|:|LEn
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`November 3, 2015
`November 3, 2015
`
`IN SUPREME COURT
`
`“‘"“'5 *3‘
`AI=P|1I.AIE I‘JaI.nT5
`
`ADM10-8051
`
`ADM09-8009
`
`ADM04-8001
`
`ORDER RELATING TO THE CIVIL JUSTICE
`
`REFORM TASK FORCE, AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS
`TO EXPEDITED CIVIL LITIGATION TRACK PILOT PROJECT
`
`By order filed May 8, 2013, the court authorized a pilot project in the First Judicial
`
`District in Dakota County and the Sixth Judicial District in St. Louis County in Duluth to
`
`test whether certain expedited processes improve the way trial courts process civil cases
`
`in order to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every civil action
`
`(“Pilot Project”). The court also promulgated Special Rules for the Pilot Expedited Civil
`
`Litigation Track to govern the Pilot Project. The district courts are willing to increase the
`
`scope of the Pilot Project cases, and the Fourth Judicial District is willing to participate in
`
`the Pilot Project on a limited basis.
`
`Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`The First Judicial District in Dakota County, the Fourth Judicial District,
`
`and the Sixth Judicial District in St. Louis County in Duluth (“Pilot District Courts”) are
`
`hereby authorized to conduct a pilot project (“Pilot Project”) under the Special Rules for
`
`the Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track.
`
`

`
`2.
`
`The Pilot Project shall continue to test whether the expedited processes
`
`authorized by the Special Rules for the Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track improve
`
`the way that trial courts process civil cases in order to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive determination of every civil action. The Pilot District Courts shall, with the
`
`assistance of the State Court Administrator, evaluate the Pilot Project and report to this
`
`Court within twelve months after the date of this order, and as often thereafter as this
`
`Court shall direct. The report shall examine the Pilot Project processes in light of the
`
`core principles that support the establishment of a mandatory Expedited Civil Litigation
`
`Track, and determine whether the efficiency and effectiveness in which the Pilot District
`
`Courts process civil cases are improved.
`
`3.
`
`The Fourth District’s participation in the Pilot Project and the attached
`
`amendments to the Special Rules for the Pilot Project shall be effective January 1, 2016,
`
`and shall apply to all civil actions identified therein that are filed on or after the effective
`
`date. The Pilot Project shall continue until further order of the court. To the extent of
`
`any conflict between the terms of this order and the amended Special Rules for the Pilot
`
`Expedited Civil Litigation Track, and the provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure and
`
`the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, the terms of this order and its
`
`attached Special Rules for the Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track shall prevail.
`
`Dated: November 3, 2015
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`Lorie S. Gilga
`
`Chief Justice
`
`

`
`Special Rules for the Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track
`
`[Notes In the following amendments, deletions are indicated by a line drawn through the
`
`words and additions are indicated by a line drawn under the words.]
`
`Preface
`
`The purposes of the Expedited Litigation Track (ELT) are to promote efficiency in
`
`the processing of certain civil cases, reduce cost to the parties and the court system,
`
`maintain a system for resolution of claims that is relevant to the parties, and provide a
`
`quick and reduced-cost process for obtaining a jury trial when civil actions cannot be
`
`resolved by judicial decision (dispositive motions) or by settlement.
`
`The core principles that support the establishment of a mandatory Expedited
`
`Litigation Track include:
`
`1.
`
`Most civil actions can be resolved by court decision or settlement upon a
`
`sharing of basic facts regarding the claims and defenses of the parties;
`
`2.
`
`Timely and assertive judicial attention to matters results in the resolution of
`
`actions that can be resolved through settlement and provides for customized
`
`discovery and trial procedures that will be most cost-effective for the court
`
`and the parties;
`
`3.
`
`Attorneys and parties are hesitant to voluntarily elect expedited procedures,
`
`thus a mandatory system is required;
`
`4.
`
`Extensive discovery through interrogatories, requests for production, and
`
`depositions is often unnecessary, unproductive, and leads to protracted
`
`litigation and unnecessary litigation costs;
`
`

