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 171 - 180 of 345
Will return exact match for word(s) entered
Titlesort descending Date
In Their Words: Attorney Views About Costs and Procedures in Federal Civil Litigation

This report presents the results of interviews of a small group of attorneys who had completed the Center's case-based survey on the costs of litigation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The attorneys discuss the principal factors associated with higher litigation costs, particularly discovery, and they also discuss pleading standards, summary judgment, and other procedural matters.

 March 1, 2010
Individual Calendar Control

Principles and procedures of effective docket control and the individual assignment system. Developed as a companion and guide for a cassette recording on the same topic.

 January 1, 1972
Individual Characteristics of Mass Torts Case Congregations: A report to the Mass Torts Working Group (Appendix D)

This report, done for the Mass Torts Working Group, appointed in 1998 by the Chief Justice, organizes and presents information from published sources on about fifty sets of mass tort litigations involving personal injury and property damage claims. Information presented includes the shape of the litigation (e.g., individual, class action, consolidation, etc.), the number and type of parties, the dispersal of cases in the federal and state systems, the number and types of injuries alleged, the type of product involved and the evidence of its ability to cause the harm alleged, the extent of research and testing of the product, the length of any latency period, the extent of public exposure to the product, and the current status of the litigation.

 January 1, 1999
Informing Judicial Recusal Decisions: Party Disclosure of Financial Interests Information - Report to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides for disclosure of financial information from corporate parties in the courts of appeals. The purpose of the rule is to assist appellate judges in identifying if they have financial conflicts of interest for recusal purposes. There is no corresponding national rule governing civil, criminal, and bankruptcy proceedings in the district and bankruptcy courts. The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States is evaluating whether a national rule requiring financial interests disclosure in district and bankruptcy courts is necessary, and if so, how the rule should be structured. To inform its work, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the practices and variations in methods used in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts where financial information from parties is currently being filed. The study includes the courts of appeals, because many of them have local rules on disclosure that supplement the requirements set forth in FRAP 26.1.

 January 1, 1999
Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action: Report on a Pilot Project to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure

This report is a study of a discovery pilot testing pattern initial disclosures in adverse action employment cases. Compared to a sample of similar cases, pilot cases did not have shorter disposition times but did have fewer discovery motions.

For the 2015 evaluation, see Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (October 2015). For the pilot materials, see Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (November 2011).

 October 19, 2018
Initial Report on Summary Judgment Practice Across Districts with Variations in Local Rules

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing the potential impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 56. This initial report examined summary judgment practice in the 276,120 civil cases terminated in the federal district courts in Fiscal Year 2006.

 November 2, 2007
Interim Progress Report on Class Action Fairness Act Study

This interim progress report on the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was presented to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules on May 22, 2006. The report examines class action filing trends from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2005, in three federal district courts and includes data on the first four months after CAFA went into effect. Future reports will present the results of statistical tests of the impact of CAFA on federal courts across the country.

 May 22, 2006
Intervention in the Federal Courts of Appeals

Prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this report examines motions to intervene on appeal. Intervention at the beginning of a case is studied in a two-year filing cohort, and intervention at the end of a case, such as after argument or judgment, is examined in a four-year termination cohort.

 July 14, 2025
Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials

This is an expanded version of Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis (2000). 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.

Note: Excerpted from Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2002, vol. 8, no. 3, pages 309-322.

 January 1, 2002
Judgeship Creation in the Federal Courts: Options for Reform

An early review of various procedures used by state legislatures and judiciaries to create judgeships. In light of those procedures, the author analyzes the federal judgeship creation process and suggests alternatives to it. These alternatives involve delegation to the federal judiciary of some portion of the judgeship creation authority, with appropriate checks to ensure judicial accountability and legislative control.

 January 1, 1981

Pages