Copyright
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J.

Amendments to the Federal rules of civil procedure : hearing before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, June 16, 1993 online

. (page 32 of 45)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JAmendments to the Federal rules of civil procedure : hearing before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, June 16, 1993 → online text (page 32 of 45)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


George Vemon, Leng Slowell Friedman &
Vernon

Robert N. Weiner, Arnold & Porter

Ronald E Westen. Harvey, Kruse, Wesien &
Milan, P.C.

Tybo Alan Wilhelms, Bugbee Conkle

Shelton C. WUliams, Williams & Ranney, P.C.

Anthony J. Williott, Dickie, McCamey &
Chicoie

Stanley P. Wikon

James D. Wing, Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash
Block & England

Holly Winger, Cummings & Lockwood

Thomas D. Yannucci, Kirkland & Ellis

Andrew S. Zettle, Huddleston, Bolen, Beatty,
Porter & Copen



311



/iPP£VCrx L



ij««iTiMH>wfno**Mnte. i«n



FEDERAL COURT WATCH



Panel Flips, OKs Discovery Reform



■ m tfie JioDoc OcpmnnH'i Gvil
Divttna. tad M«t N mounwjg . ^u of te
Uoivcnny of Puubiaih Sc^iool of U«
AitepncJ « Apni UKunan W«




^ rwf d 10 f one Irngson aio

key lidaiJ judicui pnaL
Tte nq«R0cai tar

e tan tta ftc Atfvuory CoaoMB* oa Ovil
Rates had bKkad off from tic idea ■ Fcteury.
ftuiaiaatfpniiaiaboui-faoc.te ll-a mj it cr
yanci Of |Bdfcs, pnmboa^n. ind acadcmci
VMM ■ufUDOvtly ApnJ l5iocadonctfiefcfanB.

JudfclUlpIt Winter of ihcU.S Coiaief
Appeals far 9» htd Cucint mmoid tfic

1 of tfic cariicr ^^me BefoR tfic
. held ■ tfK Federal Judma) Ccour «
Waihttfioe. he liaad «p wppon from • sia^ancy
of hu feUc^ panel Biemben for a ae« . tcvuad
vamoa of anndaiory dnckiawc.

"TWr wiUtae fWrtHDor |io ducovcry fcform}
ao hnf a une lawycn iR paid by tfie hov."
Wmer arid che aonunmae. But An* ■ alio
a mfc iji i ad distausf actiaa vith die BMaa quo.



sapoanfetlify for lafonn." Wuacnaid.

Votaacary dnclocure ngruh a "ngnifia
cAaB|t m phiknoptty." added c
Janet ^own of Rtoeaii b pconcflHR ^jaja.
"bncad of himii lawyan ipead yean vyms to
fedc tecuateaoe of a tener. wc'r nyiBi. 'Pw tl
aatteatate today.* "

TW tihiBgc ■ Rate 26 ararid laqan tafbal,
aotaavy dudoeoR of all iaforBaDoa * ^rvkvaH
to *ip«id facts altefed witfi particataray ■ te
pkailinii " ■■ iillMirilfiiliriiwi irfrtMimn
aad ■ioraaooa aboia ■euraaoa owwft . Tte

arWBeaea HDfaopcfty kept laoai odbM aoibe and
Mkial.

Tae oDOH&joae loaaoocied is canier, bhcs
kraidct Acfiaiuos ihat called (or diaclotwi af
■>yOiaHttM"hMgiiignif randy CBidaiMCf

Thc ir« wordiaf rkiJvcs MraK ujulu m
■noni m iii uuini i. »t» oomed Oui dtc braidtr
tfrfttinaa wmid lorcc dwm to n^tvai kgiJ i*"*".*.^
■Id aurar><l«iii oonununjcAoora Hovrvcr.
•idtipRad ofjpofiDao a mil cipactBd 10 fttt ai^
oiter popoMd ctiaflgn. lucti as bmita on



Jade* Ralph
WInlarlntlUMd

n ililwrtiwof

tlM paaal'a •arttar
TOO lo abandaa

diaoorary te ctrfl



liror



Ste «Toe|i



iiimiiaai aill bunpiaaaiffi.

"Thu aaa dova oe pUiaifTi' abtfaiy lo aK
diaoomy id fiad out ahai'i |oisf oa." ayi
Mjckad Taokantcy. a aaff auiacy ■ hiMic
Cmna Unpoaa Craup.