`
`5.
`
`A compact discovery schedule will reduce the time and cost of litigation for
`
`courts and litigants;
`
`6.
`
`Mandatory disclosure of relevant information, rigorously enforced by the
`
`court, will result
`
`in disclosure of facts and information necessary to
`
`evaluate the anticipated evidence for purposes of settlement and to allow
`
`parties to prepare for trial; and
`
`Expedited cases should be completed within 4-6 I1’101’1thS7_l_
`
`Having a trial date or week certain is key to minimizing cost and delay:;
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Assignment of an expedited case to a single judge is also highly desirable,
`
`but district courts may need flexibility to ensure that trial dates are observed. This may
`
`involve assignment of a case to a pool of judges for trial or the use of adjunct judicial
`
`officers to handle case management conferences. Where possible district courts should
`
`avoid assigning judges on the day of trial to prevent the last minute striking or removal of
`
`judges that necessitates a continuance.
`
`RULE 1.
`
`MANDATORY ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN ACTIONS TO
`
`THE EXPEDITED LITIGATION TRACK
`
`(a) General; Effective Date. Unless excluded by an order of the court made
`
`pursuant to Rule l(c) herein, all civil actions identified in Rule l(b) that are filed in the
`
`
`First Judicial District in Dakota County, the Fourth Judicial District and in—the Sixth
`
`Judicial District in St. Louis County in Duluth on or after Janumy 1, 2016,
`
`

`
`shall be assigned to the ELT and managed pursuant to these Special Expedited Litigation
`
`Track Rules (ELT Rules 2.
`
`(b) Actions Included. The following civil actions shall be assigned to the ELT,
`
`unless excluded pursuant to Rule l(c) herein:
`
`(1)
`
`in the Sixth Judicial District in St. Louis County in Duluth and in the
`
`First Judicial District in Dakota County, all civil matters having the case type
`
`indicator Consumer Credit Contract, Other Contract, Personal Injury, er—Other
`
`Civil, or Conciliation Appeal;
`
`(2)
`
`in the Fi1=stFourth Judicial District , all civil matters
`
`having the case type indicator Consumer Credit Contract and Conciliation Appeal,
`
`and, where designated by the presiding judge by assignment to ELT (referred to in
`
`these rules as “Assignment to ELT” Q, matters having the case type indicator Other
`
`Contract, Personal Injury, or Other Civil; provided that this shall not prevent the
`
`Fourth Judicial District from initially reguiring any Conciliation Appeal to first
`
`proceed with mediation before Assignment to ELT
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`Any action where all the parties voluntarily agree to be governed by
`
`the Speeia-l—ELT Rules by including an “ELT Election” in the civil cover sheet
`
`filed under the General Rules of Practice or by jointly filing an ELT Election
`
`certificate with the court, and the court has accepted such agreement by
`
`Assignment to ELT.
`
`

`
`(c) Initial Motion for Exclusion from ELT. A party objecting to the mandatory
`
`assignment of a matter to the BLT must serve and file a motion setting forth the reasons
`
`that the matter should be removed from the BLT. Said motion papers must be served and
`
`filed within 30 days of the filing of the action or, where applicable, Assignment to ELT.
`
`The motion shall be heard during the Case Management Conference, if any, under Rule 3
`
`of these rules or at such other time as the court shall direct. The factors that should be
`
`considered by the court in ruling on said motion include:
`
`(1) Multiple parties or claims;
`
`(2) Multiple or complex theories of liability, damages, or relief;
`
`(3)
`
`Complicated facts that require the discovery options provided by the
`
`Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure;
`
`(4)
`
`Substantial likelihood of dispositive motions; or
`
`(5)
`
`Any factor that demonstrates that assignment to the ELT would
`
`substantially affect a party’s right to a fair and just resolution of the matter (e.g.,
`
`timing of obtaining discovery from a third party, estimated damages significantly
`
`exceeding $100,000).
`
`((1) Subsequent Motion for Exclusion from ELT. After the time for bringing a
`
`motion under Rule l(c) of this rule has expired and no later than the trial date, a party
`
`may by motion request that the case be removed from the ELT for good cause shown
`
`related to a new development that could not have been previously raised.
`
`

