Court sends sweeping recommendations to improve the resolution of civil cases to various committees for more study
The proposed changes call for establishing a “differentiated case management” system and setting inflexible trial dates at the beginning of a case and rigid deadlines for motions and rulings
Saying “additional refinements” are needed, the Florida Supreme Court has declined to adopt a sweeping proposal by a Judicial Management Council workgroup that is designed to streamline Florida’s civil litigation system.
“Instead, the Court will make a series of phased referrals for the refinement and study of the Workgroup’s proposals, beginning with the attached referrals to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee, the Florida Courts Technology Commission, and the Trial Court Budget Commission,” the justices wrote.
Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz was joined in the order by Justices Charles Canady, Ricky Polston, Jorge Labarga, John Couriel, and Jamie Grosshans. Justice Renatha Francis, the newest court member, did not participate.
Then-Chief Justice Canady formed the workgroup in 2019 and directed it to ensure “the timely resolution of all cases through effective case management,” and to “utilize caseload and other workload information to manage resources and promote accountability.”
Chaired by Second District Court of Appeal Chief Judge Robert Morris, the workgroup issued a 450-page final report last January, including proposed amendments to the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Rules of Civil Procedure, Small Claims Rules, and Rules of Mediation.
The proposed changes call for establishing a “differentiated case management” system and setting inflexible trial dates at the beginning of a case and rigid deadlines for motions and rulings. Judges and lawyers who fail to meet the timelines would face sanctions, including attorney fees and case dismissals.
The petition generated 68 comments. The workgroup agreed to implement many of the recommendations but declined requests to phase in the changes or eliminate the sanctions.
During approximately four hours of oral arguments last month, Morris told justices that the workgroup discussed phasing in the proposal but concluded it would be too difficult.
Morris also defended the sanctions.
“Yes, sanctions are everywhere in our report, and we’ve not recommended this because we’re autocratic, but because we recognize a growing culture of noncompliance in the absence of consequences for failing to follow the rules,” he said.
In the first round of referrals, justices direct the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to review and propose amendments to Rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure), 1.201 (Complex Litigation), 1.440 (Setting Action for Trial), 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery), and 1.460 (Continuances).
The referral goes on to describe various changes the justices would like to see with each rule. For example, justices ask the committee to propose changes to Rule 1.460 (Continuances) that would “provide that trial continuances should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. The Committee’s proposal must provide that lack of preparation is not grounds to continue the case and that successive continuances are highly disfavored.”
The referral sets a July 3, 2023, deadline for the committee to file its report.
The referral directs the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee to propose rule amendments that “address the issues addressed by the Workgroup in its revised proposals to add new rule 2.546 (Active and Inactive Case Status), and to amend existing rules 2.215 (Trial Court Administration), 2.250 (Time Standards for Trial and Appellate Courts and Reporting Requirements), and 2.550 (Calendar Conflicts).”
“In preparing its proposals, the Committee must consult with and seek input from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, and the chief judges of the circuits,” the referral states.
The referral sets a July 3, 2023, deadline, but invites the committee to request an extension if it determines more time is required.
The referral directs the Trial Court Technology Commission to address a series of issues, including working with the Florida Courts E-Filing Authority “to resolve the Workgroup’s concerns regarding service on judges and other court officials through the Portal.” The referral sets a July 3, 2023, deadline.
In their referral to the Trial Court Budget Commission, justices note, “One of the main criticisms expressed by the commenters about the Workgroup’s proposal for Florida’s trial courts to engage in differentiated case management was a lack of resources currently available to successfully implement the proposal. Many of the commenters noted that successful implementation of the Workgroup’s differentiated case management system will require additional staffing and technological resources.”
Among other things, the referral asks the commission “to develop a legislative budget request for the resources necessary to successfully implement these differentiated case management measures referred to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee on an ongoing basis.”