The ad«iiar)f mnanmar ao« fomrda ia
noomncadauoai to ttc Judicial Coatocaci't
Suediag CooiaBQac oa Ruks of PyaOMC and
Precadiat . wbica naca a iiiot aad a cbaoad ^
U S. Dumo Jadfc Rotan Kaooa oT
Matiariwaam. Uadar tta Hiika Eaatlan Ac
^ ■ uvo ae d cbaafn am |o ai ttc Jadnal
Coa/oaaca. 0k SupRav Coivt. aad 1 1 Maiially m
Coafnaa. Tbe Ictialaun taava 90 dayt B «aat B
Rjaa 0ia laka caaafca; adicrwBc. tey uka
cffaci. laAacaaa.tediaagcaoDiildaaiaaB
placabcfoROae. I.im.

AUtauugii die adnaory coamaaa'a *ai% li

f by ttc vanoia byoi of auitency.



te iltela aoickiy pKtad 1^ i^pon ham Jiidfa
Joacva Sarnaa Jr. o( Oia Waana OiBKi of



"idi^aaa
ddayiat ttc sort o< diu eooaaa tbrnaa
ii C i i iiaial. Bapofiry. aad partaai '■nit «oA




fta laftalaiioa vaa baaig oaaaidand-
Adlipa. te 4di Ckcaa fadfa. aaaad te |
infialaaitaaiii



aaid nilUlpt . "I duak »« kava ■ oMiiaooe. To
(ail ID do ao anuld pia On wbeta «# ta aaooMi
aBKadovai ptaocai back lo 1 996, aad w aafbi
aoi ID do a. " milipa W1B alladaf B ttc
j iiiliiiai j llrn|Ttij (miialiua Bataii |ii«aaa




"li'i abtady kapqcaad." laaqaciad 11110.
Aa rar bk o^n i uaiiiuu naiB lawyana Waav
a diay bad dia a^aa^ ai^nMBa.



Oibca aoaM aad ^ akiat *iir flfki B



Oul cacb open amneu arTna a RfoR. (.S«r
"JudinUalu Qmtu * Oiic«» «r i." Lcul Tiaaa
Mmtkl6.l9n.rattl.)

"Wba day did waa adopt a a o i M a^
butau ia J lafonaalaooa of a baiically flaaad
onccpi." layi Allrad Concac Jr. of ^ O.C.
enkx of Ckicaio't Ksklaad * EIlu. «te auated
Ac paael'a nerctafi aad hai ttaDfiod oa bcfaalf of
te U.S. C3kaaaa af CoBBaRa aad Lawytn l«



judiciary baa aoBfbf B kacp i

Bai If tta adnaory pted bad iqacBd aabaaaaU
fctom. te jadidary'i oaaoil lak la nda-aakait
eoeld ba^a baaa fiaett m liak. riaiiBiiiiaally

alR^ oda way ii aac* Maral diaaio. aad *a
ftoafe adauaaanca la alao poduai fcforaa.

Tttadvaery r Milan badia taabmiaadB

aa a aaboaa) diacloauR nik aacJ dtt local rcfara
plaaa. laquaad by *c Civil Jaaooa Rafora Aa of
1990. had baca BiplcBcaBd aad aaacaaad. Atar
puWie baanafi a Atlaaa ia aid-fabraary. wtoa
auaotiua cmca «ri«d a delay a aaaoaal nilaa
^ ttc adviaory ooaoauv «




Chlaf Jad(t Baa Potatar Jr. fooad kla
imllairutt hill rhanftii Ihati ■liiila

"Wa aaa •! aayia« yoo baw B aaa awr a

amokiat |ua or a pnvilefad d



By aarty April, tettfb. Wioiff and ananl od0
paad m aai a u i bad bad xcoad Boafba and betas
lalkiBt by Kkpfeeaa abou aaottar acta. Oa Apnl
t. a knar callat for la la a u b l ai oa waa aa B
Chief Judfc San Poiaar Jr. af ac Nordan
Duma of Alabaaa. wke ckaat aia advaory
panel. Ttc - ——-* aeaitanjiraa(. akiaf



Jud|a J. Oickaoa Pkillipa Jr. of die 4di Cacao:
Mafiataa Jad(< Wayae BnnI of da Noroara
DiiDia of Calitoaia; Deana Uadar. daicBr af



. bw caa aiU daoa dua a doameai a
praaaad by aooracy^faeai prinlefc. a a aada
aaem. or to oda muBi. ba ciplaaad.

