In 1998, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal judges about their experiences with expert testimony in civil cases. Judges answered specific questions about their most recent relevant civil trial, as well as questions drawing on their overall experience with expert testimony in civil cases. The Center conducted a similar survey of judges in 1991, shortly before the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Preliminary analysis of the aggregated data has focused on (1) comparing judges' experiences with expert testimony before and after Daubert and (2) exploring the current concerns of judges regarding expert testimony in civil cases. Additional data have since been collected from attorneys in the trials described in the 1998 survey. Preliminary findings include the following:

 Experts testified most frequently in tort cases.

 Medical and mental health experts were the most common broad category of testifying experts, although economists were the single most frequent specific type of expert. Experts from scientific specialties testified in only a small proportion of cases.

Judges were more likely to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and less likely to admit expert testimony in 1998 than in 1991. Attorneys report filing motions in limine, challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, more frequently after Daubert.

 The two most common problems cited by judges were experts who were not objective and the excessive expense of expert testimony.

 In general, judges' assessments of problems with expert testimony did not differ greatly from 1991 to 1998.

Also see the 2002 expanded version of this report Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials.

We learned from several dozen federal clerks of court and members of their staffs that pro se litigants are sometimes able to file electronically using the federal courts’ Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, but many courts are hesitant to allow pro se filing in CM/ECF. Prisoners do not have access to the Internet, so it is not feasible for them to use CM/ECF.

We conducted this research at the request of the federal rules committees’ working group on pro se electronic filing. The most salient rules-related lessons of this research are (1) perhaps paper filers should not be required to serve their filings on parties already receiving electronic service; and (2) because electronic filing is sometimes understood to mean filing using CM/ECF and sometimes understood to mean submitting filings electronically, such as by email, perhaps the rules should clarify their references to electronic filing.

A 2025 report surveyed local rules and procedures regarding pro se electronic filing in all ninety-four district courts: United States District Courts’ Local Rules and Procedures on Electronic Filing by Self-Represented Litigants.

At its Fall 2007 meeting, the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee discussed the current circuit split over whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 authorizes the inclusion of attorney fees in a bond for costs on appeal. This item has been brought back before the Committee as it determines whether, in light of recent case law developments, to proceed with a proposed amendment approved by the Committee in 2003 which made clear that FRAP 7 bond "costs" do not include attorney fees. This report describes an exploratory study undertaken by the FJC of FRAP 7 bond activity in three federal district courts: the Southern District of New York, the Central District of California, and the Eastern District of Michigan. These districts are in circuits that permit attorney fees to be included in FRAP 7 cost bonds.

This study examines the incidence of consolidated cases in the district courts with a focus on how often “original action final judgments” (OAFJs) create scenarios in which litigants may lose their appeal rights because of confusion about when to file a notice of appeal.