Management of Complex Civil Litigation



The increasing volume and complexity of civil litigation is placing a burden on court systems and juries. Civil trials are longer, and involve an increasing array of challenging legal and factual issues. Judges must often adopt a more active, managerial role, and attorneys must strike a balance between effective adversarial representation and cooperative handling of complex cases. The focus of this chapter is on the management of complex civil litigation. We start by tracing the history of the right to trial by jury, giving special attention to the complexity exception to this right. The legal debate surrounding the right to trial by jury in complex cases leads to a consideration of two important issues, each of which is addressed from both legal and social science perspectives.


Civil Procedure Factual Issue Jury Trial Civil Litigation Special Master 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abitanta, S.E. (1982). Bifurcation of liability and damages in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions: History, policy, problems and a solution. Southwestern Law Journal, 36, 743–763.Google Scholar
  2. Alschuler, A.W. (1989). The Supreme Court and the jury: Voir dire, peremptory challenges and the review of jury verdicts. The University of Chicago Law Review, 56, 153–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson v. Cryovac, No. 82–1672, (D. Mass. 1982).Google Scholar
  4. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (1945–1987). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 441, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, A.D. (1985, August 12). Why jurors don’t heed the trial; a set of proposals. National Law Journal, 7, 15.Google Scholar
  8. Baltimore and Carolina Line Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654, 1935.Google Scholar
  9. Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Bermant, G., Cecil, J.S., Chaset, A.J., Lind, E.A., & Lombard, P.A. (1981). Protracted civil trials: Views from the bench and the bar. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein v. Universal Pictures Inc., 79 F.R.D. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).Google Scholar
  12. Bordens, K.S., & Horowitz, I.A. (1989). Mass tort civil litigation: The impact of procedural changes on jury decisions. Judicature, 73, 22–21.Google Scholar
  13. Brazil, W.D. (1982). Special masters in the pretrial development of big cases: Potential and problems. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 287–374.Google Scholar
  14. Brennan, T.A. (1988). Causal chains and statistical links: The role of scientific uncertainty in hazardous-substance litigation. Cornell Law Review, 73, 469–533.Google Scholar
  15. Cecil, J.S., Hans, V.P., & Wiggins, E.C. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons from civil jury trials. The American University Law Review, 40, 1901–1948.Google Scholar
  16. Cecil, J.S., Lind, E.A., & Bermant, G. (1987). Jury service in lengthy trials. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  17. Comment, Public Disclosures of Jury Deliberations. (1983). Harvard Law Review, 96, 886–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dairy Queen v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 1962.Google Scholar
  19. Devlin, P. (1980). Jury trial of complex cases: English practice at the time of the seventh amendment. Columbia Law Review, 80, 43–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dombroff, M.A. (1982, September 6). Techniques to simplify complex presentations at jury trials. National Law Journal, 4, 21.Google Scholar
  21. Doob, A.N., & Kirschenbaum, H.M. (1973). Bias in police lineups—Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287–293.Google Scholar
  22. Durham, C. (1986). Taming the “monster case”: Management of complex litigation. Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 4, 123–135.Google Scholar
  23. Elliott, E.D. (1986). Managerial judging and the evolution of procedure. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 306–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elwork, A., Sales, B.D., & Alfini, J.J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Federal Judicial Center. (1981). Experimentation in the law. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts. (1990). St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates. (1990). St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  29. Glass, A.L., Holyoak, K.J., & Santa, J.L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. Goodman, J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E.F. (1985). What confuses jurors in complex cases: Judges and jurors outline the problem. Trial, 21, 65–74.Google Scholar
  31. Grady, J.F. (1982). Trial management and jury control in antitrust cases. Antitrust Law Journal, 57, 249–260.Google Scholar
  32. Greenwald, A.G., & Pratkanis, A.R. (1984). The self. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), The handbook of social cognition (pp. 129–178).Google Scholar
  33. Hans, V.P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. Hazard, G.C., & Rice, P.R. (1982). Judicial management of the pretrial process in massive litigation: Special masters as case managers. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 377–418.Google Scholar
  35. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors’ participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Horowitz, I.A., & Bordens, K.S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hovland, C.I. (1957). Order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hovland, CL, Janis, I.L., & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. ILC Peripherals v. International Business Machines, 458 F.Supp. 423, (N.D. Cal. 1978).Google Scholar
