Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, (2025)

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate,

Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal

Rules of Evidence

Request for Comments on Amendments to:

Appellate Rule

Bankruptcy Rule

2002

Official Forms 101 and 106C

Civil Rules

7.1, 26, 41, 45, and 81

Criminal Rule

Evidence Rules

609 and 707

Written Comments Due By

February 16, 2026

Prepared by the

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

Judicial Conference of the United States

August 2025

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

CAROLYN A. DUBAY

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

The Bench, Bar, and Public

FROM:

Honorable John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

DATE:

August 15, 2025

RE:

Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules and Forms

____________________________________________________________________________

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Standing

Committee) has approved for publication and public comment the following proposed

amendments to existing rules and forms, as well as one new rule:



Appellate Rule 15;

Bankruptcy Rule 2002 and Official Forms 101 and 106C;

Civil Rules 7.1, 26, 41, 45, and 81;

Criminal Rule 17; and

Evidence Rule 609 and new Rule 707.

The proposals, supporting materials, and instructions on submitting written comments are

posted on the Judiciary’s website at:

https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment

Memorandum to the Bench, Bar, and Public

Page 2

Opportunity to Submit Written Comments

Comments concerning the proposals must be submitted electronically no later than

February 16, 2026. Please note that comments are part of the official record and publicly

available.

Opportunity to Appear at Public Hearings

On the following dates, the advisory committees will conduct virtual public hearings on

the proposals:



Appellate Rules on January 16, 2026, and February 6, 2026;

Bankruptcy Rules on January 23, 2026, and January 30, 2026;

Civil Rules on January 13, 2026, and January 27, 2026;

Criminal Rules on January 22, 2026 and February 5, 2026; and

Evidence Rules on January 15, 2026, and January 29, 2026.

If you wish to appear and present testimony regarding a proposed rule or form, you must

notify the office of Rules Committee Staff at least 30 days before the scheduled hearing by

emailing RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov. Hearings are subject to cancellation or

consolidation based on the number of requests to testify.

At this time, the Standing Committee has only approved the proposals for publication and

comment. After the public comment period closes, all comments will be carefully considered by

the relevant advisory committee as part of its consideration of whether to proceed with a proposal.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072-2077, if any of the published proposals

are later approved, with or without revision, by the relevant advisory committee, the next steps are

approval by the Standing Committee and the Judicial Conference, and then adoption by the

Supreme Court. If adopted by the Court and transmitted to Congress by May 1, 2027, absent

congressional action, the proposals would take effect on December 1, 2027.

If you have questions about the rulemaking process or pending rules amendments, please

contact the Rules Committee Staff at 202-502-1820 or visit https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I:

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Appellate Rules (May 2025) ............................................................. 6

Rule 15.

Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—

How Obtained; Intervention................................. 9

PART II:

FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY

PROCEDURE

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Bankruptcy Rules (December 2024) ............................................... 13

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Bankruptcy Rules (May 2025) ........................................................ 16

Rule 2002.

Notices................................................................ 19

Official Bankruptcy Forms

Form 101.

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for

Bankruptcy ......................................................... 21

Form 106C.

Schedule C: The Property You Claim as

Exempt ............................................................... 30

PART III:

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Civil Rules (December 2024).......................................................... 33

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Civil Rules (May 2025)................................................................... 36

Rule 7.1.

Disclosure Statement .......................................... 45

Rule 26.

Duty to Disclose; General Provisions

Governing Discovery ......................................... 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Rule 41.

Dismissal of Actions .......................................... 51

Rule 45(b).

Subpoena (Service) ............................................ 55

Rule 45(c).

Subpoena (Place of Compliance) ....................... 60

Rule 81.

Applicability of the Rules in General;

Removed Actions ............................................... 64

PART IV:

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Criminal Rules (May 2025) ............................................................ 68

Rule 17.

Subpoena ............................................................ 79

PART V:

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Evidence Rules (May 2025) .......................................................... 100

Rule 609.

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal

Conviction ........................................................ 104

Rule 707.

Machine-Generated Evidence .......................... 109

APPENDIX:

Procedures for Committees on Rules

of Practice and Procedure ............................................................ 113

List of Committee Members ........................................................ 118

Excerpt from the May 16, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON EID

APPELLATE RULES

CAROLYN DUBARY

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. Allison Eid, Chair

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

DATE:

May 16, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules met on Wednesday, April 2, 2025,

in Atlanta, Georgia. * * *

The Advisory Committee has several action items for the June 2025 meeting.

*****

Excerpt from the May 16, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

III.

