You are here
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
This package of materials was transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 23, 2019, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2020.
This contains proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002, 2004, 8012, 8013, 8015, and 8021; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6); and Federal Rule of Evidence 404.
Additional information about these amendments is available at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).
Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.
This package of materials was transmitted to the Judicial Conference, and it includes proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2020.
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002, 2004, 8012, 8013, 8015, and 8021 and Form 122A-1
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 404
Additional information about these amendments is available on the Federal Judicial Center’s website at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).
Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.
Fox v. Detzner (Mark E. Walker, N.D. Fla. 4:18-cv-529)
A district judge denied as beyond the court’s jurisdiction a federal mandamus action seeking an order requiring state election officials to follow the law. The judge also denied a request for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs did not comply with the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Voting technology; matters for state courts; case assignment.
One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.
Beginning as early as May 1, 2017, some district courts are participating in a three-year pilot project known as the “Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project,” which is studying whether requiring parties in civil cases to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before undertaking other discovery reduces the cost and delay of civil litigation. In this pilot project, when making mandatory initial discovery responses parties are required to disclose both favorable and unfavorable information that is relevant to their claims or defenses regardless of whether they intend to use the information in their cases.
Participating district courts have adopted a Standing Order explaining the parties’ obligations under the pilot project and setting forth the initial discovery requests to which the parties must respond. All civil cases, except those categories of cases exempted by the Standing Order, are included in the pilot program and subject to the Standing Order.
These are some of the key requirements under the Standing Order:
- At the Rule 26(f) conference, parties must discuss the mandatory initial discovery listed in the Standing Order and describe their discussions (including limitations invoked and disputes) in their Rule 26(f) report.
- Parties must provide the requested information as to facts that are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses, whether favorable or unfavorable, and regardless of whether they intend to use the information in presenting their claims and defenses.
- Parties must file answers, counterclaims, cross-claims, and replies within the time set forth in Rule 12(a)(1)–(3), even if they have filed or intend to file a motion to dismiss or other preliminary motion.
- Parties must serve their initial discovery responses by the deadlines described in the Standing Order unless modified by the court.
- Parties must address certain issues relating to electronically stored information (ESI) and produce ESI by the deadline set in the Standing Order.
- Pilot judges should hold initial case-management conferences within the time set in Rule 16(b)(2) and discuss the parties’ compliance with the mandatory discovery obligations.
Currently there are two courts participating in this pilot project:
- The District of Arizona (D. Ariz. General Order 17-08, effective May 1, 2017)
- The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (N.D. Ill. General Order 17-0005 and Standing Order, effective June 1, 2017)
A Federal Judicial Center website displays additional information about the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.
Beginning on June 1, 2017, the Northern District of Illinois is participating in a three-year pilot project known as the “Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project,” which is studying whether requiring parties in civil cases to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before undertaking other discovery reduces the cost and delay of civil litigation. In this pilot project, when making mandatory initial discovery responses parties are required to disclose both favorable and unfavorable information that is relevant to their claims or defenses regardless of whether they intend to use the information in their cases.
General Order 17-0005 specifies that a Standing Order will be entered in all covered cases. The Standing Order, In re Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program in the Northern District of Illinois, explains the parties’ obligations under the pilot project and sets forth the initial discovery requests to which the parties must respond. All civil cases assigned to participating judges, except those categories of cases exempted by the Standing Order, are included in the pilot program and subject to the Standing Order.
A Federal Judicial Center website displays additional information about the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project in the Northern District of Illinois.
A checklist itemizing the procedural requirements of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project. The checklist is designed to be helpful to judges presiding over pilot cases and to attorneys participating in pilot cases as pilot requirements apply to the initial stages of discovery. The pilot project is scheduled to begin in participating courts as early as May 1, 2017.
Currently there are two courts participating in this pilot project:
- The District of Arizona (D. Ariz. Checklist, effective May 1, 2017)
- The Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill. Checklist, effective June 1, 2017)
A Federal Judicial Center website displays additional information about the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.
A detailed description of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project, which began in participating courts as early as May 1, 2017.
Currently there are two courts participating in this pilot project:
- The District of Arizona (D. Ariz. Users’ Manual, effective May 1, 2017)
- The Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill. Users’ Manual, effective June 1, 2017)
A Federal Judicial Center website displays additional information about the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.
This package of materials was transmitted to Congress on April 26, 2018, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2018.
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure are as follows:
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 8, 11, 25, 26, 28.1, 29, 31, 39, and 41, and Forms 4 and 7.
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1, 5005, 7004, 7062, 8002, 8006, 8007, 8010, 8011, 8013, 8015, 8016, 8017, 8021, 8022, and 9025, new Rule 8018.1, and new Part VIII Appendix.
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5, 23, 62, and 65.1.
- Amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.4, 45, and 49.
Additional information about these amendments is available on the Center’s website at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).
Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.
This package of materials was transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 4, 2017, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2018.
This contains proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 8, 11, 25, 26, 28.1, 29, 31, 39, and 41, and Forms 4 and 7; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1, 5005, 7004, 7062, 8002, 8006, 8007, 8010, 8011, 8013, 8015, 8016, 8017, 8021, 8022, 9025, new Rule 8018.1, new Part VIII Appendix, and Forms 417A and 417C; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5, 23, 62, and 65.1; and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.4, 45, and 49.
Additional information about these amendments is available at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).
Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.
This third edition of the pocket guide on managing the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) covers the December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reflects the rise of new sources of ESI, particularly social media, and updates judges on how ESI may be searched. It also suggests case-management techniques that judges might use in smaller civil actions in which the costs of ESI discovery could hamper resolution on the merits.
Pages
