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 191 - 200 of 211
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Titlesort descending Rule(s) Date
Summary Judgment Practice in Three District Courts

A review of data indicating a decline in the percentage of cases disposed of by summary judgment from 1975 to 1986. The report also notes, however, a renewed interest in the use of this procedure, the standards for which have been clarified by several Supreme Court decisions.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 January 1, 1987
Survey of Bankruptcy Judges Regarding Use of Rule 7026 Mandatory Disclosure in Adversary Proceedings

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires each party to disclose to the other, at specified time intervals, a variety of information about their case. These mandatory disclosures are covered by Rule 26: (a)(1) initial disclosure, (a)(2) expert testimony disclosure, and (a)(3) pretrial disclosure. Civil Rule 26 is made applicable to adversary proceedings (APs) in bankruptcy by Rule 7026 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Rule 26 is Appendix 1. The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to survey bankruptcy judges about whether the Committee should recommend an amendment to Bankr. Rule 7026 to exempt certain categories of APs from the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 26. These survey results were submitted to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in March 2004.

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 March 22, 2004
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
Survey of Literature on Discovery from 1970 to the Present: Expressed Dissatisfactions and Proposed Reforms

An analysis of a broad range of literature dealing with the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author examines how well the rules are functioning and makes suggestions for change and reform.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure January 1, 1978
Survey on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

A report of the results of a Center survey of participants in the bankruptcy system concerning their views of the Bankruptcy Rules and related forms. The Long-Range Planning Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Bankruptcy Rules requested the survey as part of a comprehensive review of the rules to determine whether they should be modified. After reviewing this report and the survey comments, the subcommittee identified three areas for possible further study: litigation practice, attorney admissions and ethics, and inconsistencies in the hearing requirements of Bankruptcy Code provisions and related Bankruptcy Rules.

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure March 13, 1996
Technology-Assisted Review for Discovery Requests: A Pocket Guide for Judges

This pocket guide summarizes the essential concepts behind a variety of labor-saving techniques, known generally as technology-assisted review (TAR), that help identify documents for production. The guide outlines possible factors for ascertaining whether and how the use of TAR may qualify as a reasonable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It also provides an illustrative order for governing the use of TAR in civil litigation.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26 March 28, 2017
The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions: A Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The authors suggest ways of thinking about summary judgment that can help judges and lawyers make more effective use of the rule as a vehicle to reach the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1: the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation. (Also see the authors' Summary Judgment After Eastman Kodak, 45 Hastings Law Journal 1 (1993), which is reprinted at 154 F.R.D. 311 (1994)).

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56 January 1, 1991
The August 1983 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Promoting Effective Case Management and Lawyer Responsibility

An informal discussion, adapted from a lecture at a Center workshop, of the amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 11, 16, and 26. The author, then a member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, explains the reasons for the changes and the responsibilities the amendments impose on both lawyers and judges.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 11, Fed. R. Civil P. 16, Fed. R. Civil P. 26, Fed. R. Civil P. 7 January 1, 1984
The Elements of Case Management, Third Edition

This manual describes techniques that judges have found effective in managing their cases at various stages of the litigation process.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure June 19, 2017
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

Pages