  41. In re Boise Cascade Securities Litigation, 420 F.Supp. 99, (W.D. Wash. 1976).Google Scholar
  42. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (3rd Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  43. In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  44. Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A.H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T., & Scott, R.A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  45. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kalven, H., Jr. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kian v. Mirro Aluminum Co., 88 F.R.D. 351 (E.D. Mich., 1980).Google Scholar
  49. Lempert, R.O. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let’s not rush to judgement. Michigan Law Review, 50, 68–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lerner, M., & Miller, D. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lüneburg, W.V., & Nordenberg, M.A. (1981). Specially qualified juries and expert non-jury tribunals: Alternatives for coping with the complexities of modern civil litigation. Virginia Law Review, 67, 887–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MacCoun, R.J. (1985). Evaluating jury performance (Book review). Judicature, 69, 56.Google Scholar
  54. Manual for complex litigation (5th ed.). (1982). St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Manual for complex litigation, second. (1985). St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  57. McLaughlin, M.A. (1983). Questions to witnesses and notetaking by the jury as aids in understanding complex litigation. New England Law Review, 18, 687–713.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, N., & Campbell, D.T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd ed.). (1972, 1986–1987 suppl.). New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  60. Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference-Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nordenberg, M.A., & Lüneburg, W.V. (1982). Decisionmaking in complex federal cases: Two alternatives to the traditional jury. Judicature, 65, 420–431.Google Scholar
  63. Note, The right to an incompetent jury: Protracted commercial litigation and the seventh amendment (1978). Connecticut Law Review, 10, 775–800.Google Scholar
  64. Olander, D. (1985). Resolving inconsistencies in federal special verdicts. Fordham Law Review, 53, 1089–1106.Google Scholar
  65. Pack, K.P. (1980–1981). The right to jury trial in complex litigation—In re Japanese Products Antitrust Litigation. International Trade Law Journal, 6, 133–143.Google Scholar
  66. Radial Lip Mach. Inc. v. International Carbide Corp., 76 F.R.D. 224, (N.D. 111. 1977).Google Scholar
  67. Richardson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 83–1055, (D.D.C.) 1983.Google Scholar
  68. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 1970.Google Scholar
  69. Sand, L.B., & Reiss, L.B. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by district court judges in the Second Circuit. New York University Law Review, 60, 423–497.Google Scholar
  70. Schuck, P.H. (1986). The role of judges in settling complex cases: The Agent Orange example. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwarzer, W.W. (1982a). Managing antitrust and other complex litigation: A handbook for lawyers and judges. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
  72. Schwarzer, W.W. (1982b). Techniques for identifying and narrowing issues in antitrust cases. Antitrust Law Journal, 51, 223–229.Google Scholar
  73. Strawn, D.U., & Munsterman, G.T. (1982). Helping juries handle complex cases. Judicature, 65, 444–447.Google Scholar
  74. Sue, S., Smith, R.E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taylor, R.P., Becker, E.R., McSweeney, M.J., Pointer, S.C., & Schreiber, S. (1985). Panel discussion. Charting a new course for complex cases: The New Manual for Complex Litigation, Second. (A.B.A. Section of Antitrust Law, 33rd Annual Meeting, Washington DC: July 8–10, 1985). Antitrust Law Journal, 54, 417–455.Google Scholar
  76. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Thompson, W.C., Fong, G.T., & Rosenhan, D.L. (1981). Inadmissable evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson, W.C., & Schumann, E.L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorneys’ fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Treadway, M. (1990, March). An investigation of juror comprehension of statistical proof of causation. Paper presented at the Biennial Midwinter Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, Williamsburg, VA.Google Scholar
  80. United States v. Maclean, 578 F.2d 64 (3rd Cir. 1978).Google Scholar
  81. Walker, L. (1988). Perfecting federal civil rules: A proposal for restricted field experiments. Law and Contemporary Problems, 51, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiggins, E.C., & Breckler, S.J. (1990). Special verdicts as guides to jury decision making. Law and Psychology Review, 14, 1–41.Google Scholar
  83. Willging, T.E. (1986). Court appointed experts. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  84. Withey, C.P. (1982). Court-sanctioned means of improving jury competence in complex civil litigation. Arizona Law Review, 24, 715–731.Google Scholar
  85. Withrow, J.W., & Suggs, D.L. (1980). Procedures for improving jury trials of complex litigation. Antitrust Bulletin, 25, 493–512.Google Scholar
  86. Wright, C.A., & Miller, A.R. (1971, 1986 suppl.). Federal Practice and Procedure. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Zeisel, H., & Callahan, T. (1963). Split trials and time saving: A statistical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1606–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations