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 Procedure (civil, criminal, evidence, appellate, and bankruptcy).

For a list of projects or other reports of FJC research that the Center has published, click on Research Projects or Reports and Studies.

Displaying 201 - 210 of 212
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Titlesort descending Rule(s) Date
The Hunt for Sealed Settlement Agreements

When a United States senator asked the federal judiciary to look into sealed settlement agreements, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to undertake a research effort to discover how often settlement agreements are sealed in federal court and under what circumstances. The Center learned that the sealing of settlement agreements in federal court is rare, and typically the only part of the court record kept secret by the sealing of a settlement agreement is the amount of settlement. This article describes how the Center developed its research project to address the senator's concerns.

From 81 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 439-62 (2006).

For the published results of the research project, see Sealed Settlement Agreements in Federal District Courts (2004).

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure September 12, 2006
The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on the Federal Courts: Fourth Interim Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) (Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005)) expanded the federal courts' diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over class action litigation. Congress's intent was, in part, to shift some class action litigation from the state courts to the federal courts. Passage of the Act sparked concerns about the impact of these additional class actions on the federal courts' rocedures and workload. In light of these concerns, the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee)1 asked the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to study the impact of CAFA on the federal courts. This report marks the end of the first phase of the FJC study on the impact of CAFA on the number of class actions initiated in the federal courts. This report presents interim findings on class actions filings and removals in the federal courts from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that CAFA has caused an increased number of class actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be filed in the federal courts.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 April 1, 2008
The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Second Interim Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

The Federal Judicial Center has undertaken a long-term study of the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) on the resources of the federal courts. This second interim progress report was presented to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules on September 7, 2006, and reports on the results of statistical tests of the impact of CAFA on federal courts across the country.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 September 7, 2006
The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Third Interim Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

The Federal Judicial Center has undertaken a long-term study of the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) on the resources of the federal courts. The third interim report was delivered to the committee on April 16, 2007 for discussion at its April 19 meeting and reports on the results of statistical tests of the impact of CAFA on federal courts across the country.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 April 16, 2007
The Rule 11 Sanctioning Process

A report that discusses the possible chilling effects and potential for creating satellite litigation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (before the 1993 amendment that increased judges' discretion as to imposing sanctions). It also discusses the nature and adequacy of procedures used to implement the rule. The report is based on interviews with judges and lawyers in eight districts. The author describes his methodology and reports his empirical findings.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 11 January 1, 1988
The Timing of Scheduling Orders and Discovery Cut-Off Dates

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the operation of Rules 16 and 26(f) in the district courts. This report summarizes findings of part of that study. Specifically, this report examines the timing of Rule 16 scheduling orders in civil cases and, drawing from those scheduling orders, also examines the timing of the first discovery cut-off date imposed, without regard to any extension. The data analyzed in this report were drawn from court records in 11 districts.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 16, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 October 1, 2011
Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts' Rules, Orders, and Policies

The Center prepared this report at the request of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it considers whether to propose amendments to Rules 11 and 16 to codify the disclosure requirements in Brady v. Maryland. The committee wanted to know whether federal district courts and state courts have adopted formal rules or standards that provide prosecutors with specific guidance on discharging their Brady obligations. This report describes the federal district court local rules, orders, and policies that address Brady material, and the treatment of Brady material in state statutes and in court rules and policies. For an update to this report see Brady v. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules, Orders, and Policies (2007).

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 October 1, 2004
Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975-2000

Report of a Federal Judicial Center study of summary judgment practice in six federal district courts during six time periods over twenty-five years (1975-2000), to determine whether summary judgment activity has increased over time and to what extent changes in summary judgment practice are due to the 1986 Supreme Court trilogy of summary judgment cases. For a 2-page summary of this report see FJC Research Brief, No. 2: Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975-2000.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 January 1, 2007
Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: A Preliminary Analysis

The drop in trial rate in civil cases over the past three decades prompts many hypotheses about the cause. One possible explanation is an increase in dispositive motions, especially motions for summary judgment. The Center has collected information on dispositive motions in cases terminated in six federal district courts during 1975, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1995 and 2000. This preliminary analysis examines changes in summary judgment practice.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 November 1, 2001
Unsuccessful Attempt at Federal Mandamus Relief Against State Election Officials

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.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 65 April 3, 2019

Pages