Case Management Work Group

June 23, 2000

Workgroup Members Present: Judge Michael Donohue, chair; Judge Marsha Pechman; Judge Ronald Cox;; Judge Gerald Knight; Judge Stephen Dwyer; Nettie Jungers, Nancy Jewett, Yolande Williams; Bob Carlberg; Steve Toole; Anne Daly; Paul Parker;

Guests: Judge Tom Swayze, Comm. Glenn Phillips, Stacy Connole

Staff: Jenni Christopher, Yvonne Pettus

ACTION SUMMARY

Courthouse Facilitators - The workgroup decided there is not much interest in pursuing this area. Paul Parker raised the issue of using excess law library funds to fund the facilitator programs. He will draft something for those counties that do have excess funds to allow them to be used for facilitators.

Pro Tem Judges - The workgroup agreed to pursue the option of removing the consent requirement for retired judge pro tems. It will be important to have a definition of retired judge.

Case Management Statistics - The workgroup agreed that providing case management information to all levels of courts is crucial. It is important to push for the availability of the JIS case management information for courts of limited jurisdiction. Case numbers for civil cases should have a standard format like is used for superior court cases.

Discovery Cut-off Dates - Steve Toole will draft a rule revision to better define the rules regarding discovery cut-off dates.

Superior Court Issues - Nettie will provide additional information regarding self-help centers.

Welcome/Introductions

Judge Donohue introduced himself and welcomed the workgroup members. Workgroup members introduced themselves.

The workgroup reviewed the minutes of the June 1, 2000 meeting. The workgroup also reviewed the minutes of the other Project 2001 workgroups.

Judge Donohue discussed his thoughts on case management. There is a need for people who are not judges to judicial work, i.e., pro tems, retired judges. In order to maximize usage of other judicial resources, there must be adequate facilities and court staff.

Courthouse Facilitators

The workgroups discussed whether there are areas other than domestic relations in which litigants could be assisted by courthouse facilitators. Judge Tolman provided a description of the issues he sees with courthouse facilitators.

The lack of mandatory forms in the other areas of law was discussed. Members suggested brochures or guidebooks such as those developed by the Whatcom County Bar Association in conjunction with the Clerk could be made available to litigants. Requiring a sowing of indigency prior to receiving assistance was discussed. It was suggested that counties contract with attorneys for $35 to $40 per hour to provide legal assistance for litigants unable to afford counsel or who do not know how to obtain counsel. It was suggested that a good role for the facilitators would be to direct pro se litigants to materials, direct or refer them to lawyers or mediation services, and have forms available.

The workgroup decided there is not much interest in pursuing this area. Paul Parker raised the issue of using excess law library funds to fund the facilitator programs. Most counties do not have excess law library funds so this would not be of assistance. Paul will draft something for those counties that do have excess funds to allow them to be used for facilitators.

Expanded Use of Pro Tem Judges

The workgroup discussed use of retired superior court judges, use of elected judges from other court levels, and use of attorneys as pro tem judges without requiring the consent of the parties. It is important to have judges available to enhance or ensure trial certainty.

Steve Toole reported the concerns of the Bar would likely be: eliminating the consent of the parties and allowing pro tems to hear jury trials. The parties would still retain the affidavit of prejudice privilege.

It suggested allowing the parties to choose between three pro tems using a system similar to choosing an arbitrator.

Retired judges are limited to a certain number of days of work before the retirement entitlement is impacted. The State Patrol retirement system does not reduce the retirement entitlement regardless of the number of hours worked. This may be an option to pursue.

For superior courts, an attorney judge pro tem is paid 1/250 of the annual salary of a superior court judge per day of service. For superior courts, an active judge pro tem from a court of limited jurisdiction receives no compensation. For superior courts, a retired judge pro tem receives 60 percent of 1/250 of the annual salary of a superior court judge per day of service. For courts of limited jurisdiction, a pro tem judge is paid an amount set by the local legislative authority.

It was suggested that the Supreme Court could approve a list of pro tem judges for each county for a specified period of time.

The workgroup agreed to pursue the option of removing the consent requirement for retired judge pro tems. It will be important to have a definition of retired judge.

Case Management Statistics

Bob Carlberg presented information regarding superior court case management statistics that are currently available form the Judicial Information System (JIS). He reviewed the reports contained in the meeting packet. It was suggested the domestic relations time standard should be divided into two areas: dissolutions with children and all other domestic relations cases. It was also suggested the use of graphs would be helpful in presenting case management information to court professionals.

Information for courts of limited jurisdiction is not available in the breadth and depth as it is for superior courts.

The workgroup agreed that providing case management information to all levels of courts is crucial. It is important to push for the availability of the JIS case management information for courts of limited jurisdiction.

Differentiated Case Management (DCM)

Nancy Jewett distributed some materials regarding DCM. She discussed ways courts of limited jurisdiction currently manage cases.

Automated Case Management

Judge Dwyer discussed changes that should be made in DISCIS to move it from a keystroke-oriented technology to a point-and-click technology. Courts need the ability to print out notices in the courtroom. Case numbers for civil cases should have a standard format like is used for superior court cases. Courts need the ability to do real-time entry in court of proceedings and outcomes of proceedings.

Yolande Williams distributed a handout describing potential case management enhancements. Providing incentives for courts to engage in these collaborative efforts might encourage participation.

Discovery Cut-off dates

Steve Toole raised the issue about better defining the rules regarding discovery cut-off dates. His experience is that cases won't settle until after the discovery cut-off date has passed. He believes the judges need to more strictly enforce the dates. He will draft a rule revision to address this issue.

Superior Court Issues

Nettie Jungers described the County Clerk's Association's Long Range Plan. She stated the independence of the clerk protects the judiciary. Areas the county clerks would like to consider are: simplifying the court system for pro se litigants, moving truancy hearings to a community board, sharing administration between superior court and district court while maintaining the independence of the clerk. The clerks have had good success in the legislature, last year they proposed five bills and all five passed. Thurston and King County have pro se self help centers. Nettie will provide more information on these centers for the next meeting. Many clerks are putting forms and court calendars on the county web sites. Many clerks are using imaging technology for records storage and working on electronic filing. The clerks have also standardized guardianship procedures.

Future Meeting Dates

July 21 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Two Union Square, Room 1606

The meeting was adjourned.