TO:   Appellate Court and Circuit Court Admin. Div., A.O. U.S. Courts 
 
FROM: Norman H. Meyer, Jr., Clerk of Court, E. District of Virginia 
 
RE:   Comments on ABA Resolution on Citations 
 
     I have reviewed the proposed uniform citation system 
contemplated by the ABA resolution, and I have a significant concern 
regarding the logistics of implementing this system in a large 
federal trial court such as the Eastern District of Virginia. 
 
     Each court using this system will have to sequentially number 
"each decision at the time it is made available to the public." This 
court, as is the case with most federal courts, has multiple 
geographic divisions. We have four divisions spread across cities 200 
miles apart with over twenty judicial officers, each issuing many 
decisions and opinions on a regular basis. I am concerned about how 
this court, and in particular my office, can effectively implement a 
sequential numbering system with the judges. 
 
     If the proposed system is restricted to solely the "published" 
opinions of the court, the problem exists but is probably manageable, 
albeit with an additional layer of work for the court. In 1995 we had 
182 opinions published in F.Supp., and in 1996 there were 143. The 
problem becomes enormous, however, if the definition of opinions 
includes the thousands of opinions we issue that are "unpublished" 
The daily management of the checking and assigning of sequential 
numbers on a district-wide basis is an additional workload burden on 
judicial staff and the Clerk's Office that I do not see an easy 
solution to at this time. Ultimately an automated system may be 
possible, but I do not see one available now. In any case, what would 
be the real purpose or advantage of including these opinions, most of 
which are very brief and only of value to their cases, in a national 
citation system? 
 
     I have checked with the ABA, and in particular with J.D. Fleming 
who chaired the ABA special committee on Citation Issues, to see if 
the intent of the resolution and proposed system is to include 
unpublished trial court opinions. Mr. Fleming informed me that it was 
his opinion that the system contemplates having courts decide this 
question locally, numbering unpublished opinions in the system 
voluntarily. He stated that those courts which have already adopted 
the system are numbering all opinions in a common numbering sequence, 
adding a suffix of "(U)" to the citation to denote those not intended 
for precedential purposes. Thus if the system is adopted, we may be 
able to minimize the problem I raise by local choice -- I certainly 
hope so and advocate this be explicitly spelled out. My clear 
preference, though, is to have the system, if adopted, clearly 
exclude trial court unpublished opinions. 
 
     Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ABA resolution. 
 
     If there is any question about this message, please do not 
hesitate to contact me via e-mail or by my phone at 703-299-2177 in 
Alexandria. 

                                   Norman Meyer 
                                   Clerk of Court 
                                   E. District of Virginia