Item for Publication

“Incurably Premature”—Rule 15 (24-AP-G)

The Advisory Committee seeks publication of a proposed amendment to

remove a potential trap for the unwary in Rule 15. The “incurably premature”

doctrine holds that if a motion to reconsider an agency decision makes that decision

unreviewable in the court of appeals, then a petition to review that agency decision

is not just held in the court of appeals awaiting the agency’s decision on the motion

to reconsider. Instead, the petition for review is dismissed, and a new petition for

review must be filed after the agency decides the motion to reconsider.

Rule 4, dealing with appeals from district court judgments, used to work in a

similar way regarding various post-judgment motions. But in 1993, Rule 4 was

amended to provide that such a premature notice of appeal becomes effective when

the post-judgment motion is decided. The proposal is to do for Rule 15 what was done

for Rule 4.

A similar suggestion was considered about twenty-five years ago. But it was

dropped due to the strong opposition of the D.C. circuit judges who were active at the

time. The Advisory Committee has been informed that there is no large opposition

from D.C. Circuit judges at this point and that technological innovations have

alleviated the concerns that were raised in the past. Judges may, however, have

concerns with particular aspects of the proposal.

The proposed amendment to Rule 15 is like the existing Rule 4, but it reflects

the party-specific nature of appellate review of administrative decisions, in contrast

to the usually case-specific nature of civil appeals. As with civil appeals, the proposed

amendment to Rule 15 would require a party that wants to challenge the result of

agency reconsideration to file a new or amended petition.

The proposed amendment does not, however, attempt to align its language

with the Multicircuit Petition Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2112. First, the phrase used in §

2112(a)(1) is “issuance of the order.” Courts of appeals have different views as to what

counts as “issuance” of an order, so including the term “issuance” invites importing

that dispute into the rule. Second, the point of this proposal is to save a premature

petition for review that would otherwise be dismissed due to the failure of the

petitioner to file a second petition. A petitioner whose premature petition is saved by

this proposal is not in much of a position to complain that the petition might be heard

in a circuit other than their preferred circuit. Third, a petitioner seeking to

participate in the multicircuit lottery will already be paying close attention to such

procedural details as when a petition must be time-stamped by the court and

delivered to the agency.

Excerpt from the May 16, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

One member sought to limit the benefit of the rule to “timely” petitions. But

others were troubled by the idea of describing a petition as both premature (too early)

and untimely (too late), particularly since the proposed rule operates in a partyspecific way. The motion failed for want of a second.

The Advisory Committee unanimously asks the Standing Committee to

publish the accompanying proposed amendment to Rule 15 for public comment.

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1

Rule 15.

Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—

How Obtained; Intervention

*****

(d)

Premature

Petition

Application.

This

subdivision (d) applies if a party files a petition for

review or an application to enforce after an agency

announces or enters its order—but before the agency

disposes of any petition for rehearing, reopening, or

reconsideration that renders the order nonreviewable

as to that party. The premature petition or application

becomes effective to seek review or enforcement of

the order when the agency disposes of the last such

petition for rehearing, reopening, or reconsideration.

If a party intends to challenge the disposition of a

petition for rehearing, reopening, or reconsideration,

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

the party must file a new or amended petition for

review or application to enforce in compliance with

this Rule 15.

(e)(d) Intervention. Unless a statute provides another

method, a person who wants to intervene in a

proceeding under this rule must file a motion for

leave to intervene with the circuit clerk and serve a

copy on all parties. The motion—or other notice of

intervention authorized by statute—must be filed

within 30 days after the petition for review is filed

and must contain a concise statement of the interest

of the moving party and the grounds for intervention.

(f)(e) Payment of Fees. When filing any separate or joint

petition for review in a court of appeals, the

petitioner must pay the circuit clerk all required fees.

Committee Note

Subdivision (d). Subdivision (d) is new. It is

designed to eliminate a procedural trap. Some circuits hold

that petitions for review of agency orders that have been

rendered non-reviewable by the filing of a petition for

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

rehearing (or similar petition) are “incurably premature,”

meaning that they do not ripen or become valid after the

agency disposes of the rehearing petition. See, e.g., Nat’l

Ass’n of Immigration Judges v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,

77 F.4th 1132, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2023); Aeromar, C. Por A. v.

Dept. of Transp., 767 F.2d 1491, 1493 (11th Cir. 1985)

(relying on the pre-1993 treatment of notices of appeal and

applying the “same principle” to review of agency action).

In these circuits, if a 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. Subdivision (d)

removes this trap.

It is modeled after Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i), as amended in

1993, and is intended to align the treatment of premature

petitions for review of agency orders with the treatment of

premature notices of appeal. Recognizing that while review

of district court orders is generally case based, see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54, review of administrative orders is generally party

based, subdivision (d) refers to an order that is made “nonreviewable as to that party” by a petition for rehearing,

reopening, or reconsideration.