`
`RULE 2.
`
`AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION
`
`(a) Content; Timing.
`
`Each party shall prepare and serve an Automatic
`
`Disclosure of Information within 60 days after filing of the action or, where applicable,
`
`filing of the ssignment to ELT. The Automatic Disclosure of Information
`
`shall include the following:
`
`(1)
`
`A statement summarizing each contention in support of every claim
`
`or defense which a party will present at trial and a brief statement of the facts upon
`
`which the contentions are based.
`
`(2)
`
`The name, address, and telephone number of each individual likely
`
`to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information and
`
`any statement from such individual—that the disclosing party may use to support its
`
`claims or defenses. However, no party shall be required to furnish any statement
`
`(written or taped) protected by the attomey/client privilege or work-product rule.
`
`(3)
`
`A copy—or description, by category and location—of all documents,
`
`electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has
`
`in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses.
`
`(4)
`
`If a claim for damages is being made, a description of the precise
`
`damages being sought by the party and the method for calculation of said
`
`damages. If the party has any liability insurance coverage providing coverage for
`
`the claims being made by another party, the name of the insurance company, the
`
`limits of coverage, and the existence of any issue that could affect the availability
`
`of coverage.
`
`

`
`(5)
`
`A brief summary of the qualifications of any expert witness the party
`
`may call at the time of trial together with a report or statement of any such expert
`
`which sets forth the subject matter of the expert witness’s anticipated testimony;
`
`the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify,
`
`and a brief summary of the grounds for each opinion.
`
`(6)
`
`Any offers of stipulation of any fact that is relevant to any claim or
`
`defense in the matter.
`
`(7)
`
`An estimate of the number of trial days that it will take to complete
`
`trial of the matter.
`
`(b) Filing Disclosures; Privacy Considerations. Automatic disclosures under
`
`this rule need not be filed with the court unless otherwise ordered by the court. If a court
`
`directs the filing of automatic disclosures, the party filing such disclosures shall take
`
`necessary and appropriate steps to protect
`
`the privacy interests (such as, without
`
`limitation, addresses and telephone numbers) of individuals identified in the disclosures.
`
`RULE 3.
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`(:1)
`
`Timing; Scope. Within 45 to 60 days of the date of filing of an action, or
`
`where applicable, within 30 days of filing of the ssignment to ELT, the
`
`court shall convene a Case Management Conference (CMC). All counsel and parties,
`
`whether represented or unrepresented, must participate in the CMC. At the CMC, the
`
`court and the parties shall address the following subjects:
`
`(1)
`
`Any motion to exclude the matter from the ELT Rules made
`
`pursuant to ELT Rule 1(c) of these rules;
`
`6
`
`

`
`(2)
`
`The prospects
`
`for settlement via mediation, arbitration, court-
`
`conducted settlement conference, or other form of ADR;
`
`(3)
`
`Any request for modification of the abbreviated discovery process
`
`required by the ELT Rules;
`
`(4)
`
`The setting of a day or week certain trial date to begin no later than
`
`120 to 180 days following filing of the action or, where applicable,
`
`the
`
`Assignment to ELT ;
`
`(5)
`
`The setting of a deadline for the filing of all
`
`trial documents,
`
`including witness lists, exhibit lists, jury instructions, special jury verdict forms,
`
`trial briefs and motions in limine; and
`
`(6)
`
`The setting of the date for completion of hearing of any motions.
`
`(b) Format; Alternative Judicial Intervention. The court may conduct the
`
`CMC by telephone or may substitute other judicial intervention (including but not limited
`
`to one or more telephone discussions or issuing a scheduling order based on information
`
`supplied by the parties in their civil cover sheet) that addresses the above subjects.
`
`RULE 4.
`
`LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY
`
`(a) Time Period Limited. The period for conducting discovery shall continue for
`
`
`a period of 90 days from the Case Management Conference if one is held or from the
`
`scheduling order, or for a different period established by court order. Upon a request of
`
`the parties,
`
`the court, for good cause shown, may extend the period for conducting
`
`discovery for up to an additional 30 days.
`
`

