Regarding an op-ed piece authored by retired U.S. Chief Judge Jose Linares published in the Law Journal on Jan. 20, 2020, "Federal Judges Deserve Better," I believe it's necessary to raise some points about the letter and about the news report to which it responds, "Federal Judge in Newark Leads District of New Jersey in Outstanding Motions Pending." The report examines federal judiciary data on long-pending motions (longer than six months) in the District of New Jersey.

First, I thank Chief Judge Linares for writing and agreeing to publication of his letter. We always encourage hearing from the community, including—and especially—when it is to challenge us.

However, I must disagree on several points.

The report implies nothing; it states facts, based largely on data kept by federal court administration itself.

While the report does lead with Judge Vazquez, it does not single him out. Motions pending data for every judge in the district are presented, as well as for numerous judges outside the district.

The response says the report makes no real mention of the judicial shortage, but two lengthy paragraphs are dedicated to the topic. That passage includes New Jersey's staggering weighted caseload figure (1,012) and compares it to the national average (513). The passage also includes a hyperlink to a Law Journal report on the status of the district's vacancies following Judge Linares' retirement in 2019 (authored by the same reporter).

A substantial piece of the report is dedicated to offering context as to what factors might result in an increased load of pending motions—nearly all of them beyond a judge's control.

The report engages in no "attacks." Judge Vazquez's reputation, and the respect for him in the legal community, are known. Nothing in this report challenges that notion or calls it into question.

On commending current Chief Judge Wolfson and Judge Vazquez for declining to comment for the report, I would say that the judiciary and the legal community are rarely helped by silence as it pertains to the challenges faced by our courts. The ability of judges to explain the legal process, and challenges and obstacles to the administration of justice, are invaluable.

Contrary to the comment about the article being a disservice, I believe it does a service to readers, and to the bar and bench at large, including the federal jurists working under conditions that result in backlogs—conditions enumerated in the report, as well as in Judge Linares' response.

Chief Judge Linares and I surely agree on several points, including this one: Indeed there are, in his words, "difficulties plaguing the Federal Judiciary."

We support the mission of the report, and fair and accurate coverage that informs readers of the status of and challenges in our courts. The Law Journal has long covered issues of importance to the bench and bar, including backlogs and judicial shortages, and will continue to do so. Our readers deserve nothing less.

David Gialanella is Assistant Managing Editor of Regional Brands for ALM.