On July 11, 2006 the Judicial Efficiency Act became law through Public Law 28-137:1. On September 15, 2006, the Supreme Court of Guam adopted Administrative Rule 06-001 regarding Case Management & Disposition which established time standards for the efficient and prompt disposition of matters pending before the Superior Court of Guam. To review AR 06-001, click through this link: Administrative Rule 06-001. The Judicial Efficiency Act and AR 06-001 are vital components of the Unified Judiciary's commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency. The information provided here continues the Judiciary’s commitment to provide timely and meaningful information regarding the functioning of the Judiciary.

TRIAL COURT TIME STANDARDS

The time standards established by AR 06-001 contemplate two distinct time standards. The Case Age time standard addresses how long it takes to conclude a case after it is assigned to a judge. AR06-001 describes specific Case Age time lines for different types of cases. The various times standards are summarized as follows: Absent good cause for delay, criminal cases should be concluded within 12 months, domestic cases should be concluded within 15 months, and other non-criminal cases should be concluded within 18 months.

It is important to provide data regarding Case Age time standards in an appropriate context, providing an accurate picture of the caseloads handled by trial court judges. While the reports here identify the open & active cases remaining open at certain points-in-time that are older than the Case Age time standards contemplate, what these reports do not show is the significant number of cases all of the trial court judges handle efficiently and diligently day-in and day-out. More than 9,200 new cases are filed in the Superior Court of Guam each year. The 7 trial court judges are each assigned approximately 900 of those cases each and every year. While all of the judges strive to shepherd each and every case to conclusion promptly and efficiently, for various reasons a small percentage of cases remain open beyond what is contemplated by the time standards. While these reports aim to identify those cases so they might be focused on in order to bring them to conclusion promptly, it is important to consider these reports in the context of the fact that all of our judges typically conclude in excess of 90% of the cases assigned to them well within the Case Age time standards. Current and historical data for each judge regarding the Case Age time standards is provided below.

Matters Under Advisement

Time standards were also adopted regarding matters a judge takes “Under Advisement,” which will await a later written decision form the judge. Those time standards are referred to as the Under Advisement time standards. They anticipate pending motions be decided within 90 days and pending non-motions be decided within 120 days.

Matters pending Under Advisement before each judge at periodic times is provided in the following reports:

Specific Data Regarding the Case Age Time Standards

The 2006 Case Age time standards aspire to have criminal cases concluded within 12 months, domestic cases concluded within 15 months and other non-criminal cases concluded within 18 months. A case must be open and active for its “aging clock” to run. Thus, if a case is inactive for a distinct reason, and the assigned judge cannot move the case forward towards conclusion, the aging clock does not run. For example, among other scenarios, the aging clock stops while a case is referred to alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”), while a party has an arrest warrant pending against them in the case, or while an issue of judicial disqualification is referred to a different judge.   

The most recent Case Age reports compiled for the trial court judges identifies the open and active cases that have been assigned to their current judge in excess of the Case Age time standards target closure periods as of July 1, 2012. The reports show 513 such cases across the entire trial court. [Additional historical Case Age information is provided below, as reports have been prepared regularly since 2006.]

Each judge’s July 1, 2012 report, inclusive of current status information for each case, is included here:

In an effort to display the Case Age data in a context relevant to the trial court’s overall case load, the 7-1-12 Case Age data is shown below in comparison to the total number of cases filed each year for certain case types.

The data found on the July 1, 2012 reports was updated on September 1, 2012 to delete any cases that reached conclusion between July 1, 2012 and September 1, 2012. The September 1, 2012 reports show that 282 cases from the July 1, 2012 reports remained open on September 1, 2012.

Each judge's September 1, 2012 updated report, inclusive of updated current status information for each case, is included here:

The data found on the July 1, 2012 reports was again updated on March 1, 2013 to delete any additional cases that reached conclusion between September 1, 2012 and March 1, 2013. The March 1, 2013 reports show that 130 cases from the July 1, 2012 reports remained open on March 1, 2013.

The March 1, 2013 updated reports, inclusive of updated current status information for each case, are as follows:

HISTORICAL CASE AGE INFORMATION

Immediately above information was provided regarding the most recent reports that have been prepared regarding the Case Age time standards. Past reports, since 2006, regarding Case Age might also be helpful, as they provide a broader historical perspective of this now 6+ year project.

September, 2006 to October 2008

In 2008, two years after the 2006 adoption of the time standards, trial court cases filed between mid-2005 and mid-2007 were reviewed to assess how the trial courts were doing in moving cases to conclusion. The judges had an average of 1,325 cases assigned to them during the two-year test period. As of October, 2008, an average of only 39 cases from the sample period remained open and active before each of the judges. Thus, as of October 2008, the judges had closed 97% of the cases assigned to them between mid-2005 and mid-2007.

January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010

The case load carried by each trial court judge plays a significant role in the trial court’s collective effort to expeditiously move cases thorough to conclusion. Data was compiled in early 2011 illustrating the number of cases assigned to each of the trial court judges during the three-year period ending on December 31, 2010. The data is as follows:

In September 2010 a Master List of cases was compiled for each judge identifying cases that had been open and active and assigned to them in excessive of the time standard target closure age. The September 2010 Master List was updated in March 2011, to delete newly concluded cases. In March, 2011, 268 cases that were too old as of September 2010 remained on the list. The September 2010 Master List was again updated in May 2011, at which time 229 cases remained on the list.

June 2011 to October 1, 2011

In June 2011 a new Master List was created, essentially updating the September 2010 Master List to add the cases that “aged” onto the list between September 1, 2010 and June 1, 2011. The June 1, 2011 Master List included 592 cases. The June 2011 Master List was updated in September 2011, to delete newly concluded cases. 445 cases remained on the list. The Master List was again updated in October 2011, to again delete newly concluded cases. As of October 1, 2011, 408 cases remained on the Master List from June 1, 2011.

November 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012

On November 1, 2011, another new Master List was created, again essentially updating the June 2011 Master List to add the cases that “aged” onto the list between June 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011. The November 1, 2011, Master List included 419 cases. Each of the six most senior judge’s cases appearing on the November 1, 2011 listing, updated through December 22, 2011, inclusive of current status information for each case, were as follows:

The November 2011 Master List was updated on February 6, 2012 to delete newly concluded cases or cases that otherwise were no longer past their target closure date with the then-assigned judge. 308 cases remained on the list. Each of the six most senior judge’s cases appearing on the February 6, 2012 update were as follows:

Detailed listings for each judge’s February 6, 2012 cases, inclusive of current status information for each case, were as follows:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 11-1-11 data; updated 2-6-12

The November 2011 Master List was again updated on April 1, 2012, to delete newly concluded cases. 237 cases remained on the Master List. Detailed listings for each judge’s April 1, 2012 Master Listing cases, inclusive of current status information for each case, were as follows:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 11-1-11 data; updated 4-1-12

Additional Under Advisement reports are provided here: