Recommendations of the Idaho Supreme Court Civil Justice Reform Task Force Final Report Honorable Molly Huskey Chair Justice Robyn Brody Hon. Steven Hippler Idaho Supreme Court District Court Judge, Fourth District Rick Boardman John Janis Partner, Perkins Coie Partner, Hepworth Holzer Hon. Christopher Bieter Justice Jim Jones (retired) Magistrate Judge, Ada County Idaho Supreme Court Hon. Robert Caldwell Justice Gregory Moeller Magistrate Judge, Kootenai County Idaho Supreme Court James Cook Mike Ramsden Executive Director, Idaho Legal Aid Services Ramsden, Marfice, Ealy & Harris, LLP Gary Cooper Sara Thomas Partner, Cooper & Larsen Administrative Director of the Courts Hon. Stephen Dunn Brian Wonderlich District Court Judge, Sixth District Chief Counsel, Office of the Governor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Data and Evaluation Division, Idaho Supreme Court Finance Department, Idaho Supreme Court Court Assistance Office, Idaho Supreme Court Brittany Kauffman, J.D., Director, Rule One Initiative, Advancement of the American Legal System Paula Hannaford-Agor, Principal Court Research Consultant, National Center for State Courts TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 II. The Task Force Encourages the Idaho Supreme Court to Adopt the Civil Justice Reform Recommendations Endorsed by the Council for Chief Justices......................................................................................................5 A. Task Force Individual Recommendations..........................................................5 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 1: Courts must take responsibility for managing civil cases from time of filing to disposition .........................5 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 2: Beginning at the time each civil case is filed, courts must match resources with the needs of the case .................6 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 3: Courts should use a mandatory pathway-assignment system to achieve right-sized case management .................................................................................................6 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 4: Courts should implement a Streamlined Pathway for cases that present uncomplicated facts and legal issues and require minimal judicial intervention but close court supervision .................................................................................7 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 5: Courts should implement a Complex Pathway for cases that present multiple legal and factual issues, involve many parties, or otherwise are likely to require close court supervision .................................................................................7 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 6: Courts should implement a General Pathway for cases whose characteristics do not justify assignment to either the Streamlined or Complex Pathway ........................8 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 7: Courts should develop civil case management teams consisting of an assigned judge supported by appropriately trained staff ......................................................9 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 8: For right-sized case management to become the norm, not the exception, courts must provide judges and court staff with training that specifically supports and empowers right-sized case management. Courts should partner with bar leaders to create programs that educate lawyers about the requirements of newly instituted case management practices ...............................................9 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 9: Courts should establish judicial assignment criteria that are objective, transparent, and mindful of a judge’s experience in effective case management ..................................10 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 10: Courts must take full advantage of technology to implement right-sized case management and achieve useful litigant-court interaction ..................................................................10 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 11: Courts must devote special attention to high-volume civil dockets that are typically composed of cases involving consumer debt, landlord-tenant, and other contract claims ...........................................................................................11 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 12: Courts must manage uncontested cases to assure steady, timely progress toward resolution .........................12 CCJ RECOMMENDATION 13: Courts must take all necessary steps to increase convenience to litigants by simplifying the court-litigant interface and creating on-demand court assistance services ......................12 III. The Task Force Recommends the Idaho Supreme Court Adopt the Proposed Changes to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 .......................................................................................14 A. Introduction ................................................................................................14 B. Recommendations and Rationale for Changes ..........................................14 1. Discovery Based on a Tiered System ............................................14 2. Requiring a Proportionality Standard in Discovery .......................15 3. Requiring Initial Disclosures .........................................................17 4. Adoption of Limits on Expert Discovery.......................................17 5. Scheduling and Trial Setting ..........................................................18 IV. Additional Support and Resources for Current Programs .....................................19 A. Work by the Court Assistance Office ........................................................19 B. Case Statistic Reports for Judges ...............................................................19 V. Changes Discussed But Not Recommended ..........................................................20 A. Introduction ................................................................................................20 B. Areas with Specialized Rules or Procedures .............................................21 C. Jurisdictional Limit of the Magistrate Division and Small Claims Court ....................................................................................21 D. Small Lawsuit Resolution Act ...................................................................21 E. Attorney Fee Structure ...............................................................................21 VI. Anticipated Results ................................................................................................22 VII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................23 Table of Appendices ..............................................................................................24 I. Introduction Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (IRCP) 1 states: “These rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Because of some troubling signs that the Idaho court system might not be delivering on the promise of IRCP 1, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order on November 21, 2016, establishing the Civil Justice Reform Task Force (Task Force). (Appendix 1) The Court charged the Task Force with examining the civil justice system, determining problem areas, and recommending appropriate solutions. One concern of the Court was the increasing cost of civil litigation. The Court had recently been presented with several appeals where the attorney fees incurred by the parties substantially exceeded the amount in controversy. For example, the attorney fees exceeded $100,000 in a $1,600 timber trespass case,1 over $1 million per side for a $367,000 construction dispute case,2 and in excess of $20,000 per side in a dispute over a $4,385 skid loader.3 The Task Force’s judges and trial attorneys recognize that cases where the dollar amount of attorney fees dwarfs the amount in controversy are becoming more frequent. These cases indicate problems with the system. Another indicator of potential problems was the decline in civil case filings in Idaho between 2006 and 2015. This was a trend for filings at both the trial and appellate level. Since 2006, district court civil filings have fallen by 22 percent. New case filings and re-openings totaled 7,500 in 2006, increased to a high of 10,087 in 2009, and then steadily declined to a total of 5,820 in 2015. Magistrate division civil filings, including re-openings, dropped from 119,484 in 2006 to 96,547 in 2015, a decline of 19 percent. Civil appeals totaled 230 in 2006, reached a high of 259 in 2010, and then declined to 189 in 2015, a reduction of 18 percent. Many observers attributed the decline to increasing costs and delays in our civil courts. Idaho’s experience is not unique. States across the country have similarly experienced declining civil caseloads brought about by lengthy and costly litigation. The national phenomenon has been studied in many quarters and solutions have been suggested. One 1 Stevens v. Eyer, 161 Idaho 407, 413, 387 P.3d 75, 81 (2016). 2 City of Meridian v. Petra, Inc., 154 Idaho 425, 432-34, 299 P.3d 232, 239-41 (2013). 3 Edged in Stone, Inc. v. Northwest Power Systems, LLC, 156 Idaho 176, 179, 321 P.3d 726, 729 (2014). 1 organization on the leading edge of this effort is the IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. The founder and executive director of that organization, Rebecca Love Kourlis, who served on the Colorado