ChainBaa Pmaio. faced wtt a aiaywiiy aaefcBg
l y^^^m ii ^ faiBiii'M was aneaable and fooiiwl oa Ae
prvDcalaapecnof raqwugducJoaaa. "How
caa we do ■ a a way dial a Boa waifeaMaT'*



Carol Fioea. a panner a Spnaffield. IH.'i
Giffm. Wtniunj. Oilieii * Bodcwea. aiuctad
ftaoaly mformaocB lawirmDie. aoi advene. Be
lawyiri poaiuoo be prtmded lo die odier ade.
•"Il'l OMca aaucr lo be(a widi ywa owa caie.~

Bui ber ayu e rb wai ie)»caaJ a aa l-l vaaa.

AAer nuKt ducusuoa of wodist i*an|a.
Poinur ao^d B «aft a DCw ootioa of Kule M.
T>«ae.ldar.ooApnlU.d«paBei.r •



-radrrWCavr War*" aPpaanaarrMBefyla
rCcmtWmtk."



<yt



->^rf



yeo



312



nmt>*««ii*,L, juNi2<



xPFENDIX E



Federal court watch



Judge Takes On U.S. Attorney
With New Sentencing Issue



Ooe oi tfae man cKmbbifameoi-iiuaded T^n rrt^ri
afibe tekrml beacft taere tm ctulAsifKd Cm^icu
■Ddtfie U.S. Scr* aoa; Cxxnmustoe over
a T ^W M iimi oi f edermi ■rjwan af (UMtelna n the
Disna o<^ Coimabu

la lunfvmtt ba denuoo n cm i (tnig
deJoKtui • toKace by lunou half. Jud«t
'nunm Pcnfidd JackKiQ ased U S AaorneyJay
Scpbeu duaJ rak ti bodi kocmJ ud federmJ
^ ■ uiJMm tna wneiCDd dui ■ hJd ooi oeeo
' -"umkjui wtm t&r fwdtitac* were cnted

The U^- aoonry mdieDutrvi a "abk to
cicfaae iv ptaar eootrel than tus coumerpam
t-tti- w UMt over ttw oraoe tune • dciemaai wiJI




try eieauig to
pnMBCUCC Sc
game cnmuiaJ
ODpQua m ciifaer
• hccal or feoenJ
ooun. " itckMon
wTOK in tne






I ra|wred ^ ttie

neacag
I gwdrJinga. id
' 13^1 yean (he

UBXXOf

. , . ' 2»-y«f-o*d

ijackna prank Davt
Oart. wtoo wai co py MJed of pocaeaiaa with
■)Kaiiodt>inboie9.22 pamto^cncfc
oQcaiae — kn ihaa a Ounl oi an ounce

AJtfiwith other ludfcs have been troufokd try

»c «oo icadiiv ctarfta wnh federal c nn gi .
vtK fuv to call the U.S
"mrafaDDf! taaor ' to Tusafyiof i
f^vmnun from me temeoctng fukdelmei.

The ^idfe, apqouued id Oie omen in I9S2 by
Prmdesi RonaU Rca^ac. tjio ated the

cuzacvilmanly OumaJ chiJdnood aixl
a rtn*iruLe C7f del en^laai Clark and the tocal
wmmzoftiTx earuer crime*. »ruch uukx the
yii rtr lii m rconimlthai he beconsxkicda " c areer
cnmmal" and aib|cci to several yean atUroooaJ
UBemonva.

The taner oouo had beca m^e by Aaaiaaai
FederaJ Pobbc Dc/eoder MichKJ WallKe. wtu
u-iMiMJxai ClMtt and tougm a T rq orrd teateace.
P ti ■ tMitl wTth Jacijoc ■ vir» thai Dk p i — < m f
wm alao a facxor. WaJlwe rewlily >f* .^ -— j b*^
vfameaatweU.

