This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
EFFECT: All counsel agree on a trial date. The court is aware of what cases have settled and what cases will actually need a trial date. The court is aware of how many jurors to call or have available.


6. Each track 4 case is specially as- signed to a judge. 21


EFFECT: By being assigned at the beginning of a case, one judge be- comes intimately familiar with the parties and the case and can facili- tate the settlement process. The assigned judge adjudicates all of the pre-trial motions and handles any discovery disputes. Accordingly, the judge will become familiar with the case’s subject matter and aware of any party’s attempts to abuse the discovery process. When there are settlement discussions, the judge will be able to actively assist the parties.


7. Each track 4 case receives an order scheduling it for ADR.22


EFFECT: All parties must com-


municate and explore the possibility of settlement.


8. All parties of track 3 and 4 cases must file a joint settlement/pretrial statement.23


EFFECT: All counsel must com- municate and become knowledgeable of the other party’s case.


Kalil estimated that approximately 90 percent of the civil cases filed settle. On any given Friday, Kalil explained that there are now approximately 30 track 3 and 4 cases set for scheduling conferences.24 Under the scheduling orders, those cases will be scheduled for a settlement confer- ence approximately 8 months later. After the 8 months have past, approximately 15 cases remain to be adjudicated. Of those 15 cases remaining, one-half will be set


21Id. 22Id. 23Id.


24


Up until 1999, there would be approximately 60 to 90 track 3 and 4 cases set for schedul- ing conferences every Friday. That number has since diminished to 30. Interview with Susan Kalil, DCM Coordinator and Special Master, Montgomery County Circuit Court. (Dec. 5, 2001).


Summer 2002 Trial Reporter 19 25


Montgomery County, Maryland, Non-do- mestic Differentiated Case Management Plan (2001), available at http:// www.co.mo.md.us/judicial/circuit/services/ crtadmin/admin/admin.html


26


in for ADR. Of the remaining cases set for trial, almost all will settle. Kalil re- ports that this simple system virtually guarantees a firm trial date for those liti- gants going to trial. It has reduced juror fees and frustration as the Court knows how many jurors to call. wasted.


Jurors are not


When asked how attorneys have adapted to DCM over the past several years, Kalil reported, “For the most part, parties are content. If people are upset, they know who to complain to – me.” Litigants can call Kalil to discuss issues concerning the court’s management of their case. If the parties agree, they can call Kalil to schedule ADR. ADR can occur at any time prior to the scheduled trial date. A retired judge or an attorney experienced in the assigned case’s subject matter presides over the ADR session. An average ADR session lasts approximately one to two hours.25


Kalil advised that not


all litigants go or should go to ADR. For example, insurance companies who have


established a ceiling dollar amount for certain cases should not participate in the ADR program. All Track 4 cases, how- ever, receive an order for ADR. If a party does not wish to take part in ADR, then that party must file a Motion to Vacate.26 Approximately 600 civil cases a year go to ADR. To those filing suit in Montgomery


County, Kalil offered simple advice, “If [litigants] would only just read the [Scheduling] Order, then they would know what to do.” Kalil also adds that the dates on the Scheduling Order should be adhered to and that if a party needs to modify a deadline, they must file a Mo- tion to Extend prior to the deadline. If motion is not by consent, the party re- questing the modification must wait 18 days.


B. Circuit Court for Baltimore County Baltimore County Circuit Court’s DCM system, which started in the Spring of 1994, is markedly different from Mont-


(Continued on page 20)


Id.; Interview with Susan Kalil, DCM Co- ordinator and Special Master, Montgomery County Circuit Court. (Dec. 5, 2001).


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68