Civil trial rates are at an all-time low. Meanwhile, \u201ctrial time limits\u201d\u2014judicially imposed limits on the time litigants have to present their evidence\u00a0at trial\u2014seem to be at an all-time high. We have fewer trials than\u00a0ever, yet we\u2019re taking aggressive steps to curtail the few that we\u2019ve got.\u00a0This Article zeroes in on this paradox. It excavates time limits\u2019 origins,\u00a0tracks their rise, examines their administration, and raises deep questions\u00a0about their fairness and utility. Trial time limits have, so far, been variously\u00a0ignored or, alternatively, lauded, as a way to promote juror comprehension\u00a0and as a tool to make trials cheaper and more efficient. Indeed,\u00a0one court has gone so far as to call these restrictions \u201cessential\u201d to sensible\u00a0docket management. This Article challenges that conventional story\u00a0and cautions against time limits\u2019 regular or reflexive application. In so\u00a0doing, this Article seeks to begin a broader inquiry into how the American\u00a0civil trial of the twenty-first century is not only disappearing; the scattered\u00a0trials that remain are also changing, in subtle and hard-to-quantify but\u00a0profoundly important ways.<\/p>\n