"la KOOKT oae. iheae kmadt otf cnea «« aoi

eoBg B fd rinffled fnxD locaJ m fcdval cotfv"
nyiWallKe

JK±3Da aitraet. "Ualeas and imolCoofnaaHid
the Seixeocinf Conmuiskoo maiLe n exprcaaly
dev ttiai a a tnity the penal policy of tte UuBd
Scaea to cxum die iDc ar c e raooB of pesy kxsJ
(tftcDden. parncoiarly ta the Dutnci of CoJtBsbu.
i^ol diey are no oM and mfuTQ to trampcaa
mpan. oo mMoa bam cotaaoapiMct Otar 'arver
onmnaJ' reoordi inav be. n Uwuld bec^coioa
federal cam to (he Dinner of Columbu k>
armnKT cotnparabty for ooroparabie cnmei
tiarmf aeicber a f ederaj coonccxxai aor any
uuiHjiiKral togponanx." JKtaoo wnn.

i»ckM» had brooght op the Qarfc case, wiihaui
mmaaD$, (be dclendaiu. duruif the
*^K»Du<»-and-«a**Tr penod following a June 1 1
paocl oa aeiacacuig guidelines ai ite D.C
Onxd'i JodioaJ Conlercnce in WillianMborB.
Va. The gtudclmci. becxpLajoed.ctcartycailDii
far a }0-vexr aeotcnce " Wha do I do with a gtfy
••o u roug D ga 30 yean lor 9. 2 frvm oi



cnA. aDd how am i goiag k> bve wnh tnyielP"
aaaxd die fDdge

Jackaoa maaajted lo find a wtv m ndix* the
ttxmtoce: dow (he oueaooo u wo eo >e y qk
gowcrwDefli will rtlan»^^g^^ (u^ rcaaowof oil



Mart LjedJ.^naeamaoforitKU S aior^ i
office. Bvt Dooecuion od an apoeai taai been
made But be nok aaue with Jacaaoo • ruimg
"Wc bciieve thai a defendam «-nh nx tcKBv
convKxioot la Ok laa 10 vcan. mcluOiag
m a n ai ai igtaer. rabeery. drug dionbuooD. aod
^TMpoot cTuna. has dcnionstraiEC i r v rr r of
lerxMa cnmmalirv wtiicn wirraoa the majumum
KanxKc provided by Congreaa '

A Legend Worries

Otariei Alan Wnght u noounc shon of « tcwavi
10 the worid of federal oroceoure. A
conaituoooaj-ljw Droteasor at the Umvtmrv of
Teus 10 Aunu). he u author of the banc
foderaHaacDce texa and bokier ot ooi ooe bui two
dmsguuhed cham a me louventrv

None of thu earned much waghi. (hough, when
the iudiciaJ Conference I Commmoe oo Ruieiol
fracocc and Pnxedurr re ce rtuv voted 9-1 to
apfwtyve a oontrovcntaJ prrvoaal tt> fefortD
diacovcrv m federal aviJ Uogatxia Wngmcaii the
lone voce agamn a ofw raoumnieoi for
prothaajv^y diackKure of inf orrnNDOD bv both
pJtmnfl aod deiaidani — a rtfom (hai supponen
hofv will thonen the expesuve. ones procrvrted
carty Rage of bogaoon

N<rw tne propoaai gocion to (he hidicui
CoafereDoe. wlucb tneea la Sccaemocr. ihes to the
SuDreme Court, and fioaliy.u 1993. toCoogrcai.
wtuch hai the power to veuxheiKw nik

"Though 1 tended to tivor the rute on its
tnena." Wnghi mvi. eipiaimnglm Jum 20 vote,
"I thought there was to mucn co n ou v m v. luch
inong oppoiiDoo froni both ndei of the bar. (hat
going (orwanj would put tfie Sunreme Coun in a
difficult poaitioo Thev have enough co n tro v en ial
coMDtmxjoat ouesoocu; we ought (»o( to get tticm
tnu boi wuerover ducovervrutei "

But fait coUcagues believe thai (he RuJea
Commioee wiU be to boi water tf ooching u dow to
reiorra diaoovery Cnocs like Vice Preaideiu Dan
Quayle are pushing for tntjor change, and Sea
ioacpb Bidca Jr. (D-Oel > ba» airevly puihed

(hrough (he Civil




ForWngte.
I Ibe pcacer risk to
I ttiai proceas. in

with a cHaage oppoaed by lawycn oi aO nnpea. U
they fiod iha fodJcaaJ ruieHDabag. cradjooBaUy
(Dore acadenuc (haa political, u not rcapoaaive to
theirooooertu. Wnghi predica. lawyen will seek s
vesD of the rules from Coogrea*. where k**yni| is
ooi cokved by the awtwBitness many Lawyers feel
wbea they approK^ lodioai bodica.