`
`(b) Written Discovery Limits; Motions to Compel. Written discovery shall be
`
`limited to 15 interrogatories, 15 requests for production of documents and things, and 25
`
`requests for admissions. Written discovery by each party must be served within 30 days
`
`of the date of the CMC, if one is held, or from the scheduling order, or for a different
`
`period established by court order, and responses thereto must be served within 30 days of
`
`the date of service. Motions to compel responses to written discovery shall be made
`
`within 15 days of the date a response was due and shall be made pursuant to the modified
`
`discovery motion procedure set forth in Rule 4(d) of these rules.
`
`(c) Depositions. Depositions are permitted as a matter of right of the parties only
`
`but must be taken within the deadline established by the court. Except as otherwise
`
`ordered by the court, a deposition of a non-party witness shall be allowed only if the
`
`deposition is being taken in lieu of in-person trial testimony.
`
`(d) Meet and Confer Requirement. Prior to any motion to compel discovery,
`
`the party seeking the discovery and the party from whom responses are being sought
`
`must, by and through their counsel (or a pro se litigant if unrepresented by counsel),
`
`confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
`
`If the dispute is not resolved, the party
`
`seeking the discovery shall contact the court and schedule a telephone conference with
`
`the court, and provide notice of the date and time of the telephone conference to all
`
`adverse parties. No later than 5 days prior to the date of the discovery dispute telephone
`
`conference, each party shall serve and file with the court a letter not exceeding 2 pages in
`
`length setting forth the party’s position on the discovery dispute and providing copies of
`
`

`
`the disputed discovery. The court, in its discretion, may allow additional argument at the
`
`telephone conference. The court shall promptly rule on the discovery dispute.
`
`APPENDIX OF SAMPLE FORMS
`
`The forms appended hereto are set forth as samples that may be used in the Expedited
`
`Litigation Track Pilot Project.
`
`

`
`Appendix A: Sample Expedited Litigation Track Assignment Order
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF
`
`, Plaintiff
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`CASE TYPE:
`
`File Number:
`
`v.
`
`ELT Assignment and Case
`
`, Defendant
`
`Management Conference Order
`
`It is ORDERED:
`
`1. This case is assigned to the pilot project (ELT Pilot”) under the Special Rules For a
`
`Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track (“ELT Rules”);
`
`2. A party objecting to this assignment must make a formal motion under ELT Rule 1(c)
`
`or (d), for removal from the ELT Pilot;
`
`3. Each party shall provide the Automatic Disclosure Of lnforrnation required under
`
`ELT Rule 2;
`
`4. A Case Management conference shall be held on :
`
`, and each
`
`party shall attend the conference prepared to discuss the subjects identified in ELT
`
`Rule 3; and
`
`5. The Limitations on Discovery set forth in ELT Rule 4 apply.
`
`Dated:
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`Judge of District Court
`
`10
`
`

`
`Appendix B: Sample Expedited Litigation Track Case Management Order
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF
`
`v.
`
`, Plaintiff
`
`, Defendant
`
`It is ORDERED:
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`CASE TYPE:
`
`File Number:
`
`ELT Case Management Order
`
`1.
`
`Each party shall provide the Automatic Disclosure Of lnforrnation required under
`
`Rule 2 of the Special Rules For a Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track (“ELT Rules”)
`
`2.
`
`be:
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`ADR will/will not be used, and if used the deadline and form of ADR shall
`
`;
`
`The Limitations on Discovery set forth in ELT Rule 4 apply;
`
`All motions shall be heard by:
`
`The day or week certain for trial is:
`
`;
`
`;
`
`6. The deadline for submitting all trial documents, including witness lists, jury
`
`instructions, special verdict forms, trial briefs, and motions in limine
`
`is:
`
`Dated:
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`Judge of District Court
`
`11
`
`

