NCJ Number
104304
Journal
Rutgers Law Journal Volume: 37 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1985) Pages: 253-277
Date Published
1985
Length
25 pages
Annotation
Charges that pretrial judicial case management undermines the traditional judge's role are unfounded; judicial case management is evolving to incorporate two-stage discovery and the judicially supervised use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.
Abstract
Critics of judicial case management argue that it undermines judicial impartiality, involves judges in unreviewable aspects of case processing, subverts the adversarial system, and increases the amount of time judges spend on a case. Although these charges identify potential abuses and problems of judicial case management, they are not inherent features of it. The benefits gained in expedited and cost-saving resolution of disputes justifies support for judicial pretrial case management. One of the most significant pretrial case management activities is two-tiered discovery planning, which involves minimal discovery to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a case and additional discovery needed for trial. After the first stage of discovery, lawyers and judges can jointly consider what dispute resolution mechanisms best fit particular cases. Alternatives in addition to a traditional settlement conference and a full trial include court-annexed, nonbinding arbitration; minitrial; summary jury trial; lawyer mediation; and reference to a master in complex cases. 94 footnotes.