*'l rcalfy worry thai if weMnd (hiapvem«iBciy.
we will jeopardtze ihe cooonued exincaoe oi dM



•YAMHPVLMAAI



cam ruie-maaing Droceis •ttto Wnrhi. who
n*i aad one ot tne lonreai auocuiKXU with mc

kiues UJcnnuner oi any cunmi nKmoer or

pemaos any DersoD ever Me fun served the
cofnmjuee as so assiatam reoortrr in tne cartv
I9S>1 tnoineoaismeniBejtrom I '^04 to 1976. hji
cwrcn ttua organ m 1 986

Adding lo Wnghi s womea is I pnicedtfaJ
argomcat thai of^naem are bkeJv to oau. The
venioB oi (he Oisccrvery reform . Rule 2b. aow
pending beiore (he Jadjcial Coofercacc wms oevcr
ofTcred lor pubuc rmrw The Advisorv Corwiuaee
OB Civil Rjues. wtuch rrpons to tf* Rgles
Coramioce. offered a *mft for duWic coomg ni tn
Aupusi 1991 Iwt ndrrw so mucn Rroog op puamo a
(hai me panel bacaed ofT in Fcbruarv The paicl
rocoanderea m Apni. oowrver. aod after revuwes
■orwaroed tne diacowrv rciorm lo the Rules
Oxnmjtiee iS*e Panel Fiws. OKs Disnnrr,
Reiorm AprU 20. 1992 Fo$t 6 i

Thai s a good tevrr wnh which to arpje lo
Congreas a^ama appr^Tvuig (he recomimMted
c&angea. Wngnt douksoui.

lo tact. Qui argumezn has aireadv beea uaed by
(he Naooaal ChajnfXT Liogaooo Center, whidi
mtcratcd its oc^naitioo lo s June 1 1 kncr
■ddreaacd lo L S Duma Judge Roben K.ectoa of
Masaacauacm wtio chain the Rules Commntoe

' This new prooosaj w»s drafted overeignt and
was oa CTTcuiaaod tor pubuc coouncnt. wrote
Siepoea Boaai. execuove vice preaideai of the
cemer. wtw aiao tookz for the Produa Uabiliry
AdviMTv Council aod a task force of (he Busineas
R o u nrtr abte "Thus, oone of the uklivKiuals.
associaoons. or htninetgi mai comiruKed en (he
ongmaj procnaai has had afrv meaningful
opfnnunjrv CD CDounerM oo (Be WW o(K "

Toe advTjorv panel i revisioos. how e v er , wcr
deaicned to answer comnanKs by Bo4ai s gnwp
aod othen anow vi^ue. overiv broad rvouimDeao
ihe-v sav wtxjid uiCTeaie. not reduce, (heeipeneoi
bogaooo Laca sue wouM have to provide a lis of
witneaaea and a deacnptioa. bv category, of
y'^un euu reievaai lo 'ditDuied fKO alleged wnh
panxulantv io(be pteadiogi.' acoonling to (he
P^^>dui There s a kxxihole. though: A Disnci
Oxm cm Id vote K> exempt Itself from (he
inandaiorv-discloiureprovnioo. even if iididitoi
have ra Mace its own version of earlv discloauiT as
ajgjreiwa bv the Civil Juaoce Reform Aa

Theae revisions saiufied mom memben of the
Rules Commmee "became up with a prerry good
comoromjie . uvi *'itiiam Wilson, acommmee
mcmoerand ioartner to Utile Rock. Ari \
Wilson, fcnrroom. Conim A Dudlev >^ tor the
business communirv s concerns. Wilson offen. "l
think thev vc gotten a litue ovemeated "

AJthaigh (he Rule 26 change u the mo«i
ooaauvusial. the Rules Committee ajso modified
Rule 11 . the sanctions provuton Instead of saying
duis rudge ihaJI" sanction a htigaxor wnoaos
un properly, the proooacd itvukmi would give a
judge more discreooo trv retitaciog ' ihaJI" with
"may " The cotnmreec also reworded (he rule lo
clan/y thai sancDoas should be paid to the coun.
with coca and tees otily ramy awarded id tttt
oppoamg Bde.