`
`A endix C: Sam le Ex edited Liti ation Track Case Schedulin Order No CMC
`
`[Notes all ofAppendix C is new but is not underlined to improve readability]
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF
`
`v.
`
`, Plaintiff
`
`, Defendant
`
`Appearances:
`
`[Name], Title for the [Plaintiff]
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`CASE TYPE:
`
`File Number:
`
`ELT Scheduling Order
`
`[Name], [Title or Law Firm] for the [Defendant]
`
`This case shall be governed by the Special Rules For a Pilot Expedited Civil Litigation Track
`
`(“ELT Rules”) as modified herein. The parties are reminded that ELT Rule 2(a) requires initial
`
`automatic disclosures to be made within 60 days from the date of filing of the action or, where
`
`applicable, filing of the Assignment to ELT.
`
`l. Joinder of additional parties, by amendment or
`
`third party practice,
`
`shall be
`
`accomplished on or before [plus 30 days].
`
`2. Discovery shall be completed — that is, all depositions completed, all interrogatories
`
`answered, all requests for production responded to and all responsive documents produced, all
`
`requests for admission propounded and responded to, and any privilege logs exchanged-and all
`
`discovery-related motions shall be scheduled to be heard on or before [plus 60 days].
`
`3. No discovery dispute may be brought before the court unless the parties have conferred
`
`and made a good faith effort to settle their dispute as contemplated by Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)
`
`and Minn. Gen. R. Prac.115.10. The party raising an unresolved discovery issue shall first
`
`arrange a telephone conference with the court and the other party or parties to determine if the
`
`dispute can be resolved without a formal motion.
`
`In the event a telephone conference is
`
`12
`
`

`
`scheduled, the party requesting the telephone conference may submit to the Court, seventy-two
`
`hours before the conference, a letter, no longer than two pages outlining with specificity the
`
`issues to be addressed with the Court. The other party or parties may submit a responsive letter
`
`subject to the same length and specificity conditions twenty-four hours before the conference.
`
`The correspondence must be filed with the Court as well as courtesy copied by email
`
`to
`
`[CLERK’S EMAIL HERE]. No motion or submission other than these letters shall be filed
`
`before the telephone conference. Only if the telephone conference does not resolve the dispute
`
`may a formal motion be scheduled.
`
`4. All other non-dispositive motions (including motions to amend the pleadings) shall be
`
`scheduled to be heard on or before [plus 60 days].
`
`5. Dispositive motions shall be scheduled with the Court’s clerk to be heard on or before
`
`[plus 110 days]. The scheduling of a dispositive motion requires as much as two or three months
`
`advance notice to the Court’s clerk.
`
`6. All dispositive and non-dispositive motions are subject to the following requirements:
`
`a. A copy of the memorandum (in pdf) and all exhibits (in pdf) shall be sent to the
`
`[CLERK’S EMAIL HERE].
`
`If an exhibit exceeds the maximum allowable size
`
`for an attachment to email (currently 30MB), it shall be delivered on CD, DVD,
`
`or USB-Drive to the Court within three business days of filing. The hardware
`
`will not be returned. A copy of the proposed order,
`
`in word, shall be sent to
`
`[CLERK’S EMAIL HERE].
`
`b. A paper courtesy copy of each memorandum shall be delivered to the Court in
`
`person or by mail. The Court requires paper courtesy copies of exhibits only
`
`under the following circumstances: when the exhibits include color, photographs,
`
`oversized documents (like plans or schematics) or other material
`
`that
`
`is not
`
`suitably reproduced within the e-filing system, those specific exhibits should be
`
`delivered in person or by mail. The court may later request paper copies of
`
`exhibits, but parties should not provide them as a default unless they meet the
`
`exception just described.
`
`13
`
`

