St. Louis Circuit Court individual docket approved; starts Jan. 1

St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian, Dec 11, 2006 by Allison Retka

With questions still remaining on the discretionary power of the presiding judge, St. Louis Circuit Court judges approved a set of rules for the individual docket system rolling out Jan. 1.

The issue has produced spirited debate over the past few months: supporters pointed to the consistancy of the new system, while detractors pointed to data that indicated a drop in productivity compared to the old centralized docket.

And the debate did not end with the decision. Immediately following the vote at Thursday afternoon's special meeting, Circuit Clerk Mariano V. Favazza made an announcement that spurred some bristling remarks from the judges.

In the first few weeks of the new system, Favazza asked that judges in the 18 individual docket divisions send all new docket entries to two specific court clerks to enter themselves.

This will offload some work for division clerks, and "lawyers will have an easier time figuring out where a case is on your docket system," Favazza told judges.

But several judges asked why they should e-mail settlement conferences, trial dates and other docket entries to clerks outside their division.

"I'm supposed to communicate with someone who's not in my division?" asked Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. "I want my clerk to do my dockets, Mariano. Why should I e-mail [docket information] instead of just handing it to my clerk?"

But Favazza courteously reminded the judges that more than 50 cases will be unloaded on the court's six civil divisions in the first week of January. Division clerks will have their hands full, he said.

While acknowledging each judge wants to manage his or her division independently, he urged the court to unload these tasks on his two designated clerks.

"I've come to the conclusion you all have hard, fast ideas on how to run your docket," Favazza said. "Swell. But let us know, and they'll do this work. All I ask is that you give this a try."

Docket rules

Rules for the new docket system were unanimously passed on a voice vote, but the job of the rules committee is not finished.

Just prior to the vote, two questions were raised about the ability of the presiding judge to shift and shuffle cases among the individual dockets, depending on their caseloads.

Judge Lisa Van Amburg asked whether the rules allowed her docket to get relief if complex cases were assigned to her division. Complex cases include matters such as asbestos litigation, she said, which could be a bundling of 10 to 15 individual cases.

Judge Joan M. Burger assured her those consolidated cases settle quickly.

"I had three settle on my docket this week," Burger said.

Van Amburg said, "That's great, but if they don't . . ."

Judge Julian L. Bush, a member of the rules committee, said he appreciated Van Amburg's concern. There is no mechanism in place that would allow the presiding judge to adjust caseloads when a batch of complex cases come down, he said, "but maybe there should be."

Burger disagreed. "I don't think on assignment it should be changed," she said.

Van Amburg also raised a question on the involvement of the presiding judge in disqualifications.

The rules committee adopted an amendment last week that gave the presiding judge more discretion in directing the transfer of cases following a disqualification.

"I'm not sure why that clause is necessary," Van Amburg said. The judge who receives a case after another judge is disqualified usually picks a similar case to go back to the disqualified judge, she said.

Burger said the new rules place the presiding judge in a facilitating role. The receiving judge calls up the presiding judge and suggests an appropriate case to flip over to the disqualified judge, she said.

Judge John J. Riley, the current presiding judge, said he follows a similar process. When judges are disqualified from certain cases, he scans the dockets for like-minded cases with similar trial lengths and transfers these cases to them.

"That's doable, but that takes time," Riley said. "This could take a PJ an awful long time."

It was then suggested a receiving judge should take the initiative and dig up a like-minded case to send directly to the disqualified judge.

But Bush questioned the appropriateness of a circuit judge taking over that task.

"That's a power that could be abused," he said. "You could send out a case with difficult lawyers that you don't want to deal with."

The presiding judge should retain some veto power, Bush said.

Dierker countered, saying circuit judges have done a good job communicating in the past, and he doubted one judge would take advantage of another in the way Bush suggested.

Nevertheless, giving the presiding judge the discretion to transfer cases is appropriate, Dierker said, so the rule should stay.

"It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it," he said.

Judge Dennis M. Schaumann, the chairman of the rules committee, said he'd take the suggestions under consideration and adjust the rules later "so we can get going on this."

Riley said any changes made to the rules after the vote could be discussed at the next court en banc meeting.