You are here
For convenience the Guide's exhibits are assembled here as a single downloadable file. To access the exhibits individually, or to download or order a hard copy of the Guide itself, follow the source link below.
This article presents attorney responses to a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 recently closed class action cases. Those cases had been filed in or removed to federal courts, and the article focuses on attorneys' reasons for choosing a state or federal forum. The article also tracks the differences in rulings in state and federal courts on class certification, motions to dismiss, settlement review, and attorney fee awards in a subset of the 621 cases.
Note that this article draws on the same data examined in Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation (2004).
A post-Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) article on the same data Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does it Make? (2006) is also available.
Form 1: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order
Form 2: Order for Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting and Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference
Form 3: Initial Scheduling Order
Form 4: Guidelines for Discovery, Motion Practice and Trial
Form 5: Individual Practices of Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
Form 6: Recommended Model for Individual Judge’s Practices
Form 7: Standing Order for Matters Before Judge Martin J. Jenkins
Form 8: Instructions Regarding Pretrial Proceedings
Form 9: Standing Pretrial Procedure Order and Forms
Form 10: Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Form 35, Fed. R. Civ. P.)
Form 11: Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order
Form 12: Order Setting Case Management Conference and Requiring Joint Case Management
Form 13: Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement
Form 14: Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and L.R. 16.3(b)
Form 15: Order Setting Requirements for Rule 26 and Other Pretrial Matters
Form 16: Uniform Trial Practice and Procedures
Form 17: Jurisdictional Checklist
Form 18: Order Concerning Removal
Form 19: Civil RICO Actions
Form 20: Scheduling Order
Form 21: Case Management Order
Form 22: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order
Form 23: Rule 16.1(A) Initial Order
Form 24: Pretrial Scheduling Order
Form 25: Pretrial Order – Jury Case
Memorandum to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules responding to request for an estimate of the number of motions and other requests for Rule 2004 examinations and information about current practices related to Rule 2004 examinations.
A magazine that reported Center research and education activities in a concise format. Centered around a study undertaken by the Center to assess the operation and impact of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, this issue of FJC Directions describes Rule 11 activity in the federal courts, answers central questions about use of the rule, reports judges' assessments of the rule, and outlines proposed changes to the rule. Included is the text of an amended Rule 11 proposed by the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. In this issue of FJC Directions:
- The Federal Judicial Center's Study of Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 3
- Rule 11 Activity in the Federal Courts, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 6
- Central Questions about the Use of Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 10
- Judicial Assessments of Rule 11: Its Effectiveness and Its Impact on Litigation in Federal Court, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 28
- Proposed Changes in Rule 11, by Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Thomas E. Willging, and Donna Stienstra, page 35
- Text of Proposed Amended Rule 11, page 40
The authors suggest ways of thinking about summary judgment that can help judges and lawyers make more effective use of the rule as a vehicle to reach the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1: the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation. (Also see the authors' Summary Judgment After Eastman Kodak, 45 Hastings Law Journal 1 (1993), which is reprinted at 154 F.R.D. 311 (1994)).