Federal courts have the power to appoint private individuals, called masters, to assist the court with a variety of tasks, including investigation, resolution, or enforcement of specific issues. Justice Brandeis has stated “[c]ourts have (at least in the absence of legislation to the contrary) inherent power to provide themselves with appropriate instruments required for the performance of their duties…. This power includes authority to appoint persons unconnected with the court to aid judges in the performance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a cause.” Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312 (1920).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 provides federal courts with the power to appoint masters, outlines the permissible purposes and functions, and addresses review of a master’s rulings. Rule 53 makes clear that masters should only be appointed in the rare situation where neither the district court judge nor magistrate could appropriately address the issue–due to a lack of expertise, time, or other resources. Given the inherent complexities of multidistrict litigation, courts are likely to view the appointment of a master as appropriate and potentially helpful in these types of cases. While masters can provide benefits to courts and parties, there are a variety of potential pitfalls that should be taken into consideration when navigating litigation involving a master.

Read the full article by C. Ashley Saferight and Ulmer & Berne attorney Kaeanna W. Dzialo by downloading the below pdf.