Aoodia btxfy debated ^r^poaal — aievtnoaof
Rule 7D2 oi Ok Federal Rules of Evidence, wtedi
coven expert wnneases— was not apprrrved; (he
committee mncad suggested ttiai a new advuorv
panel oo evidence be created and tfui ii consider the
Ruk 702 rrvuioa

The oeit target ftir cnocs of (he d iac overy reform
■ the Judicial Coafercace. whtcb oonstss oi the
chief |udge and a distna rudge from cacA ovcuit.
Qiief Juatice Wilbara Rehncniin cftain dx grmp

Jua ont ocnoo siu on both the Rules Ccmmmce
aod die Judicial Conlerence: Chief Judge Ookvcs
Slovrterof theU S. Counoi Appeals for the 3rd
Oram Bin she probeMv woe ( be canving wasn-
for the ruiea panel come Scptembv. when Die
cotuerence wBca. After expressing concerns
BimiJar to Wnghts during the discussion of
tnandaionr disctoaure. Sioviier cnoie to abctain
from tne vote



"FrderaJ Co*tn Watch' aopeart olirmatrht u
tiut mace wtiti ■ SMjMnor Coun Watch



313



Appendix 9. — Letter From Webster L. Hubbell, Associate
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon.
William J. Hughes, Chairman, June 25, 1993

- »*^ Oi;.vw vil llic A>io>iJtc AliortK'v CiciktjI



RECt'^^^'^'-



:c \.».>>ij;.- Mtorp > iijncfj: h.':»:.r:c/"t DC ^'jSJu

June 25. 1993



The Honorable William J. Hughes

Chairman

Subcommittee on Intellectual

Property and Judicial

Administration
House Judiciary Committee
207 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Hughes:

On June 16, 1993, your Subcommittee held a hearing on an
extensive package of federal civil rules amendments, transmitted
to Congress by the Supreme Court on April 22, 1993. As you may
know, the Department of Justice in FebiJiary of 1992 submitted
formal comments as to certain of the civil rules amendments
during their development and consideration by the Civil Rules
Advisory Committee and the Standing Rules Committee. These
comments were focused in large part on the Committees' efforts to
streamline the civil litigation process and to curb abuses of
discovery. At this time, I wish to communicate the Department's
current position on these issues.

First, the Department of Justice wishes to reaffirm its
support for reform of the discovery and pretrial processes to
reduce delay and expense. In particular, proposed Rule 16, which
concerns scheduling conferences and scheduling orders, should
lead to substantial improvements in the judicial management of
civil cases. Similarly, the presumptive limits on discovery
proposed in Rules 30, 31 and 33 should promote reductions in
discovery costs without sacrificing the fair adjudication of
civil cases.

Second, the Department has conducted a further evaluation of
its position on the two most controversial aspects of the civil
rules proposals — Rule 11 and Rule 26(a)(1). With respect to
Rule 11, we reaffirm our support for the revised Rule and urge
that it be allowed to go into effect. With respect to Rule
26(a)(1), however, we have concluded that a rule mandating pre-
discovery disclosure is not prudent or in the best interest of
the United States. Any such rule should be deleted or at a



314



minimum deferred past December 31, 1995, when local rules
experiments conducted under the auspices of the Civil Justice
Reform Act of 1990 have been concluded. If not deleted, then the
' ssue can be studied further, and the question of mandatory
disclosure itself, as well as the terms of any such proposed
rule, can be evaluated in light of the experiences of the 1990
Civil Justice Reform Act. We are concerned that the imposition
of the rule at this time, while local ruler experiments are in
place, will defeat the purpose of the Civil Justice Reform Act of
having diverse "laboratories" to test possible litigation
reforms.

We recognize that in keeping with President Bush's Council
on Competitiveness the Department previously supported the
proposed revisions to Rule 26(a) (1). We must further recognize,
however, that organizations as diverse as the American Bar
Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, American College
of Trial Lawyers, Lawyers for Civil Justice, American Civil
Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and
International Association of Defense Counsel, as well as numerous
other groups, legal scholars and trial judges have vehemently
opposed the proposed rule. We wish to now add the United States
Department of Justice to that list and recommend that proposed
Rule 26(a)(1) be deleted or at a minimum deferred until after
results of the 1990 Civil Justice Reform Act are received and
studied.



Very truly yours.



