A discussion of the use of teleconferences to conduct certain proceedings in federal courts. The author presents reports of judges experienced with the procedure.

This report is an effort to increase the awareness of counsel practicing in federal courts, as well as judges, about the possibility that case law has diverged from the text of some of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, highlights the major instances in which case law has diverged from an applicable Rule. This divergence comes in two forms: (1) where the case law (defined as case law in at least one circuit) is flatly inconsistent with the text of the Rule, the Committee Note explaining the text, or both; and (2) where the case law has provided significant development on a point that is not addressed by either the text of the Rule or the Committee Note.

This report is reprinted at 197 Federal Rules Decisions 531 (2001).

This is an expanded version of a report that was previously published as Appendix E of the Report of the Advisory Group on Civil Rules and the Working Group on Mass Torts (Report on Mass Tort Litigation) February 15, 1999. In this version, the author expands her analysis by examining publicly available information about three additional bankruptcy cases. By broadening the range of the study, she was better able to make direct comparisons of--to evaluate the policy implications of--the processes used in class actions and bankruptcies. This report also offers informed suggestions for improving approaches to resolving tort claims against businesses that are approaching insolvency.

This report evaluates the use of certified questions of state law between 2010 and 2018 in three U.S. circuit courts of appeal: the Ninth, Sixth, and Third Circuits. The data shows variation in the rate of certification and timing of certification events between the circuits.