THE JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK This biggest of all district courts, located in the world's greatest commercial center, is in need of additional Judicial assistance. The caseload per judgeship of civil cases commenced is extremely heavy; in the category of private cases, which are so time-consuming, it was two and one-third times greater than the average for all districts during the fiscal year 1959. The number of civil cases pending on December 31, 1959 was enormous, totaling 11,220. This was almost one-fifth of all the civil cases pending in the 86 district courts that have only federal jurisdiction. Yet, to dispose of these many cases, the district has only one-twelfth of the authorized judgeships of the 86 districts. In cases that were terminated last year after reaching trial, the median interval from filing to disposition was over 26 months close to twice as long as the national median. The industrial and commercial nature of the district loads the dockets with many complicated and important cases many of which require weeks of trial. The criminal caseload is likewise heavy and contains many time-consuming actions which attract national attention such as the recent case of U. S. v Bonanno, involving a conspiracy by 20 defendants who met at Apalachin, New York. In order to bring the dockets in this district up to date and to avoid the heavy penalty that the present congested condition imposes on litigants, the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended six additional judgeships. The eighteen judges of this court handle a big percentage of all antitrust litigation in the federal courts and a large share of the patent, copyright and trademark cases, as well as time-consuming criminal prosecutions of national and international importance. New York is the largest port in the nation and in the last few years about 40 percent of the admiralty and maritime litigation in the federal courts has been filed in the Southern District. The business of the court has multiplied in the last half century and from time to time additional judgeships have been added. The four Judges provided for the district by the Judicial Code of 1911 were raised to six in 1922, to nine in 1929, to eleven in 1936, to twelve in 1938, to sixteen in 1949, and finally to eighteen in 1954. Court is held only in New York City. The history of this court from the end of World War II to 1955 can be described only in terms of excessive caseloads, large numbers of protracted cases, a continual accumulation of arrearages, and mounting delay. The judicial assistance provided to meet the situation has been neither timely nor adequate to meet the ever increasing business. In 1941 and through the war years when there were 13 judgeships for the district (including one temporary position which expired in 1943), the pending civil cases fluctuated between 3,500 and 4,500, but by the end of 1945 increased to 5,800. Two years later the pending civil cases surged upward by 70 percent to 10,100, which prompted the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1947 to recommend two additional judgeships and to ask that the expired temporary position be reestablished. When the pending caseload increased another 800 cases in the ensuing twelve months, the Judicial Conference requested four additional judgeships for the district and these positions were provided in the Omnibus Judgeship Bill passed in 1949. Still the civil backlog piled up and delay increased. On June 30, 1950 the pending civil caseload reached 11,134 and it became clear that the extra judgepower provided was inadequate to overcome the enormous arrearages. The pending civil cases in this district alone were then more than onefifth of the number in all district courts. In September of that year the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended five more judgeships for the district including two on a temporary basis. By the end of the fiscal year 1953 the arrearages had reached 11,758 civil cases including 9,385 private civil cases and in addition delays in criminal cases were being felt and the pending criminal caseload topped 1,000 for the first time in almost 10 years. In 1954 two of the five judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference were created. The Conference immediately renewed its request for the other three judges and supplemented this in 1956 by a recommendation for a fourth new judgeship. A concentrated drive to clear the dockets and to secure a speedy trial for litigants who certified their cases were ready took place in the fiscal years 1956 and 1957 and the number of cases on the ready calendar was reduced to 821. For a short time, cases on the calendar were actually being reached within 6 months of calendaring, but this was followed by increases in the number of cases filed. From 1955 to 1958 this amounted to 50 percent both in private cases and in all civil cases. The Effect of the Jurisdiction Bill While the Jurisdiction Bill of July 25, 1958 was responsible for an over-all reduction of 17 percent in the number of civil cases filed in the districts having purely federal jurisdiction, in the Southern District of New York the effect was much smaller, the reduction being less than 3 percent. Since the pending cases and the size of the trial calendar continued to grow, the Judicial Conference, in March 1959, increased its recommendation to 6 additional Judgeships. During the first half of the current fiscal year, 3,447 civil cases were filed, an increase of 7 percent over the same period of last year. Thus, the entire decrease of 1959 has already been made up and the current rate of filings, if continued, will produce a record of 7,000 new civil cases in the fiscal year 1960, of which 6,000 will be private cases, which will also be a new high. Despite strenuous efforts on the part of the district judges, who, in the fiscal year 1959, disposed of an average of 334 civil cases apiece, in contrast with the national average of 236, the cases on the calendar have likewise increased and now exceed 2,000, having risen from 821 on June 30, 1957. One of the current difficulties of this district, as has been noted, is the number of long and complicated protracted cases which often require long trials but which inevitably take much more time of the judge in chambers than is required to be spent in court. Judge Ryan has assigned 85 of these cases to individual judges for handling outside of the master |