SUPREME COURT PULLS PLUG ON

COURT OF APPEALS’ “ROCKET DOCKET”

For about two and half years, the Court of Appeals herded its summary disposition appeals into a streamlined program that many attorneys called the “rocket docket.” This program was intended to move cases through the entire appellate process within six months – six months from filing to decision.

In May 2007, the Supreme Court suspended the program (AO 2007-2, suspending AO 2004-5).

The program brought a mixture of successes and failures. Statistically, the Court of Appeals could never reach its six-month goal. Nonetheless, from my experience it was clear that the Court had reduced the time it took to reach decision to somewhere around nine months – which was a vast improvement over the nearly two years an average appeal took before the program was instituted.

The Court learned the hard way that treating summary disposition appeals as priority matters caused a lot of problems. By statute and court rule, the Court is already required to treat emergency matters, termination of parental rights cases, criminal cases, and other domestic relations matters as priority matters. Consider that the vast majority of civil appeals are summary disposition appeals, and you can see that treating everything as a priority means nothing is a priority (or it means that the remaining non-priority cases – agency appeals, trial verdicts, workers compensation appeals – take an inordinate amount of time to decide).

When the Court was faced with budget cuts (cuts which bled into its fleet of leased cars), the Court needed as much flexibility as possible with its staff. Treating so many cases as priority matters deprived the Court of flexibility with its human resources; total flexibility was restored with abolition of the program.

So what does this mean for attorneys? You can no longer advise your clients that summary disposition appeals will be decided faster than other cases – and certainly not anywhere within the six-month time frame. This will probably lead many clients to decide not to file an appeal, and should also cut down on interlocutory appeals from denials of summary disposition. From the Court’s point of view, this reduction in filings is probably an added bonus to the repeal of the rocket docket.

With abolition of the rule, attorneys need no longer attach their motions as exhibits to their appellate briefs, although it may be advisable to continue to do so since appellate panels do not routinely review the lower court file. Attorneys no longer need to file briefs within the condensed schedule the administrative rule established, and court reporters are not held to tighter deadlines (and they forfeit their right to heightened fees). These cases are again subject to the Court’s settlement program, so a Docketing Statement must be filed early in the appeal.

Any appeal that was commenced under the rocket docket rule has been restored to the regular Court docket. Attorneys should have received a letter from the clerk informing them of this transfer. If the transfer works a hardship on parties, they can file a motion to adhere to the old schedule.

All the details of the rocket docket were found in the administrative order creating it. Now that the order has been revoked, the regular court rules apply just as they do in non-summary disposition appeals.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s administrative order purports to “indefinitely suspend” the expedited program. In light of the budget constraints and the limitations the program exposed, it is highly unlikely that the Court of Appeals would ask the Supreme Court to restore the program. And without support from the Court of Appeals judges, the Supreme Court will not restore the program on its own.

The expedited “rocket docket” was a mixed bag of results. The Court of Appeals will undoubtedly continue experimenting with new ideas to improve the time it takes to issue opinions. It must do so in a way that does not constrain the Court’s limited human or financial resources.