■//



Webster L. Hubbell
Associate Attorney General



315



AiTENDDc 10.— Letter From Wayne D. Brazil, U.S. Magistrate
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Califor-
nia, TO Hon. William J. Hughes, Chairman, June 11, 1993



lliiitri^ J»tatrs QtBtrirt (Court

NorJhmt District of Ulaliiomin . • 'f.^

1311 U'wlbrn USaIr AuniHr — U«> 3600(1
ttan JTrannwa, (Calilonii.-i 91102

iLnaflHti.* H illitl>*>li;

Ulamir n. liraiil ij<»<i><l4l;

limtit> 9tut» tti*mi9twmu

June 11, 1993

The Honorable Wllllaa J. Hughes

Chairman

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration

United States House of Representatives

Washington, O.C. 20515-6219

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Dear Congressman Hughes:

I write to respond to criticisms of certain amendments to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have been presented by
the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Supreme
Court to Congress. The focus of this letter will be on the
disclosure/discovery management system in proposed amendments to
Rules 26 - 37. While I have served on the Judicial Conference's
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for several years, I write here
as an individual.

As you are fully aware, there is overwhelming support for
the proposition that current approaches to pretrial processes in
civil litigation are unjustifiably expensive and time-consuming,
jeopardizing economical access to justice and the competitiveness
of American industry. And as the Louis Harris study showed, most
of the blame is placed squarely on the discovery process - which
is riddled with inefficient frictions and tactical delays.
(I,ouis Harris and Associates, Inc., Procedural Reform of the
Civil Justice System, March 1989) . Meaningful change is long
overdue.

The changes contemplated in the proposed amendments have a
straight-forward purpose: to encourage counsel to get the core
information about their case on the table directly and early,
without resorting to the expensive and time-consuming processes
of formal discovery, and to really talX to one another, directly
and early, about sensible ways to position their case efficiently
for disposition by settlement, motion, or trial.

Why these straight-forward proposals have inspired negative
reactions in some high-visibility quarters remains something of a
mystery. It is not clear why getting the core information on the



81-258 0-94-11



316



table directly and early, and talking about the case, should be
considered antithetical to the American way or the administration
of justice. I fear that either ignorance of the real content of
the proposed changes or a desire to protect undeserved advantages
in litigation may be driving the opposition to these proposals.
To try to focus the debate on what the proposed amendments really
are, I would like to respond to the most visible criticisms of
them.



1. Criticism; The disclosure system would be unworkable .

Responses;

(a) The shortest response to this criticism is that
several courts already have implemented systems like
the system proposed in the amendments and they work .



(b) The Northern District of California implemented a
similar system on July 1, 1992. That system applies to
virtually all the mainstream civil cases in our court,
which serves a metropolitan population of more than
7,000,000 that generates at least its fair share of
complex, high-tech litigation. The sky has not
fallen. Lawyers and litigants are complying with the
disclosure rules. And even though we hired a lawyer to
monitor implementation of the system, and publicized
her availability to answer questions and receive
complaints, there have been few complaints. Moreover,
our disclosure system has not resulted in a flurry of
motion activity; in fact, we have detected no increase
at all in motion activity. Nor has any instance been
brought to our attention where the rule has caused a
party to wastefully produce more information than is
justified by the needs of the case. Nor has any lawyer
had to commit adversarial suicide.



(c) There are other courts that have had positive
experiences with various forms of mandatory disclosure;
e.g., the United States District Courts in Western
Kentucky (Judge Bertelsman) , South Carolina, the
Southern District of Florida, and the Central District
of California (Los Angeles and its environs) , as well
as the state courts of general trial jurisdiction in
Arizona.



317



2. Criticism : The amendments would "subject the entire
federal judicial system at once" to a rigid approach.

Responses;

(a) The amendments explicitly permit every federal
court in the country to opt-out of the new system , to
retain the system that is in place right now, or to
experiment, as mandated in the Civil Justice Reform Act
of 1990 (CJRA) , with other approaches to cost and delay
reduction. Proposed Rules 26(a)(1) and 26(a)(2)(B).

(b) As an alternative, the proposed rules and notes
provide that courts also could exempt whole categories
of cases from the disclosure system,

(c) The amendments also explicitly empower lawyers in



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JAmendments to the Federal rules of civil procedure : hearing before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, June 16, 1993 → online text (page 32 of 45)