`
`c. The Court requires that, for any memorandum citing deposition testimony, the
`
`entire deposition transcript shall be courtesy copied to the Court in pdf format via
`
`email, USB-drive, or CD. Media will not be returned.
`
`d. Nothing should ever be sent to the Court by fax.
`
`e. No motion will be heard unless the parties have conferred either in person or by
`
`telephone in an attempt to resolve their difference before the scheduled hearing.
`
`The moving party shall initiate such communications. The moving party shall
`
`certify to the Court, before the time of the hearing, compliance with this order or
`
`any reason for not complying. Whenever any pending motion is settled, the
`
`moving party shall promptly advise the Court.
`
`7. Any party that wishes to request a pre-trial or settlement conference (after the
`
`mediation date) may do so by making a written request, copying the other parties, to the Court’s
`
`clerk.
`
`8. The case will be considered ready for trial during the court’s civil trial block [INSERT
`
`TRIAL DATE OR BLOCK 4-6 MONTHS FROM FILING]. An order for trial will follow
`
`closer to the trial date. If an attorney or party has a conflict which cannot be resolved during
`
`this period, it must be made known to the Court and the other parties within 15 days of this
`
`order.
`
`Other matters
`
`9. The clerk for this case is [NAME, CLERK’S EMAIL HERE, (612) xxx-xxxx].
`
`10. Counsel shall immediately notify the Court of any final disposition of this matter or
`
`any final disposition of this matter as to any party. A signed stipulation and a proposed order for
`
`dismissal shall follow as soon as possible.
`
`11. All documents filed with the Court Administrator must be e-filed in accordance with
`
`Minnesota Supreme Court Order and rules adopted on May 24, 2012.
`
`All attorneys
`
`representing a party in this matter are required to add themselves immediately to the
`
`electronic Master Service list for this case.
`
`(Unrepresented parties are excluded from this
`
`14
`
`

`
`requirement.) The Court will issue and distribute all orders in this matter electronically. The
`
`Court will not send attorneys or represented clients a hard-copy of documents filed by the Court.
`
`Questions regarding signing up for the electronic case service list may be directed to the District
`
`court on its E-File Help Line at 651-227-2002.
`
`12. In accordance with Rule 6.04(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, weekend
`
`days and legal holidays shall be excluded when computing time periods of less than seven days.
`
`For example, in the case of a Monday motion hearing with no legal holiday during the preceding
`
`week, the reply memorandum is due on the preceding Wednesday.
`
`13. Parties needing an interpreter for court hearings shall immediately, upon receipt of
`
`this Order, notify the Court of the need for an interpreter and of the language requested.
`
`14. No adjustments to this scheduling order may be made by stipulation of the parties
`
`without approval of the Court. No changes to this scheduling order may be sought without
`
`filing a motion [WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER]. The Court will not
`
`entertain requests to amend the scheduling order telephonically or by email. As with all motions,
`
`the non-moving party must be consulted before any such motion is filed. If there is an objection
`
`to the motion, the moving party shall so state in its moving papers. A motion which has been
`
`objected to must be served at least by email or fax on any other party in the case who is not
`
`registered to receive efiling notifications. A party objecting to a motion to modify the
`
`scheduling order shall have three business days to make its response. Requests for
`
`amendments to this scheduling order will be granted only for good cause.
`
`15. If it appears by notice of motion and motion or otherwise that a party has failed to
`
`comply with a provision of this Order,
`
`the party will be subject to appropriate sanctions,
`
`including attomey’s fees and costs, striking of pleadings, preclusion of evidence, default
`
`judgment, dismissal of the case, or any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
`
`16. All corporate parties must be represented by an attorney.
`
`17. Counsel and their clients are reminded of Minn. R. Civ. P. l, as amended effective
`
`July 1, 2013, which reads as follows:
`
`15
`
`

`
`These rules govern the procedure in the district courts of the State of Minnesota in
`
`all suits of a civil nature, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. They shall be
`
`construed and administered to secure the just,
`
`speedy,
`
`and inexpensive
`
`determination of every action.
`
`It is the responsibility of the court and the parties to examine each civil action to
`
`assure that
`
`the process and the costs are proportionate to the amount
`
`in
`
`controversy and the complexity and importance of the issues. The factors to be
`
`considered by the court in making a proportionality assessment include, without
`
`limitation: needs of the case, amount
`
`in controversy, parties’
`
`resources, and
`
`complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.
`
`Dated:
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`NAME, Judge of District Court
`
`16