedes early in the case can address electronic discovery challenges. With aggressive case management, failure may be averted according to the judge. Similarly, E-Neutrals or mediators specializing in complex cases involving electronic evidence can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies. The mediation process may focus a confidential conference solely on managing ESI, or the neutral may broaden the discussion, reminding parties of the merits and perhaps dissuading them from merely using E-Discovery as a sword or shield. Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings in ESI cases, if performed early enough in the litigation. As the wise judge said, “Litigation is about something—and it is not the back up tapes." The judge, who is retiring soon, emphasized that extraordinary costs of ESI litigation are driving small companies and the middle class out of the system, “I did not become a judge to be a hall monitor in a playground where only the rich can play.” The article appears here-- http://bit.ly/1rqJL9b and the full UF presentation is available here-- http://www.law.ufl.edu/academics/institutes/icair

New FL Ninth Judicial Circuit Biz Court Procedures

Now approaching a decade in existence, Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit Complex Business Litigation Division or "Business Court" in Orlando specializes in handling complex business cases, such as antitrust, commercial foreclosure, intellectual property, franchise and unfair competition lawsuits. The goal is to handle business litigation matters in a more effective and efficient manner, much like the federal courts. The Business Court Procedures, known locally as the BCP, have just been revised retroactive to April 1, 2013 (in conjunction with civil division e-filing http://www.ninthcircuit.org/about/divisions/civil/downloads/ECF%20NOTICE%20final.pdf). New and notable is the requirement of attorneys who provide more than 50 pages of materials to the court for hearing preparation (typically done by the delivery of indexed binders) to provide this material now only on a USB drive. Also significant is the change to BCP 5.11(a) which requires that contested discovery motions be fully briefed unless the motion will be heard by the magistrate, or unless excused by the trial judge. The use of mediators and magistrates may be discussed the case management process, as well as in resolving ESI disputes arising out of electronic discovery. See Biz Court links here-- http://www.ninthcircuit.org/about/divisions/civil/complex-business-litigation-court.shtml and revised BCP http://www.ninthcircuit.org/about/divisions/civil/downloads/Business-Court-Procedures.pdf

Save the Date (5/14) for E-Neutrals in E-Discovery Disputes CLE

Last fall, the Supreme Court of Florida approved proposed E-discovery rules for state cases. The court adopted amendments to case management to include ESI. The new rules will affect the state’s diverse legal community of trial attorneys. They aim to streamline case management, but they will also impose unfamiliar burdens on practitioners who are new to E-discovery. Neutral third parties, such as special magistrates (formerly masters in FL) and mediators, may be able to assist in these instances. I will be speaking in conjunction with the Orange County Bar Association's Intellectual Property and Technology Committees who are presenting an afternoon CLE called "Florida's New E-Discovery Rules and Best Practices for All Cases: Taming the ESI Beast," on May 14, 2013 in Orlando. My topic before joining a panel on best practices is entitled, "Using E-Neutrals to Limit the Cost of E-Discovery." For the uninitiated, “E-neutrals” can help shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies that may not have existed in litigation. Our services are not limited to grappling with old or new rules, or to discovery disputes. The course description states, "Lawrence Kolin, an Orlando lawyer and full-time mediator, chaired the Florida Bar subcommittee that drafted these rules. In his CLE, he will present how neutrals can help litigants navigate e-discovery pitfalls and resolve expensive battles before they arise. The course material quotes me: “In resolving these issues, I focus parties on the merits, rather than using E-discovery as a sword or shield,” states Kolin. “Mediation of ESI disputes is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings through self-determination, if performed early enough in the litigation.” I hope you will join me! Contact Marie West-- mariew@ocbanet.org for registration or see http://orangecountybar.org/calendar.asp for more information.

ENE - Early Neutral Evaluation

Perhaps because of the still struggling economy or the realization during the recession that the cost of litigation is not trivial, Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) as a form of ADR has returned. This process, popular out West, is an offshoot of mediation that puts the neutral in the role enhancing direct communication between the parties about their claims and supporting evidence. ENE can provide an assessment of the merits of the case by a neutral expert in an early "reality check" for clients and lawyers. This helps to identify and clarify the central issues in dispute, assist with discovery (including E-discovery) and can streamline case management planning. A confidential exchange of factual information can help facilitate settlement discussions, once requested by the parties. A neutral with expertise in the subject matter typically hosts an informal meeting of clients and counsel. Following presentations, the evaluator identifies areas of agreement, clarifies and focuses the issues and encourages the parties to enter into any stipulation or agreement that is feasible, including settlement. The neutral case evaluator has no power to impose settlement and may not force a party to accept any proposed terms. The parties' formal discovery, disclosure and motion practice rights are fully preserved. The confidential evaluation is non-binding and is not shared with the trial court. If no settlement is reached, the case remains in litigation, but hopefully with the litigants better informed as to the risks, work still necessary and the monetary aspects of continuing on a track toward trial. A new publication from the ABA this year on ENE outlines the process - http://bit.ly/y49Y1u