Federal Judicial Center
        
              
        Search tips
Search

          HomeAbout the FJCStatuteThe FJC and What It DoesAnnual ReportsBoard MembersSenior StaffJob VacanciesContact UsResearch About the CourtsReports & StudiesManuals, Monographs & GuidesResearch ProjectsCardone Recommendation StudyFederal Rules MaterialsFederal Court Cases: FJC Integrated Database (IDB)Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990OverviewDocumentsPublicationsLegislationSpecial Topics1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for JudgesOverviewRecent CasesSources of Law and InterpretationCase CommentariesSample OrdersArticles and CommentaryFAQsVideo TutorialsChecklistCovid-19 and the Federal Judiciary: Research ResourcesOverviewMaps and DashboardsResearch ReportsTopical WebpagesElection LitigationOverviewCase Studies in Emergency Election LitigationLitigation SubjectsRegistration ProceduresNullifying RegistrationsDistrict LinesFilling VacanciesGetting on the BallotRecall ElectionsBallot MeasuresCampaign ActivitiesElection DatesAbsentee and Early VotingVoter IdentificationPoll HoursVoting ProceduresPolling Place ActivitiesProvisional BallotsVoting IrregularitiesRecountsInteractive Map of Emergency Election CasesFJC Publications on Election LitigationElection Law BibliographyCovid-19Federal and State Court CooperationOverviewTopics for Cooperation Between State and Federal CourtsReducing BiasWhat Is Bias and How Is It Measured?Effectiveness of Implicit Bias TrainingsReducing Bias ReferencesBankruptcy EducationState–Federal Judicial CouncilsExamples of State–Federal Court CooperationSample FormsAdditional ResourcesIllustrative Forms of Class Action NoticesOverviewSecurities NoticesProducts Liability NoticesEmployment Discrimination NoticesNotice Checklist and Plain Language GuideNotes for Use by Attorneys and JudgesOverview of MethodologyDetailed Discussion of MethodologyAcknowledgmentsManaging Capital CasesOverviewManaging Federal Death Penalty TrialsIntroductionResource Guide, Volume IOrders and FormsFederal Death Penalty Resource Counsel AssistanceManaging Habeas Corpus Review of Capital ConvictionsResource Guide, Volume IICapital Defense Network AssistanceAdditional ResourcesNational Security CasesOverviewPublicationsSelected Orders and Other Case DocumentsRelated FJC ResourcesForeign Intelligence Surveillance CourtRules of Practice and ProcedureOverviewVideo TutorialsGuidesResearch ReportsPrint PublicationsOnline-Only Research ReportsScience ResourcesOverviewFingerprint IdentificationNeuroscienceOpioids CrisisDNA TechnologiesWater and the LawTechnology in LitigationOverviewPublicationsThird-Party Litigation FinancingOverviewPublications and ReportsLocal Rules and FormsState LawsIndustry StandardsEducation for the CourtsEducation ProgramsPrograms and Resources for JudgesPrograms and Resources for Court AttorneysPrograms and Resources for Federal DefendersPrograms and Resources for ExecutivesPrograms and Resources for Supervisors and ManagersPrograms and Resources for Experienced Probation and Pretrial Services OfficersPrograms and Resources for All Court EmployeesPrograms and Resources for TrainersCivic Education About the CourtsTalking Points on Judicial HistoryFamous Federal TrialsState and Federal CourtsInside the Federal CourtsManuals, Monographs, & GuidesVideos & PodcastsHistory of the Federal JudiciaryJudgesBiographical Directory of Article III Federal JudgesBankruptcy JudgeshipsMagistrate JudgeshipsDiversity on the BenchJudicial SalariesUnsuccessful Nominations and Recess AppointmentsImpeachments of Federal JudgesJudgeship ReassignmentsCourtsSupreme Court of the United StatesU.S. Courts of AppealsU.S. District CourtsU.S. Circuit Courts, 1789-1911Other Federal CourtsCourts: A Brief OverviewWork of the CourtsCaseloadsThe Contempt Power of the Federal CourtsJurisdictionThe Role of the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Federal JudiciaryRulesJudicial BranchAdministrative BodiesCongress and the CourtsExecutive Branch and the CourtsCourt Officers and StaffFederal Judicial CircuitsTalking Points on Federal Judicial HistoryCourthousesGalleryDetailed ListList by StateCasesCases that Shaped the Federal CourtsFamous Federal TrialsExhibitsTimelinesGraphs: DemographicsGraphs: CaseloadsMapsNotable Federal TrialsSnapshots of Federal Judicial History, 1790-1990Spotlight on Judicial HistoryThe Justices' Circuit Court OpinionsFor Further StudyCourt History ProgramsGuide to ResearchJudges' Published PapersOral History ResourcesPublished Court HistoriesScholarship on JudgesInternational OfficeAbout IOHistoryInternational ProgramsGlobal ReachBriefing MaterialsTranslated MaterialsContact UsPublications Catalog You are here HomeResearch About the Courts  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.
 Title
          Description
                        
