the vanishing civil trial team 6. 2 a panel discussion with hon. john c. coughenour hon. robert s....
TRANSCRIPT
The Vanishing Civil Trial
Team 6
2
A panel DiscussionWith
Hon. John C. CoughenourHon. Robert S. LasnikHon. James L. Robart
Jerry A. Riedinger, Esq.Prof. Margaret Chon
Kings oppressed Noblemen and often ruled with iron-fisted cruelty and capriciousness.
In the beginning…
4
“Civil” trials were not so civil…
In the beginning…
In a land far, far away,Long, long ago,
Enlightenment began to emergeOut of the Dark Ages…
Magna Carta (1205) appears to have the first Jury trial guarantee . . . but only for noblemen
• Clause 39:
no free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way . . . Except by lawful judgment of his equals . . . .
Origin of early Jury Trials
Early Jury Trials (1100 – 1400)
• Concentrated hearing• Jury of illiterate locals • Jury investigated facts and rendered ruling at “trial”
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
Pre Code-Pleading Era (1400 – 1850)
• Characteristics Retained:• Concentrated hearing• Jury of illiterate locals
• Changes:• Jury no longer investigated facts• Jury listened to lawyers and witnesses• Trials held in open spaces (town squares);
modern courtroom had not yet developed yet
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
Pre Code-Pleading Era (continued)
• Additional Changes:• Pleadings • No pretrial discovery at common law• Equity courts developed, in part, to allow discovery
• Fun Fact: • Parties were disqualified as witnesses for bias until
mid-1800s
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
Founders were enamored with Jury Trial
• “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries . . . [including] depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”• Declaration of Independence
• “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”• Thomas Jefferson
Jury Trial Enshrined in Bill of Rights
Founders were enamored with Jury Trial
• “The civil jury is a valuable safeguard to liberty.”• James Madison
• “In suits at common law, trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”• James Madison
Jury Trial Enshrined in Bill of Rights
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
Civil Trials
• In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . .
Seventh Amendment to U.S. Constitution
Code-Pleading Era (1850 – 1938)
• Lack of discovery at Common Law led to Code-Pleading-Era
• Code Pleading attempted to merge law and equity, but failed to remedy problems with earlier trials • Bringing suit still depended on ability to sufficiently
plead causes of action prior to discovery
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938)
• FRCPs ushered in era of pre-trial discovery with minimal pleading phase
• FRCPs did not intend to affect jury right• FRCP 38(a):
• “The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment . . . is preserved to the parties inviolate.”
Development of Jury Trials: Anglo-American Tradition
*John H. Langbein, The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States, 122 YALE L. J. 522, 524 (2012).
• FRCPs, however, have impacted incidence of trials
Development of Jury Trials: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1936 1940 1952 1972 1982 19920
5
10
15
20
25Trials as % of Civil Cases Filed
Trials as % of Civil Cases Filed
Primary Author Wanted FRCPs to Encourage Settlement
• “[O]ne of the greatest uses of judicial procedure is to bring parties to a point where they will seriously discuss settlement.”• Edson Sunderland
Development of Jury Trials: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Primary Author Wanted FRCPs to Encourage Settlement
• “Many a case would be settled, to the advantage of the parties and to the relief of the court, if the true situation could be disclosed before the trial begins.”• Edson Sunderland
Development of Jury Trials: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Anglo-American• Jury-based
• Pretrial/Trial Division• Meant to prevent surprise
• Concentrated and Continuous• Jury management
Interlude – Different Trial Traditions
Continental System• Often no Jury
• No Pretrial/Trial Division• If surprise evidence,
additional hearings ordered
• Discontinuous• Professional Judges decide
cases
Anglo-American
• Oral Testimony• Originally illiterate juries
• U.K. has largely abandoned
• Public • Deter false testimony
• Partisan Presentation• Cross-examination key
Interlude – Different Trial Traditions
Continental System
• Documentary Evidence Largely
• Private
• Judge investigate facts
• Ultimate Dispute Resolution Mechanism• Resolution of Close Cases of Disputed Facts• Necessary to give potency to ADR and Settlement
• Citizen Involvement in Government• Besides voting, most likely way average citizen will
“directly” participate in Gov’t• Check on Gov’t Power
• Development of Law
Interlude – Justifications for Trials
Although jury trials declined after adoption of the FRCPs, the situation is more complex
Federal Rules:Not The Whole Story
Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Jury TrialsNon-Jury Trials
Jury Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Jury Trials
Trial Rate – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Trials as % All Dispositions
Jury Trial Rate – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Jury Trials as % All Disposi-tions
Trials Per Judgeship – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Trials per Judgeship
Jury Trials Per Judgeship – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Jury Trials Per Judgeship
Trials per Capita (Mil.) – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Trials per Capita (Mil-lion)
Jury Trials per Capita (Mil.) – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Jury Trials per Capita (Mil.)
From 1962 to mid-1980s:• Increase in trial rate when compared to population
growth BUT
• Decrease in trial rate when compared to civil dispositions
Reason?• Total litigation increased at a vastly faster rate than
population growth• 1970s and 1980s consumer and civil rights lawsuits
Quick Observation
Trials per Billion $ Real GDP (2005 US $)
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Trials per Bil-lion $ GDP
FRCPs Did Have Major Effect in Trial Rate• Increased opportunity for settlement
• Increased cost (expansive pretrial discovery)
Trial Rate in 1970-80s due to Consumer Protection and Civil Rights Lawsuits
Takeaways
Decrease in Trials and Trials Rates After Mid-1980s Likely Due to:
• Increased case management• “Individual” case assignment (late 1960s)
• Summary Judgment Liberalized• Celotex – Anderson – Matsushita (1986)
• Legislation requiring each district court to implement ADR program• Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998
Takeaways
IP Trial Statistics
Copyright Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury TrialsNon-Jury Trials
Copyright Jury Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury Trials
Trademark Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury TrialsNon-Jury Trials
Trademark Jury Trials – 1962 to 2013
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 510
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury Trials
Patent Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury TrialsNon-Jury Trials
Patent Jury Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jury Trials
Total IP Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jury TrialsNon-Jury Trials
Total IP Jury Trials – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jury Trials
Trial Rate – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Trials as % All Dispositions
IP Trials Per Judgeship – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Non-Jury IP Trials Per Judgeship
Jury IP Trials Per Judgeship
Most Federal Judges Are Likely Not Conducting At Least One IP Trial On Annual Basis:• Patent Cases Dominate• Select Few Courts Hear Majority of Patent Trials
• E.D. Tex.• D. Del.• N.D. Cal.• E.D. Va.
Quick Observation
IP Trials per Capita (Mil.) – 1962 to 2013
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
IP Trials Per Capita (Million)
IP Trials per Billion $ Real GDP (2005 US $)
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
IP Trials per Billion $ GDP
Western District of WashingtonTrial Statistics
Trials – W.D. Wash. – 1968 to 2013
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jury Trials
Non-Jury Trials
Jury Trials – W.D. Wash. – 1968 to 2013
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jury Trials
Trials Per Judgeship – W.D. Wash. – 1968 to 2013
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Trials per Judgeship
Statistics on IP Trials in theWestern District of Washington
Not Readily Available
IP Case Filings – All US District Courts –Selected Years: 1977 - 2013
1977
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
IP Case Filings – W.D. Wash. –Selected Years: 1977 - 2013
1977
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
IP Case Filings – Comparison –Selected Years:1977 - 2013
19771987199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220130
50
100
150
200
250
300
IP Case Filings - WDWA
IP Case Filings - Nat'l Avg.
Panel Discussion