Subdivision (d) does not address whether or when the

filing of a petition for rehearing, reopening, or

reconsideration renders an agency order non-reviewable as

to a party. That is left to the wide variety of statutes,

regulations, and judicial decisions that govern agencies and

appeals from agency decisions. Rather, subdivision (d)

provides that when, under governing law, an agency order is

non-reviewable as to a particular party because of the filing

of a petition for rehearing, reopening, or reconsideration, a

premature petition for review or application to enforce that

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

order will be held in abeyance and become effective when

the agency disposes of the last such petition—that is, the last

petition that renders the order non-reviewable as to that

party.

As with appeals in civil cases, see Rule

4(a)(4)(B)(ii), the premature petition becomes effective to

review the original decision, but a party intending to

challenge the disposition of a petition for rehearing,

reopening, or reconsideration must file a new or amended

petition for review or application to enforce.

Subsequent subdivisions are re-lettered.

Excerpt from the December 4, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

(revised August 1, 2025)

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

H. THOMAS BYRON III

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. Rebecca B. Connelly, Chair

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

DATE:

December 4, 2024

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules met in Washington, D.C., on September

12, 2024. * * *

At the meeting the Advisory Committee voted to seek publication for comment of proposed

amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 2002(o) (Notices) and Official Bankruptcy Form 101 (Voluntary

Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy).

Part II of this report presents those action items.

*****

Excerpt from the December 4, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

(revised August 1, 2025)

II.

Action Items

Items for Publication

The Advisory Committee recommends that the following rule and form amendments

be published for public comment in August 2025. Bankruptcy Appendix B includes the rule

and form that are in this group.

Action Item 1. Rule 2002 (Notices). The first sentence of Rule 2002(o) currently reads:

“The caption of a notice given under this Rule 2002 must conform to Rule 1005.” The clerk of

court for the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota submitted a suggestion—in which

clerks for 8 other bankruptcy courts in the Eighth Circuit joined—that this rule be amended to

eliminate the requirement that the caption of every notice given under Rule 2002 comply with Rule

1005. The Bankruptcy Clerks Advisory Group submitted a second suggestion supporting the first

one.

Rule 1005 specifies the information that the caption of a bankruptcy petition must contain.

Five items of information about the debtor are required, including “the last 4 digits of the socialsecurity number or individual taxpayer identification number.” If someone other than the debtor

files the petition, the rule also requires that the caption include “all names that the petitioner knows

have been used by the debtor.”

The clerks of court state that the caption requirements “are substantial and can add a

significant amount of length, and therefore cost, to a Rule 2002 notice.” They also note that,

despite the requirements of Rule 2002(n)*, the “general long-standing practice for the bankruptcy

courts in the Eighth Circuit is to only provide the Rule 1005 caption requirements on the Notice

of Bankruptcy Case [Official Forms 309A-309I].” Thereafter, the clerk’s office uses a shorter

caption that “generally follows Official Form 416B.” Official Form 416B includes a caption

setting forth the court’s name, the debtor’s name, the case number, the chapter under which the

case was filed, and a brief designation of the document’s character.

At the request of the Advisory Committee, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed bankruptcy

clerks regarding the suggestion, and they overwhelmingly supported eliminating the requirement

of a full Rule 1005 caption for all notices under Rule 2002. Members of the Advisory Committee

also favored reducing the number of documents containing the last 4 digits of the debtor’s social

security number.

Accordingly, the Advisory Committee approved for publication a proposed amendment to

Rule 2002(o) that would provide that the caption of a notice given under Rule 2002 must include

the information that Official Form 416B requires. The caption of a debtor’s notice to a creditor

would continue to also require inclusion of the information that § 342(c) requires.

The Advisory Committee recommends that the amended Rule 2002(o) be published for

public comment.

Rule 2002(n) became 2002(o) as part of the restyling project.

Excerpt from the December 4, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

(revised August 1, 2025)

Action Item 2. Official Form 101 (Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for

Bankruptcy). The Advisory Committee received a suggestion from the clerk of court for the

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. He suggested a modification of the prompt for

Question 4 in Part 1 of Official Form 101. Currently the question asks for “Your Employer

Identification Number (EIN), if any.” Some pro se debtors are providing the employer

identification number of their employers, not realizing that the question is attempting to elicit the

EIN of the individual filing for bankruptcy if that individual is himself or herself an employer.

Because multiple debtors who have the same employer may file and list that employer’s EIN, the

CM/ECF monitoring for repeat filings triggers a report erroneously suggesting that the debtor is

not eligible because of prior filings. The proposed amendment would modify the language to read

as follows:

“EIN (Employer Identification Number) issued to you, if any.

Do NOT list the EIN of any separate legal entity such as your employer, a

corporation, partnership, or LLC that is not filing this petition.”

