You are here

Materials About the Federal Rules

The materials listed below, produced or made available by the Center, are related to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (appellate, bankruptcy, civil, criminal, and evidence).

Click here for curated content on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Reports and Studies.

Displaying 11 - 20 of 241
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Title Rule(s) Datesort ascending
Case Commentary: Saada v. Golan, 833 Fed. App'x 829 (2d Cir. 2021)

Motion to Set Aside

In this case, a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied for failure to raise material disputed fact. The party must show evidence of a disputed material to support a motion to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence.

Holding

The appellate court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) without holding evidentiary hearing.

Facts

In Saada I,[1] the district court found that the mother removed the parties’ child from the child’s habitual residence in Italy. That decision was affirmed in part and vacated in part by the Second Circuit in Saada II.[2] The Second Circuit found that the performance of the undertakings by the father could not be guaranteed. The case was remanded for the district court to conduct further proceedings and determine whether alternative ameliorative measures could be adopted to ensure the child’s safety upon return to Italy. On remand in Saada III[3] the district court again ordered the child returned to Italy, based upon rulings by an Italian court including a stay-away order, mandatory psychological evaluations, and providing the mother compensation for expenses incurred because of the need to relocate to Italy. The Second Circuit affirmed (Saada IV).[4] Shortly thereafter the mother filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) to set aside the judgment based upon evidence that the father did not intend to comply with the Italian court’s orders—the basis for the district court’s ameliorative measures for the child’s return. The district court denied the mother’s motion without granting her request for an evidentiary hearing.

Discussion

The Second Circuit held that a party is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to set aside a judgment. The district court was well within its discretion to deny the motion because there was insufficient evidence raising a dispute concerning a material fact. In addition, the district court noted that even if the grounds for the motion were known at the time of trial, these facts would not have changed the court’s judgment. The Second Circuit stayed the judgment denying the Rule 60(b) motion pending a decision on the mother’s petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.[5]

[1]. Saada v. Golan, No. 18-CV-5292(AMD)(LB), 2019 WL 1317868 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019).
[2]. Saada v. Golan, 930 F.3d 533 (2d Cir. 2019).
[3]. Saada v. Golan, No. 1:18-CV-5292 (AMD) (SMG), 2020 WL 2128867 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020).
[4]. Saada v. Golan, 833 F. App’x 829 (2d Cir. 2020).
[5]. Certiorari is sought on the question whether a court finding a grave risk must consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child even though a grave risk finding has been made.  On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. Docket No. 20-1034.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 60 November 17, 2022
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) − Final Report

This study presents findings related to the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) project in new civil cases initiated in district courts. The Center conducted the study at the request of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

During the pilot project, the Center posted program resources.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure November 1, 2022
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure 2023—Transmittal to the Supreme Court

This package of materials was transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 19, 2022, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2023.

This contains proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 2, 4, 26, and 45; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3011, 8003,and 9006, and new Rule 9038; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6, 15, and 72, and new Rule 87; Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16, 45, and 56, and new Rule 62; and Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702.

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.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 2, Fed. R. App. P. 26, Fed. R. App. P. 4, Fed. R. App. P. 45, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3011, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9038, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 15, Fed. R. Civil P. 6, Fed. R. Civil P. 72, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, Fed. R. Crim. P. 45, Fed. R. Crim. P. 56, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 106, Fed. R. Evid. 615, Fed. R. Evid. 702 October 19, 2022
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure 2023—Transmittal to the Judicial Conference

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, 2023.

  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 2 and 4
  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1, 3011, and 8003; new rule 9038; official forms 101, 309E1, 309E2, and 417A; and new official forms 410C13-1N, 410C13-1R, 410C13-10C, 410C13-10NC, and 410C13-10R
  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 72 and new rule 87
  • New Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 62
  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702

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.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 2, Fed. R. App. P. 4, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002.1, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3011, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9038, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 15, Fed. R. Civil P. 72, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 106, Fed. R. Evid. 615, Fed. R. Evid. 702 August 23, 2022
Jury-Trial Demands in Terminated Civil Cases, Fiscal Years 2010–2019

This report summarizes findings on jury-trial demands from court electronic records for civil cases terminated in fiscal years 2010–2019.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure June 15, 2022
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) Consolidation, Appellate Finality, and Hall v. Hall

This study examines the incidence of consolidated cases in the district courts with a focus on how often “original action final judgments” (OAFJs) create scenarios in which litigants may lose their appeal rights because of confusion about when to file a notice of appeal.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 42 May 12, 2022
Federal Courts’ Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants

We learned from several dozen federal clerks of court and members of their staffs that pro se litigants are sometimes able to file electronically using the federal courts’ Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, but many courts are hesitant to allow pro se filing in CM/ECF. Prisoners do not have access to the Internet, so it is not feasible for them to use CM/ECF.

We conducted this research at the request of the federal rules committees’ working group on pro se electronic filing. The most salient rules-related lessons of this research are (1) perhaps paper filers should not be required to serve their filings on parties already receiving electronic service; and (2) because electronic filing is sometimes understood to mean filing using CM/ECF and sometimes understood to mean submitting filings electronically, such as by email, perhaps the rules should clarify their references to electronic filing.

A 2025 report surveyed local rules and procedures regarding pro se electronic filing in all ninety-four district courts: United States District Courts’ Local Rules and Procedures on Electronic Filing by Self-Represented Litigants.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure May 10, 2022
Electronic Filing Times in Federal Courts

The Judicial Conference’s standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure requested research on electronic filing practices as it considered whether a filing should be made at some hour earlier than midnight on the day that it is due. This report charts the filing times for all docket entries made in 200 federal courts in 2018 by court and filer type, with additional charts on motions and responses. Also described are court hours and drop boxes. A related report describes Electronic Filing in State Courts.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure April 25, 2022
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure 2022—Transmittal to Congress

This package of materials was transmitted to Congress on April 11, 2022, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2022.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure are as follows:

  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 25 and 42.
  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007, 1020, 2009, 2012, 2015, 3002, 3010, 3011, 3014, 3016, 3017.1, 2017.2 (new), 3018, 3019, 5005, 7004, and 8023.
  • Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1 and new Supplemental Rules for Social Security Review Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
  • Amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

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.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 25, Fed. R. App. P. 42, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1020, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2009, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2012, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2015, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3010, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3011, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3014, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3016, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3017.1, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3017.2, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3018, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3019, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5005, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8023, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 7.1, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 April 11, 2022
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project Model Standing Order

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:

 
A Federal Judicial Center website displays additional information about the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.

 Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure November 15, 2021

Pages