                  Will return exact match for word(s) entered
 Title
                  Datesort ascendingPatent Pilot Program: Five-Year ReportThe Patent Pilot Program (PPP), a ten-year pilot program addressing the assignment of patent cases in certain U.S. district courts, was established on January 4, 2011, by Pub. L. No. 111-349. At the request of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center has been studying the PPP since the program's inception. This midpoint report presents key findings from the first five years of the program, gathering data for all patent cases filed on or after the individual PPP start date designated by each of the 13 current pilot courts through January 5, 2016. In that time, just over 12,000 patent cases were filed in the participating pilot districts.
              April 1, 2016Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project
At the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center undertook an evaluation of a pilot program allowing video recording of certain civil proceedings in federal district courts. The pilot program, in which participation was voluntary, ran from July 18, 2011, through July 17, 2015, in fourteen pilot courts. The FJC evaluation looked at how the pilot was implemented in each court; the number and type of proceedings and cases recorded; the reasons why some judges and some parties declined to participate;  the experiences and views of judges, attorneys, and court staff who participated in the program; the extent to which recordings were viewed, who viewed them, and why; and the costs of implementing the program. This report describes the research approaches used, limitations of the pilot program and research design, and results from the FJC evaluation.
              March 15, 2016Review of Scientific Literature on the Reliability of Present Sense Impressions and Excited UtterancesThis review of scientific literature regarding the reliability of present sense impressions and excited utterances as it pertains to the Federal Rules of Evidence was presented as a memorandum to the Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence.
              March 5, 2016Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final ReportAt the request of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee, the Criminal Law Committee, and the Committee on Defender Service, the FJC surveyed federal district judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, federal defenders, Criminal Justice Act (CJA) district panel representative’s offices, and chief probation and pretrial services offices about harm or threat of harm to government cooperators. Respondents reported a minimum of 571 instances of harm to defendants/offenders and witnesses in the past three years. Cases often involved harm to both defendants/offenders and witnesses. Respondents most often reported threats of physical harm to defendants/offenders or witnesses and to friends or family of defendants/offenders or witnesses. Defendants were most likely to be harmed or threatened when in some type of custody, while witnesses were either in pretrial detention or not in custody at the time of harm or threat. Respondents frequently reported court documents or court proceedings as the source for identifying cooperators. Concerns about harm or threat affected the willingness of both defendants/offenders and witnesses to cooperate with the government in the past three years. Overall, respondents generally agreed that harm to cooperators was a significant problem and that more needed to be done to protect cooperators from harm.
              February 12, 2016Unredacted Social Security Numbers in Federal Court PACER Documents
This report summarizes a Center study of instances of individuals’ unredacted Social Security numbers appearing in documents filed in federal district and bankruptcy courts in November 2013 and available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. The presence of Social Security numbers for approximately 75% of these individuals appears to violate rules adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
              October 25, 2015Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse ActionA brief report on case-processing times, case outcomes, and motions practice in employment discrimination cases included in a pattern discovery pilot, compared with a nationwide random sample of similar cases. The report finds that case-processing times did not differ between the pilot and comparison cases, but that motions practice was greater in the comparison cases.
For a subsequent study, see Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (October 2018). For earlier work by the Employment Protocols Committee, see Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (November 2011).
              October 1, 2015Fourth Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010)In response to the global economic turmoil that began in late 2007, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Act) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. This report focuses on the reforms in Title II of the Act, which are intended to mitigate risks posed by the failure of systemically important financial institutions. Title II directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of these institutions and report on its findings. The AOUSC submitted its first three annual reports pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 5382(e) on July 21, 2011 (First Report), July 17, 2012 (Second Report), and July 19, 2013 (Third Report). The AOUSC submits this report in compliance with the directive of section 5382(e). Beginning in July 2015, the AOUSC is required to submit reports every five years. This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center.
