Time limits in jury trials: The law and some practical advice

Historically, timed or "on-the-clock" trials - where litigants are given a strict time limit for their evidentiary presentation - was a practice only seen in California federal courts. More recently, some California state trial courts have begun to conduct "on-the-clock" timed trials. This article discusses California state law on the subject and offers some practical advice for both courts and trial lawyers.

The law

California appellate courts have affirmed the exercise of a trial court's discretion to impose reasonable trial time limits after appropriate notice. See e.g., California Crane School, Inc. v. National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 19-24; People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 146-151; McMillin v. McMillin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 893, 922; People v. Masters (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1019, 1074-1075.

California Crane is instructive. There, the plaintiff estimated four to six weeks for trial; the trial court initially allowed ten days, later increased to twelve days. California Crane, 226 Cal.App.4th at 17. On day ten, the court told the parties that the case had to get to the jury the next day or they would lose a juror to a planned vacation. Id. at 18. After the defense rested, the plaintiff objected that it was not allowed to put on a rebuttal case. Ibid. The case went to the jury on day eleven and a verdict was reached on day twelve. Id. at 19. The plaintiff lost and appealed contending that the time limits deprived plaintiff of a fair trial. Id. at 17. The appellate court affirmed, but also recommended procedures for a trial court's setting a time limit for trial:

First, the court should "elicit estimates from the parties and invite each side to comment on the other's estimate." California Crane, 226 Cal.App.4th at 20.

Second, after reviewing the parties' estimates, "the court should independently evaluate the estimates based on the arguments of the parties, the state of the pleadings, the legal and factual issues presented, the number of witnesses likely to testify, the court's trial schedule and hours, and the court's experience in trying similar cases." Id. at 20.

Third, "[t]here are advantages to specifying time limits in court hours rather than court days." Id. at 20-21.

Fourth, any time limit should be subject to review "for good cause shown either on a party's or the court's own motion." Id. at 21.

Fifth, if the court does impose time limits, "it is also important that those limits be enforced"; otherwise, it could be unfair if one party adheres and the other does not. Id. at 22.

The appellate court summed up that "it is clearly within the power of the court to impose time limits before the trial commences" and that decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. California Crane, 226 Cal.App.4th at 22.

Practical tips and advice:

For the Court: Trial courts imposing time limits should follow the recommendations of California Crane. First, they should not employ a "one-size-fits-all" approach where a predetermined amount of time is given to a certain type or category of case in the abstract. The trial court's proper exercise of discretion here must be "based on the arguments of the parties, the state of the pleadings, the legal and factual issues presented, the number of witnesses likely to testify, the court's trial schedule and hours, and the court's experience in trying similar cases." California Crane, 226 Cal.App.4th at 20. This requires a case-specific analysis that considers, inter alia, the complexity of the issues, anticipated volume of evidence and number of witnesses. Second, it does usually make sense to impose "time limits in court hours rather than court days." Id. at 20-21. Time limits in hours per side provide much greater clarity than vague limits based on court days, especially in courtrooms where the court must handle other matters during trial making the amount of trial time available per day unpredictable. Third, notice to the litigants is critical: the litigants should know the time limits well before trial starts to ensure proper preparation. Fourth, time limits must be subject to an adjustment for good cause. For example, if one side's witnesses are filibustering and intentionally eating time, the trial court should consider remedying this by increasing the time available to the side adversely impacted.

For trial lawyers: A timed trial presents unique challenges, but successfully navigating those challenges will give you the upper hand. Testimony will go much faster and witnesses will be on and off the stand much quicker, resulting in more witnesses per day. This requires much more rigorous witness and witness examination preparation well before the trial starts. As many stipulations as possible to pre-admit exhibits should be finalized, which avoids wasting time on the technicalities of exhibit admission. The story of the case must be streamlined so that only the essential core points are made. This should always be done, but especially in a timed trial. The case story should be reduced to a handful of key points, and everything at trial should either advance those key points or attack credibility...and nothing else. A sniper approach must be employed rather than a shotgun. When conducting witness examinations, absolute discipline is required. Veering off course into unexpected, and time-consuming areas can create a catastrophic problem of falling behind on time. If, for example, only ten hours per side is given to present the evidence, spending an unanticipated extra thirty to sixty minutes with a given witness can have a cascading effect on the rest of the trial. Another practical point: keep track of your own time, ideally through a time-stamped trial transcript (which creates a clear record in the event of time disputes).

Timed trials are likely to be more and more common. They present their own unique challenges, but executing a timed trial correctly can give you and your client an upper hand.

David M. deRubertis is the founder and lead trial lawyer at The deRubertis Law Firm, APC.