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 71 - 80 of 235
| Title | Rule(s) |
Date |
|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Managing Discovery of Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for Judges, Second Edition [Superseded] This second-edition pocket guide helps federal judges manage the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).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 Superseded by Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, Third Edition (2017).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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Motions for Sanctions Based Upon Spoliation of Evidence in Civil Cases: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules In 2010, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules requested a study of motions for sanctions based on an allegation that the nonmoving party had destroyed evidence, especially electronically stored information (ESI). The study examined the electronic docket records of civil cases filed in 2007–2008 in 19 districts, including at least one district in every circuit except the District of Columbia Circuit. This report summarizes the findings of that study and, where appropriate, compares those findings to other studies. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 37 | June 6, 2011 |
|
Comparative Study of the Taxation of Costs in the Circuit Courts of Appeals Under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Report to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules requested this report on circuit practices for awarding costs under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The report describes the variations among the circuits' rules and procedures, compares how the circuits have implemented Fed. R. App. P 39, and presents a comparative analysis of costs awards. It also offers some procedural and conclusory observations from the research. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 39 | April 1, 2011 |
|
Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim After Iqbal: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules This report presents the findings of a Federal Judicial Center study on the filing and resolution of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The study was requested by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. This request was prompted by two recent Supreme Court decisions — Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — that interpreted Rule 8(a) by stating that a plaintiff must present a "plausible" claim for relief. |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 12, Fed. R. Civil P. 8 | March 1, 2011 |
|
A Summary of Responses to a National Survey of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Disclosure Practices in Criminal Cases: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules The Center prepared this report at the request of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it considers whether to amend Rule 16 to incorporate the government's constitutional obligation to provide exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense or, instead, to create a broader disclosure obligation. The Center conducted a national survey, which included an online survey of all federal district and magistrate judges, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal defenders, and a sample of defense attorneys in criminal cases that terminated during calendar year 2009. |
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | February 1, 2011 |