After an introduction in Part I, the report proceeds as follows:
Part II provides an executive summary of the report’s primary research, findings, and analysis.
Part III describes the AOUSC’s mandate under section 5382(e) of the Act and briefly summarizes the First, Second, and Third Reports, as well as the scope of this fourth report.
Part IV focuses on the key issue explored in this report: the provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permit a debtor to sell all or substantially all of its assets in a chapter 7 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The report reviews critiques of these provisions, including proposals for reform recommended by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (ABI Commission), and compares them to similar mechanisms for resolving financial distress through transfers under the Act and certain bills introduced in both houses of Congress in 2014. The latter mechanisms are commonly referred to as “single point of entry” proposals. This section also describes and utilizes certain original empirical data generated by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) for purposes of the AOUSC reports under the Act.
Part V synthesizes the various proposals for rehabilitating or resolving a distressed company through a sale process.
              July 9, 2015Jurors’ and Attorneys’ Use of Social Media During Voir Dire, Trials, and Deliberations: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case ManagementThis report summarizes the results of a Center survey of district court judges to assess the frequency with which jurors used social media to communicate during trials and deliberations in the past two years, and to identify strategies for curbing this behavior. The survey was conducted at the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. The survey also assessed the frequency with which attorneys use social media to conduct research on potential jurors during voir dire. The survey is a follow-up to one conducted in 2011 on jurors’ use of social media; attorneys’ use of social media was not addressed in the original survey.
              January 1, 2014Study of Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals: Report to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United StatesThis report to the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules focused on class action objector appeals filed in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits from settlements approved by the district courts in class actions filed after January 1, 2008. The objector appeals studied were filed from January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. The study focused on the overall frequency of class action objector appeals during the study period, the final disposition of the class action objector appeals filed and no longer pending, and the prevalence of Appellate Rule 7 cost bonds imposed on the objector appeals identified.
              October 1, 2013Third Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010)In response to the global economic turmoil that began in late 2007, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Act) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. This report focuses on the reforms in Title II of the Act, which are intended to mitigate risks posed by the failure of systemically important financial institutions. Title II directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of these institutions and report on its findings. The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (First Report), and its second report on July 17, 2012 (Second Report). The AOUSC now submits this third report in compliance with section 202(e). This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center.
              July 1, 2013
 Pages « first
‹ previous
...
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
next ›
last »
 Share Share this page
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20002-8003
202-502-4000

Supreme Court of the United States  USCourts.gov  U.S. Sentencing Commission  Federal Judicial Center Foundation

*This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.*

The Federal Judicial Center produced and maintains this site in furtherance of its statutory mission. The Center regards the contents of this site to be responsible and valuable, but these contents do not reflect official policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. The site also contains links to relevant information on websites maintained by other organizations; providing these external links is for the convenience of this site's users and does not constitute verification or endorsement of the information or the sites to which the links are produced. Opinions expressed in the materials found on this site are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
Site Map | Contact Webmaster | Privacy and Security Notice