After improvement, San Francisco court's civil clearance rate drops

A recent batch of statistics from San Francisco County Superior Court shows a drop in the civil case clearance rate that, the court claims, coincides with a five-year high in civil case filings as it continues to battle logistical issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It comes after a state appellate court recently ordered the lower court to dismiss a misdemeanor case, finding it unlawfully delayed the trial for more than a year using COVID-19 as an excuse.

The court's media relations department advised in an email Thursday that the civil clearance rate for cases in the court's 2023-2024 tracking year was 80%; in the 2022-2023 tracking year the court's clearance rate was at 92%. The most recent figures are almost identical to the pre-COVID rate of 81% in the 2018-2019 tracking year.

In a statement, Presiding Judge Anne-Christine Massullo spoke about the court's efforts to accommodate civil litigants and criminal defendants in the wake of the pandemic and noted that the "civil clearance rate has increased steadily until only recently, which coincides with increase in civil case filings."

The 21,127 cases that the Superior Court anticipates will be filed this year mark a five-year high and the most since 2019 when 26,050 cases were filed.

"In the past two years, the Court has made significant progress in its pandemic recovery efforts. The civil clearance rate has increased steadily since FY 2020-21, until only recently - which coincides with an increase in civil filings," Massullo said.

"On the criminal side, held-to-answer determinations have tripled since 2020. In the last two years, we have addressed the felony backlog and prioritized criminal cases when they have been ready for trial while balancing our obligations for civil cases as mandated by statute. There is no more felony backlog. Likewise, in the Civil Division, every case that is ready for trial has received a trial court. The Court will continue to prioritize timely access to justice and use our statistics to make data-informed decisions about effective case management strategies."

The court's handling of criminal cases in the wake of the pandemic was recently criticized by the 1st District Court of Appeal. A per curiam, unanimous decision published on July 17 found that the court unlawfully delayed a criminal trial due to COVID concerns despite pandemic-related emergency orders having long been lifted and ordered the court to dismiss the misdemeanor case of a defendant accused of driving under the influence. Mendoza v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (Cal. App. 1st Dist. July 15, 2024).

In a statement on July 17 Oliver Kroll, a deputy public defender for San Francisco, criticized the court's recent treatment of criminal trials, writing "The Superior Court's use of COVID-19 as a reason to endlessly delay trials has always been unjust and harmful."

The court initially closed 75% of its courtrooms to help reduce the spread of the coronavirus and abide by local ordinances, according to a news release from March 2020. It has since implemented new procedures to increase access and efficiency, including expansion of remote proceedings and allowing parties and their attorneys to appear remotely via Zoom.

Michael L. Fox, managing partner for Duane Morris' San Francisco office, said in an interview that "cases now seem to be moving at a pace that's more consistent with pre pandemic timelines."

Fox works on complex litigation matters including statewide coordinated proceedings that are filed in San Francisco.

"The increased use of electronic filing has helped expedite things quite a bit; it's allowed the clerk's office to operate more efficiently, and it's allowed parties to interact with the court and the court's docket a lot more efficiently," Fox said. "Also, much like the rest of the world, the court started using Zoom and video conferencing more, rather than just CourtCall."

He said that the advantage of remote proceedings "was that it allowed the courts to see 'well, we don't have to do it with just status conferences and law and motion, . . . but witness testimony can be done this way too.' So, this led to a shift from spending time going and waiting in court; we gained efficiency and the ability to handle other things up until the time of the hearing rather than sitting in court or the hallway waiting."

Asked about the downsides post-pandemic procedures have had on litigation, Fox pointed to changes in witness confrontation.

"With some of these efficiencies have come a loss of the opportunity for confrontation of witnesses, and the opportunity to see someone's demeanor actually in the courtroom which I think is really important" Fox said. "There is also something about being in the courtroom and trying to garner everyone's attention that you may lose when you're taking testimony remotely."

Fox said he was concerned that remote juries lack the attentiveness of in-person juries. "I think, as we all have probably gathered from experience, if you've got your computer on, chances are, you've got a couple of other things on your screen grabbing your attention, besides just the Zoom meeting that you're a part of."

In August 2020, Travis County (Texas) Judge Nicholas Chu conducted the first Zoom jury trial in a criminal case in the nation's history. Jurors in the trial were reportedly reprimanded by the judge for not paying attention. One was looking at another screen and another lost his internet connection.