Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Mag

2

...

...

...

...

#1. I think not. Magistrate Judges write hundreds of one or two page decisions every year which may (or may not) qualify as "opinions." To create a system that would catalogue and number each such decision filed within the District Court in a given year would be a monstrous burden.

#2a. No. See above.

#2b. Where litigants choose to do extra work to increase clarity of their work, it should certainly be permitted.

#3. No. Although it is a good idea in theory, it will cost a great deal in time expended to number the paragraphs. I work with 2 law clerks but no secretary. To have myself or a law clerk add paragraph numbers to every opinion would be a waste of time better spent on the actual cases before me.

Bank

2

...

...

...

...

This court recognized that the form of official citation, as proposed, will be equally effective for printed case reports and for case reports electronically published on computer disks or network services. However, at this point in time, the Court relies almost exclusively on printed case reports which are retrieved by reference to the volume, the publication and the page number. In the event the Court cites to a case which is available only on Westlaw and/or Lexis, the Bluebook provides a standard form of citation.

The suggestion that the Court add an additional citation as proposed, which shall become the official citation, is premature and burdensome. The above methods of citation currently in use adequately provide for uniformity and there is no need to mandate the use of a new system of citation. At some point in the future, when cases which are available only by electronic means are relied on to a greater extent, the additional citation as proposed may be appropriate.

The portion of the resolution contained in 1.D. which requires counsel to provide printed copies of cited authority not available in printed case reports to opposing counsel and the court is an appropriate suggestion. Certain parties, especially those who are acting pro se may not have access to such cited authority. These parties should not be prejudiced for their inability to obtain the cited authority, and such requirement of opposing counsel would provide a more level playing field. This Court is keenly aware of the difficulty pro se parties may have in adequately representing themselves, and any requirement which would assist them without causing an undue burden to the opposing party should be implemented.

Bank

2

I do not want the clerk of my court to add to their workload an official number beyond the case number of any opinion.

The Federal Judiciary should not be required to use an official citation. It would be permissible to make it optional.

Federal judges should not be required to number paragraphs.

Comment:

I have been following this proposal very carefully and I think it is just another make work scheme that will add to the workload of the Judiciary and our employees. Moreover, with the expanding pace of increased technological change our implementation of a new and additional system will more than likely be outdated before we implement it. Indeed, with the new word search engines that are being developed on a daily basis, the entire citation system may be outdated.

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Dist

2

yes

yes

yes

Dist

2

no

no

no

no

Dist

2

yes

yes

-

yes

Mag

2

PT Magistrate Judges do not issue opinions

Cir

2

yes

yes

yes

yes

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Cir

2

no

no

yes

no

Bank

2

no

no

...

...

#2b. Only as long as the printed citation is also supplied.

#3. Absolutely not.

Dist

2

yes

yes

yes

Dist

2

no

no

yes

...

#3. No opinion

Dist

2

no

no

no

no

Dist

2

no

no

yes

yes

Mag

2

no

no

no

....

#3. Only if absolutely necessary to permit pinpoint citations without copyright problems.

Dist

2

no

no

no

no

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Mag

2

no

no

n/a

no

Mag

2

yes

yes..

yes..

#2b. Yes, as suggested by Committee

#3. Yes, as suggested by ABA

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Dist

2

yes

yes

no

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Dist

2

no

no

no

no

Dist

2

yes...

Yes...

No....

#1. Yes, as long as this procedure is uniform and easy to apply. Often a single file will have multiple opinions and this would serve to eliminate confusion over which opinion is being referenced.

#2a. Yes, but it would be much easier if the 'official citation' followed the traditional Bluebook form that is largely in place and is most familiar to all attorneys. Furthermore, the use of parallel citations would place a heavy burden upon law clerks.

#3. No. Private sector number systems are very efficient and numbering paragraphs in an opinion may result in confusion with those numbering systems that are already in place.

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Dist

2

No

no

Doesn't matter

no

This whole idea is just more work for nothing because somebody is unhappy because a "private sector company" might make some money. More useless work for Judges and their staffs.

Dist

2

no...

yes

yes

yes

#1. No. An easier way to deal with this is to have the official citation to any opinion be the docket number and date of decision. With this information there should be no need for a special number to identify the opinion.

Dist

2

no

no

yes

no

Cir

2

no...

No

yes

no...

#1. No, it sounds to me like additional paper work and red tape.

#3. No, pinpoint citations, in any event, should give no private sector company any copyrights. See Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282

Dist

2

no...

...

No

no

#1. No. The docket number is sufficient.

#2a. Not the proposed official citation, but a citation form similar to or the same as the form suggested by the Bluebook. The concept of an official citation is a good one.