THE COURT USES AN INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR SYSTEM, IN WHICH CASES ARE ASSIGNED RANDOMLY TO EACH JUDGE'S CALENDAR. MONTHLY CALENDAR REPORTS PROVIDE A MEANS OF ASSESSING THE JUDGES' EFFICIENCY IN DISPOSING OF CASES. THESE REPORTS INDICATE THAT JUDGES TAKE SOME TIME, USUALLY 9 TO 18 MONTHS, TO LEARN TO MANAGE THEIR CALENDARS EFFECTIVELY AND THAT JUDGES ARE NOT EQUALLY ADEPT AT DISPOSING OF CASES PROMPTLY. NEW JUDGES APPEAR TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF RESOCIALIZATION, IN WHICH THEY LEARN THAT A JUDGE'S POINT OF VIEW IS LEGITIMATELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A LAWYER. THIS RESOCIALIZATION INVOLVES PEER PRESSURE, THE JUDGE'S CHOICE OF ROLE MODELS, THE JUDGE'S MANAGEMENT ABILITY, THE STAFF ASSIGNED TO THE JUDGE, AND THE PRESSURES GENERATED BY THE CALENDAR OF CASES. THREE JUDGES WITH OUTSTANDINGLY LOW AVERAGE DISPOSITION TIMES INCLUDE BOTH AN ACTIVIST-SETTLEMENT JUDGE (ONE WHO BOTH MANAGES THE DOCKET AGGRESSIVELY AND ENGAGES IN ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE PRETRIAL SETTLEMENTS) AND ACTIVIST-TRIAL JUDGES (THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN CASE MANAGEMENT BUT NOT IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION). THE MANAGEMENT STYLE OF EACH OF THESE THREE JUDGES IS CHARACTERIZED BY CLEAR DEFINITION OF STAFF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND BY RELIANCE ON THE COURTROOM DEPUTY TO MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE CALENDAR. THE NORTHERN DISTRICT'S EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS: (1) THERE IS A LEARNING CURVE ASSOCIATED WITH CALENDAR MANAGEMENT BY JUDGES; (2) THE ADOPTION BY A JUDGE OF A CONSISTENT SYSTEM OF CALENDAR MANAGEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PARTICULAR SYSTEM ADOPTED; AND (3) WHILE THE JUDGE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE CALENDAR, EFFICIENCIES CAN BE GAINED THROUGH THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, PARTICULARLY SCHEDULING AUTHORITY, TO COMPETENT STAFF MEMBERS. IT SHOULD PROVE USEFUL TO INSTRUCT NEW JUDGES ON THE TECHNIQUES OF CALENDAR MANAGEMENT SOON AFTER THEY ARE INSTALLED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)