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.
Displaying 161 - 170 of 235
| Title | Rule(s) |
Date |
|---|---|---|
|
Update on Resolution of Rule 12(b)(6) Motions Granted with Leave to Amend: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules In our March 2011 report, we indicated that following the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were granted more frequently with leave to amend the complaint. We also noted that the opportunity to amend the complaint may cure the defect and change the findings of the study. The Advisory Committee asked that we follow the events in the study cases, determine the extent to which the respondents submitted amended complaints, and report the outcome of any subsequent motions to dismiss. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 12 | November 1, 2011 |
|
Early Stages of Litigation Attorney Survey: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules This report summarizes the findings of a study of the operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 16(b) in a nationwide sample of recently terminated civil cases. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 16, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 | March 1, 2012 |
|
Survey of District Court Judges on a Proposed Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) Concerning Prior Consistent Statements This report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the current version of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are admissible for their substance as well as for their rehabilitation only if they rebut recent fabrication because they occurred before the fabrication motive. If a prior consistent statement is admissible for credibility but not admissible for substance, the opposing party is entitled to a jury instruction. Because of perceived difficulties with such an instruction, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was proposed to the Evidence Rules Committee. This paper reports the results of an FJC survey of district judges on matters related to the proposed amendment. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 801 | March 2, 2012 |
|
Managing Discovery of Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for Judges, Second Edition [Superseded] This second-edition pocket guide helps federal judges manage the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). It encourages judges to actively manage cases that involve ESI through early intervention and sustained supervision and to use the many tools available to them—case-management conferences and orders, limits on discovery, tiered or phased discovery, sampling, cost shifting, and, if necessary, sanctions—to facilitate cooperation among opposing lawyers and to ensure that discovery is fair, reasonable, and proportional to each case. It covers issues unique to the discovery of ESI, including its scope, the allocation of costs, the form of production, the waiver of privilege and work product protection, and the preservation of data and spoliation. Superseded by Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, Third Edition (2017). |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26, Fed. R. Civil P. 45, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 502 | May 21, 2012 |
|
Confidential Discovery: A Pocket Guide on Protective Orders Among the reasons that courts issue protective orders in both civil and criminal cases is to keep discovery confidential on a showing of good cause. Experience has proved confidentiality protective orders to grease the wheels of discovery in many cases. The protective orders discussed in this pocket guide are different from sealing orders that protect the courts' own records and protective orders that protect information from discovery. Among the topics addressed here are blanket orders, stipulated orders, and designating discovery for attorney eyes only. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure | July 8, 2012 |
|
Bankruptcy Court Rules and Procedures Regarding Electronic Signatures of Persons Other than Filing Attorneys At the request of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Center collected and reviewed local bankruptcy rules regarding signatures of non-registrants of CM/ECF (e.g., debtors) and requirements for retention of documents bearing original handwritten signatures of non-registrants. Staff also reviewed district court rules regarding signatures and retention, reviewed an OMB document on the use of electronic signatures in federal transactions, and solicited the views of interested parties regarding potential rules changes in these areas. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure | February 22, 2013 |
| Letter from FISA Court Presiding Judge Walton to Senate Judiciary Committee | Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure | July 29, 2013 |
|
Study of Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals: Report to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States This report to the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules focused on class action objector appeals filed in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits from settlements approved by the district courts in class actions filed after January 1, 2008. The objector appeals studied were filed from January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. The study focused on the overall frequency of class action objector appeals during the study period, the final disposition of the class action objector appeals filed and no longer pending, and the prevalence of Appellate Rule 7 cost bonds imposed on the objector appeals identified. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 7, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23, Fed. R. Civil P. 7 | October 1, 2013 |
|
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure 2015—Transmittal to Congress This package of materials was transmitted to Congress on April 29, 2015, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2015. Amended were Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, and 55. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and the Appendix of Forms were abrogated. Additional information about these amendments is available on the Federal Judicial Center’s website:
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 Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 1, Fed. R. Civil P. 16, Fed. R. Civil P. 26, Fed. R. Civil P. 30, Fed. R. Civil P. 31, Fed. R. Civil P. 33, Fed. R. Civil P. 34, Fed. R. Civil P. 37, Fed. R. Civil P. 4, Fed. R. Civil P. 55, Fed. R. Civil P. 84 | April 29, 2015 |
|
Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action A brief report on case-processing times, case outcomes, and motions practice in employment discrimination cases included in a pattern discovery pilot, compared with a nationwide random sample of similar cases. The report finds that case-processing times did not differ between the pilot and comparison cases, but that motions practice was greater in the comparison cases. For a subsequent study, see Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (October 2018). For earlier work by the Employment Protocols Committee, see Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (November 2011). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | October 1, 2015 |