You are here
Reports & Studies
Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.
Displaying 11 - 20 of 346
Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
Unredacted Personally Identifiable Information in Federal Court PACER Documents Appellate Rule 25(a)(5), Bankruptcy Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2, and Criminal Rule 49.1 require parties and nonparties to redact certain personally identifiable information (PII) in documents they file with the federal courts, including Social Security numbers (SSNs), individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), birthdates, minors’ names, financial account numbers, and, in criminal filings, home addresses.
Following its December 2022 meeting, CACM asked the Federal Judicial Center (Center) to conduct the following research:
Below are links to the Center’s final project report summarizing all research findings, along with previously completed reports and memorandums containing research findings as presented to the committee over the course of the project (see Attachments A-J). Click here for an overview of the Center’s research findings. |
May 21, 2026 |
|
Unpublished Dispositions: Problems of Access and Use in the Courts of Appeals A brief analysis of the issue of equitable access to unpublished appellate decisions, based on an examination of the circuit courts' rules and practices regarding distribution and citation of unpublished dispositions. Data on the number and types of unpublished dispositions in statistical years 1981 to 1984 are presented. |
January 1, 1985 |
|
United States District Courts’ Local Rules and Procedures on Electronic Filing by Self-Represented Litigants This report compiles local rules and procedures in the ninety-four district courts on electronic filing by self-represented litigants. More than two thirds of the courts permit self-represented litigants to use the court’s electronic filing system at least on a case-by-case basis. Twenty-nine courts (31%) generally prohibit electronic filing by self-represented litigants. The Northern District of Texas generally requires it. Ten other courts (11%) generally permit it. The remaining fifty-four courts (57%) permit self-represented litigants to request permission to use the electronic filing system. A 2022 report included a survey of rules and procedures and interviews with court staff in a selection of appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts: Federal Courts’ Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants. |
February 20, 2025 |
|
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. |
November 1, 2001 |
|
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. |
January 1, 2007 |
|
Trends in Asbestos Litigation A report, prepared as asbestos litigation was becoming a growing presence on federal dockets, based on an intensive study of ten federal district courts with heavy asbestos caseloads. The author examines both innovative and traditional methods of handling the asbestos caseload in the federal courts. He makes projections as to the expected future caseload and compares asbestos cases with other types of toxic tort litigation. Major topics include assignment systems, standard pretrial procedures, settlement, consolidation and other trial formats, and special burdens on judges and clerks. |
January 1, 1987 |
|
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). |
October 1, 2004 |
|
Trade Secret Seizure Best Practices Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), Pub. L. No. 114-153, became law on May 11, 2016. It amends 18 U.S.C. § 1836 to create a private right of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets “for which any act occurs on or after the date of the enactment” and where the trade secrets “[are] related to [] product[s] or service[s] used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The DTSA directs that, not later than two years after the date of enactment of the Act, the Federal Judicial Center, "using existing resources, shall develop recommended best practices for (1) the seizure of information and media storing the information; and (2) the securing of the information and media once seized." These trade secret seizure best practices were developed in response to the DTSA’s mandate and are based on the limited initial experience in the federal courts with 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2). They are being circulated prior to the due date of May 11, 2018, so that courts can benefit from having early guidance on the subject matter. The Center will update these best practices as needed. |
June 28, 2017 |
|
Time Trends in the Earnings of Attorneys: Preliminary Report - |
January 1, 1978 |
|
Third Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010) In response to the global economic turmoil that began in late 2007, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Act) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. This report focuses on the reforms in Title II of the Act, which are intended to mitigate risks posed by the failure of systemically important financial institutions. Title II directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of these institutions and report on its findings. The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (First Report), and its second report on July 17, 2012 (Second Report). The AOUSC now submits this third report in compliance with section 202(e). This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center. |
July 1, 2013 |
