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 31 - 40 of 211
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Civil Rules 2015—Proportional Discovery
This video describes amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), 26(c)(1)(B), 26(d), and 34 that became effective on December 1.
Amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) are designed to promote proportional discovery: discovery tailored by the judge and the parties to meet the reasonable needs of the case. Proportional discovery provides the information needed by the litigants to prove their cases, but avoids excess and waste. Judges are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with the parties regarding the amount of discovery reasonably needed to resolve the litigation.
This video also describes amended Rule 26(c)(1)(B) on cost shifting, an amendment to Rule 26(d) on document production, and changes to Rule 34 on objections to document production requests.
The following videos also relate to Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Civil Rules 2015:
Also posted at this website is text of Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 26, Fed. R. Civil P. 34||December 1, 2015|
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Evidence 2017—Self-Authenticating Electronic Evidence
Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13) and 902(14), which became effective on December 1, 2017, provide for the self-authentication of electronic evidence. Under these rules, electronic evidence can be authenticated by certification instead of by testimony. Rule 902(13) applies to electronic evidence such as computer files, social media posts, and smart device data. Rule 902(14) applies to electronic copies.
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 902||December 1, 2017|
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Evidence 2019—The Residual Hearsay Exception
In 2019, the residual hearsay exception, Federal Rules of Evidence 807, was amended to fix a number of problems that courts had encountered applying the rule. Hearsay is generally not admissible evidence because the speaker is not subject to examination or cross-examination to determine accuracy or truthfulness. But there are several enumerated exceptions to the general rule, as well as a residual exception for hearsay that does not satisfy an enumerated exception, but that has "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness." Amendments include a required consideration of corroboration and changes to the notice requirements.
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 607, Fed. R. Evid. 902||January 7, 2020|
An Empirical Examination of Attorneys' Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation
This article presents attorney responses to a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 recently closed class action cases. Those cases had been filed in or removed to federal courts, and the article focuses on attorneys' reasons for choosing a state or federal forum. The article also tracks the differences in rulings in state and federal courts on class certification, motions to dismiss, settlement review, and attorney fee awards in a subset of the 621 cases.
Note that this article draws on the same data examined in Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation (2004).
A post-Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) article on the same data Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does it Make? (2006) is also available.
|Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23||December 17, 2005|
An Empirical Study of Rule 11 Sanctions
The results of a survey of 292 federal district judges concerning how they interpret and apply the 1983 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (before the 1993 amendments). Based on the judges' hypothetical reactions to actual cases in which Rule 11 sanctions were requested, the study outlines the judges' standards and rationales for imposing sanctions, the kinds of sanctions imposed, and the relationship between the judges' opinions and their expectations of how their colleagues would rule on the same issues.
|Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 11||January 1, 1985|
Analysis of Briefing Requirements in the United States Courts of Appeals
The Federal Judicial Center prepared this report to assist the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to evaluate reported problems with and potential amendments to Rules 28 and 32 on the content and cover of briefs. The report presents information received from the thirteen courts of appeals on every local rule or practice that imposes upon briefs and brief covers requirements that are not in the national rules. The report also describes the history behind the adoption of the local requirements, the extent to which courts enforce them, as well as the courts' plans to adopt more briefing requirements, problems courts have experienced under the current rules, and whether Rule 28 should be amended to prohibit further variations or to include additional or different briefing requirements.
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Fed. R. App. P. 28, Fed. R. App. P. 32||November 30, 2004|
|Appendix E-4: Middle District of Florida — General Procedure Order||Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 56||March 1, 2010|
Appendixes B-G, Index [Superseded]
Appendix B: Court Administration and Case Management Committee, Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR
Appendix C: Differentiated Case Management System: Local Rules and Forms
Appendix D: Sample Statistical Reports
Appendix E: Bibliography
Appendix F: Table of Statutes
Appendix G: Table of Rules
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure||January 1, 2001|
Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make?
This article presents a post-Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) discussion and analysis of data presented previously in An Empirical Examination of Attorneys' Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation (FJC 2005). Data originated from a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 closed class action cases. New discussion centers on the assumptions underlying CAFA about differences in federal and state court treatment of class actions. New data are presented on the types of cases (nature of suit) and the state of filing for survey cases that were originally filed in state court. From 81 Notre Dame Law Review 591 (January 2006).
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23||January 1, 2006|
Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation: A Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Regarding a Case-based Survey of Attorneys
While considering a proposal to amend Fed. R. Civil P. 23 to create new certification standards that would apply only to settlement class actions, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules sought this empirical research from the Center to help it decide how to proceed. This report is the second phase. For the first phase see Effects of Amchem/Ortiz on the Filing of Federal Class Actions: Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2002).
|Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23||April 1, 2004|