Differentiated Case Management and Conferences

• Author: Edward L. Birnbaum/Carl T. Grasso/Ariel E. Belen
• Pages: 97-112

CHAPTER 2

Differentiated Case

Management and Conferences

§2:01 New York Trial Notebook 2-2

I. DIFFERENTIATED CASE

MANAGEMENT

§2:01 Introduction

The New York State court system underwent a

major revision in its concept and design in 1999.

In that year, former Chief Judge Judith Kaye and

Chief Administrative Judge (and current Chief

Judge) Jonathan Lippman proposed and initiated

a Comprehensive Civil Justice Program that

would significantly change the manner in which

civil cases are litigated in the state courts. The

core intention of this program is “to enhance the

quality and efficiency of the civil justice system.”

[Comprehensive Civil Justice Program, Chief

Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, 1999).]

This Comprehensive Civil Justice Program

proposed several initiatives. The one initiative that

is of the greatest importance to the civil litigator,

and particularly the trial preparation attorney, is the

Differentiated Case Management approach to the

judicial supervision of lawsuits.

§2:02 Definition and Purpose

Differentiated case management means that

each case is managed according to its different

character and needs. The principal mechanism for

accomplishing this result is 202.19 of the Uniform

Rules for the Trial Courts. [22 NYCRR §202.19.]

This rule mandates that all cases subject to the

rule be processed uniformly through a tracking

system that tracks each case according to its level

of complexity and requires that it be regularly

monitored by a judge at certain well defined

procedural milestones. This system is very different

from the traditional New York system in which a

party could prosecute or not prosecute a claim

basically without any court interest or intervention.

The differentiated case management approach

(“DCM”) came chiefly from a desire to increase

the level of judicial supervision of civil law

suits to promote greater responsibility and

accountability of judges for their caseloads. The

court administration thought that increasing the

level of supervision of the cases in a court’s

inventory would promote more efficient and better

use of limited judicial resources.

§2:03 Rule Implements Three

Conferences

The rule for case management requires that the

judge closely monitor each case in which judicial

intervention is requested at three mandatory

conferences—preliminary, compliance, and pre-

trial.

At each of these conferences, a judge is supposed

to thoroughly familiarize himself or herself with the

factual and legal questions involved in a case. This

intimate familiarity with a case should, in turn, assist

a court in deciding motions and ultimately resolving

a case either through settlement or trial.

IN PRACTICE:

In virtually all downstate counties, since the

adoption of the DCM rules, discovery motions

are being strongly discouraged. If a discovery

dispute arises after the issuance of a preliminary

or compliance conference order, counsel are

directed to contact the court for assistance

in resolving the dispute. This practice has

ensued in order to reduce motion practice and

encourage compliance with the strict discovery

deadlines imposed by DCM. Only if the matter

cannot be resolved by way of conference, can a

motion be made for discovery relief.

§2:04 DCM Trigger: RJI

Once a party requests judicial intervention

pursuant to 22 NYCRR §202.6, the rule mandating

differentiated case management is triggered and

certain definite time limitations come into place.

The differentiated case management of a lawsuit

is triggered only by a party’s request for judicial

intervention. Typically, this request comes in the

form of a request for a preliminary conference to

resolve a discovery dispute in the early stages of a

case or a motion asking a court to compel discovery.

IN PRACTICE:

A practitioner who does not want to be

subject to the strict timetables and close

judicial supervision of DCM can simply

opt out of the rule by not seeking court

intervention. This decision, of course, requires

the consent and continued cooperation of the

litigating attorneys and their clients to avoid