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 51 - 60 of 340| Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
Second Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“the Act”) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. Among those reforms is Title II of the Act, which provides a process for the identification and orderly liquidation of distressed, systemically important financial institutions. Title II also directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of distressed financial institutions under Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (“First Report”). The AOUSC now submits this second report in compliance with section 202(e)’s instruction that it summarize the results of its study in a report “[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of th[e] Act [and] in each successive year until the third year.” This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center. |
July 27, 2012 |
|
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. |
March 2, 2012 |
|
Early Stages of Litigation Attorney Survey: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules This report summarizes the findings of a study of the operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 16(b) in a nationwide sample of recently terminated civil cases. |
March 1, 2012 |
|
Survey of Federal Transferee Judges in MDL Proceedings Regarding Coordination with Parallel State Proceedings: Report to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction The Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") asked the Federal Judicial Center to survey transferee judges in multidistrict litigation proceedings about their experiences in coordinating with state judges. The purpose of the survey was to provide the committee and the JPML with information to assist in the development of practical resources to facilitate coordination between federal and state parallel proceedings in complex litigation. |
December 1, 2011 |
|
Jurors' Use of Social Media During Trials and Deliberations: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) asked the Federal Judicial Center to develop and administer a short survey of district court judges to assess the frequency with which jurors use social media to communicate about cases during trial and deliberation. The survey also sought to identify strategies judges have found to be effective and appropriate in curbing this behavior. This report presents the findings from the survey. A subsequent survey in 2014 also considered attorneys' use of social media. |
November 22, 2011 |
|
ADR in the Federal District Courts: An Initial Report This report provides a brief history of alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, in the federal district courts, touching on the statutes that have prompted ADR developments and noting policy guidance and support to assist courts in establishing ADR programs. The report then provides a summary of ADR procedures authorized in the district courts as of late 2011. |
November 16, 2011 |
|
Update on Resolution of Rule 12(b)(6) Motions Granted with Leave to Amend: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules In our March 2011 report, we indicated that following the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were granted more frequently with leave to amend the complaint. We also noted that the opportunity to amend the complaint may cure the defect and change the findings of the study. The Advisory Committee asked that we follow the events in the study cases, determine the extent to which the respondents submitted amended complaints, and report the outcome of any subsequent motions to dismiss. |
November 1, 2011 |
|
The Timing of Scheduling Orders and Discovery Cut-Off Dates The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the operation of Rules 16 and 26(f) in the district courts. This report summarizes findings of part of that study. Specifically, this report examines the timing of Rule 16 scheduling orders in civil cases and, drawing from those scheduling orders, also examines the timing of the first discovery cut-off date imposed, without regard to any extension. The data analyzed in this report were drawn from court records in 11 districts. |
October 1, 2011 |
|
Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 The economic turmoil that affected the global economy and markets beginning in late 2007 is well documented. This report does not seek to restate those events or evaluate the potential causes of the resulting recession. Rather, this report is forward-looking and considers the existing statutory schemes for resolving any future distress at bank holding companies and nonbank financial institutions. Specifically, it analyzes Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”; a list of capitalized defined terms used herein is set forth at Appendix A) and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Act”). The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AOUSC”) submits this report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act. This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center. |
July 21, 2011 |
|
Motions for Sanctions Based Upon Spoliation of Evidence in Civil Cases: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules In 2010, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules requested a study of motions for sanctions based on an allegation that the nonmoving party had destroyed evidence, especially electronically stored information (ESI). The study examined the electronic docket records of civil cases filed in 2007–2008 in 19 districts, including at least one district in every circuit except the District of Columbia Circuit. This report summarizes the findings of that study and, where appropriate, compares those findings to other studies. |
June 6, 2011 |