Active Rules Tracker

Rule (Topic)

Purpose of Amendment

Committee

Stage

FRCP 16.1
(Multidistrict Litigation)

New MDL meet and confer rule for parties. Requires parties provide a report to the transferee judge, including the recommendations for the appointment of leadership. The parties and court are instructed to consider several prompts.

Members handling MDLs should thoroughly review the approved rule and accompanying committee note.

Civil

Scheduled to become effective on 12/1/25.

FRCP 26(f)(3)(D) & 16(b)(3)(B)
(Privilege Logs)

Requires parties and the court to address issues of privilege. The final amendment avoids weighing in on issues of cost or over-designation.

The defense bar’s push for mandatory categorical logging was rejected by the Advisory Committee.

Civil

Scheduled to become effective on 12/1/25.

FRAP 29
(Brief of Amicus Curiae)

Requires expanded disclosure of amici’s financial relationships with parties and non-parties.

After unanimous public disapproval, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules voted to retain the current party-consent option for nongovernmental amicus filings and remove phrasing related to redundancy briefs in the new “Purpose” section.

Appellate

Scheduled to become effective on 12/1/26.

FRE 801(d)(1)(A)
(Prior Inconsistent Statements)

Provides a limited exemption from the hearsay rule for prior inconsistent statements of a testifying witness.

Evidence

Scheduled to become effective on 12/1/26.

FRCP 7.1
(Corporate Disclosures)

Would expand the disclosure requirements for “business organizations” in place of references to corporations. It would also require disclosure of business organizations that “directly or indirectly own 10% or more of” a party, regardless of whether that ownership is denominated as stock.

Civil

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

FRCP 41(a)
(Voluntary Dismissal)

Would clarify a circuit split and permit a plaintiff to dismiss one or more claims in an action or the action. Some circuits have been dismissing the entire action rather than some claims. The proposed rule would also clarify that a stipulation of dismissal needs to be signed only by parties remaining in the action.

Civil

Approved for
Formal Comment (starts Aug. 25)

FRCP 45(b)(1)
(Service of Subpoena)

Would make it easier to serve a subpoena, providing for a number of acceptable methods, including sending a copy by mail or commercial carrier with return receipt or another authorized means reasonably calculated to give notice. Courts that only allow hand delivery will no longer be allowed to do so. If subpoena requires the named person to attend a trial, a hearing, or deposition, the subpoena must be served 14 days before the required appearance.

Civil

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

FRCP 45(c)
(Subpoena for Remote Testimony)

&

FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)
(Pretrial Disclosures)

Would correct In re Kirkland, in which the Ninth Circuit determined that it did not have the authority to command witnesses to provide remote trial testimony because the witnesses are not within the “subpoena power” of the presiding court. The amendment clarifies that the court’s subpoena power for in-court testimony or to provide discovery extends nationwide so long as a subpoena does not command the witness to travel farther than the distance authorized under Rule 45(c), which provides protections against undue burdens.

A clarifying amendment to Rule 26(a)(3)(A) directs that each party’s pretrial disclosures must specify whether any of the witnesses the party expects to present will provide remote testimony

Civil

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

FRCP 81(c)
(Post-Removal Jury Demands)

Would preserve the rights of parties who demanded a jury trial before removal and clarify that FRCP 38 applies in removed cases where no prior jury demand was made.

Civil

Approved for
Formal Comment (starts Aug. 25)

FRAP 15(d)
(Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—How Obtained; Intervention)

Would remove a procedural trap. In some circuits, petitions for review of agency orders that have been rendered non-reviewable by the filing of a petition for rehearing are “incurably premature,” meaning that they do not ripen or become valid after the agency disposes of the rehearing petition. If the party aggrieved by an agency action does not file a second timely petition for review after the petition for rehearing is denied by the agency, that party will find itself out of time: Its first petition for review will be dismissed as premature, and the deadline for filing a second petition for review will have passed.

Appellate

Approved for
Formal Comment (starts Aug. 25)

FRE 609(a)(1)(B)
(Impeachment by Evidence of Criminal Conviction)

Would require the probative value of prior convictions under 609(a) to substantially outweigh their prejudicial effect. The purpose of the amendment is to provide more protection to criminal defendants so that they are not unduly deterred from testifying. The proposed amendment would also clarify 609(b), which applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement. The current rule does not specify the end date of the 10-year period, and courts have applied different dates. The proposed amendment would end the 10-year period on the date that the relevant trial begins.

Evidence

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

*NEW* FRE 707
(Machine-Generated Evidence)

Creates a new FRE 707 to apply FRE 702 reliability standards to machine-generated output when no expert witness is proffered to testify.

Evidence

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

CR 17
(Subpoena Authority)

Would provide a complete update of the rule governing subpoena authority by criminal defendants over third parties. The rule applies to both witnesses and objects. The rule would allow subpoenas for other types of hearings—not just trial, including hearings on suppression motions. The proposed amendment would also loosen the Nixon standard, which requires the requesting party to prove with certainty that information would be admitted. The proposed loosened standard requires a showing of likely admissibility. This would fix the problem of prohibiting subpoenas for impeachment evidence until after the other party has presented its witnesses.

Criminal

Approved for Formal Comment
(starts Aug. 25)

FRCP 5.2, CR 49.1, &
FRAP 25(a)(5)
(Privacy Protection for Court Filings)

Would update privacy rules to: (1) protect minors’ privacy by requiring the use of gender-neutral pseudonyms, and (2) require redaction of all digits of Social Security numbers (eliminating the last four digits).

Civil,
Criminal, Appellate

Informal Rulemaking

FRCP 5(d)(5) (Filings Under Seal)

Would create a uniform standard for filing under seal requiring that no documents may be filed under seal unless the court determines that filing under seal is justified and consistent with the common law and First Amendment rights to access to court filings.

Civil

Informal Rulemaking

FRCP 43(a) & (c)
(Criteria for Permitting Remote Testimony)

Would permit remote testimony in open court and eliminate the “compelling circumstances” requirement under Rule 43(a). The Committee is also considering an amendment to 43(c) to permit oral remote testimony for depositions.

Civil

Informal Rulemaking

Cross-Border Discovery

Would require consideration of international law and proportionality in cross-border discovery requests.

Civil

Informal Rulemaking

TPLF Disclosure

Would require mandatory disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements/arrangements in discovery.

Civil

Informal Rulemaking

FRAP 8(a)
(Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal)

Would add a purpose and time limit to an administrative stay. The purpose of the amendment is to require that administrative stays be limited to the purpose of deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal, and to specify that administrative stays can’t be used to grant indefinite relief.

Appellate

Informal Rulemaking

FRE 901
(Authenticating or Identifying AI Evidence)

Would amend FRE 901 to address fabricated or altered evidence created by AI (“deepfakes”).

Evidence

Informal Rulemaking

FRE 902(1)(a)
(Domestic Public Documents that are Sealed and Signed)

Would add “federally recognized tribe or nation” to the list of government entities that can provide documents that are self-authentication and require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity.

Evidence

Informal Rulemaking