The Advisory Committee approved the proposed amendment for publication for public

comment.

*****

Excerpt from the May 12, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

CAROLYN A. DUBAY

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. Rebecca B. Connelly, Chair

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

DATE:

May 12, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules met in Atlanta on April 3, 2025. * * *

*****

The Advisory Committee also voted to seek publication for comment of proposed

amendments to Official Form 106C (Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt).

Part II of this report presents those action items. They are organized as follows:

*****

Excerpt from the May 12, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Item for Publication

●

Official Form 106C.

*****

II.

Action Items

*****

Item for Publication

The Advisory Committee recommends that the following form amendment be

published for public comment in August 2025. * * *

Action Item 7. Official Form 106C (Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt).

The Advisory Committee received a suggestion from a chapter 12 and chapter 13 trustee to amend

Official Form 106C to include a total amount of assets being claimed exempt. Section 589b(d)(3)

of title 28 requires the uniform final report submitted by trustees to total the “assets exempted.”

Without the amount totaled on the form, trustees must manually add up the amounts on each form

to prepare the required final report.

Official Form 106C was revised in 2015 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in

Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770 (2010), which stated that a debtor could list as the exempt value of

an asset on Schedule C “‘full fair market value (FMV)’ or ‘100% of FMV,’” rather than a specific

dollar amount. So now there are two options on the form under the column for “Amount of the

exemption you claim”: a specific dollar amount and “100% of fair market value, up to any

applicable statutory limit.” Because of that unspecified dollar option, no total amount of claimed

exemptions is asked for.

The U.S. Trustee Program has promulgated a regulation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589b(d)

regarding the completion of forms for the trustee’s final report. See 28 C.F.R. 58.7. The regulation

sets forth a list of items to be included in the trustee’s distribution report, including “assets

exempted.”

The statute does not explain “assets exempted.” But the U.S. Trustee Program addressed

this issue in response to comments received to the proposed regulation. In the interest of setting a

uniform standard that is reasonable and would not require the trustee to expend significant

additional resources, the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees (“EOUST”) defined “assets

exempted” as the total value of assets listed as exempt on the debtor’s Schedule C, unless revised

pursuant to a court order. The instructions to the final reports reflect this definition and note that

28 U.S.C. § 589b(c) requires the rule to “strike the best achievable practical balance between (1)

the reasonable needs of the public for information about the operational results of the Federal

bankruptcy system, (2) economy, simplicity, and lack of undue burden on persons with a duty to

file these reports, and (3) appropriate privacy concerns and safeguards.”

Guided by this information, the Advisory Committee understood that assets claimed as

exempt on Form 106C are treated as “assets exempted” for purposes of the trustee’s final report,

Excerpt from the May 12, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

subject to any subsequent amendments or revisions pursuant to a court order. It also reasoned that,

in light of the EOUST’s “attempt[] to balance the reasonable needs of the public for information

with the need not to unduly burden the standing trustees who must file the final reports,” adding

up and reporting just the specific dollar amounts claimed is acceptable. As a result, the Advisory

Committee is proposing for publication an amendment to Form 106C to provide a total of the

specific-dollar exemption amounts. It also approved for publication the addition of a space on the

form for the total value of the debtor’s interest in property for which exemptions are claimed.

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1

Rule 2002. Notices

*****

(o)

Caption. The caption of a notice given under this

Rule 2002 must conform to Rule 1005 include the

information that Form 416B requires. The caption of

a debtor’s notice to a creditor must also include the

information that § 342(c) requires.

*****

Committee Note

The amendment to Rule 2002(o) eliminates the

requirement that all notices given under Rule 2002 include

the caption required for the bankruptcy petition under

Rule 1005. That caption requires, among other things, the

debtor’s employer-identification number, last four digits of

the debtor’s social security number or individual debtor’s

taxpayer-identification number, any other federal taxpayeridentification number, and all other names used within eight

years before filing the petition. Instead, most Rule 2002

notices may use the caption described in Official

Form 416B, which requires only the court’s name, the name

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is

lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

of the debtor, the case number, the chapter under which the

case was filed, and a brief description of the document’s

character. Rule 2002 notices sent by the debtor must also

include the information that § 342(c) of the Code requires.

The notice of the meeting of creditors, Rule 2002(a)(1), will

continue to include all information required by Official

Forms 309(A-I).

Fill in this information to identify your case:

United States Bankruptcy Court for the:

____________________ District of _________________

(State)

Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under:

 Chapter 7

 Chapter 11

 Chapter 12

 Chapter 13

 Check if this is an

amended filing

Official Form 101

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

12/26

The bankruptcy forms use you and Debtor 1 to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a

joint case—and in joint cases, these forms use you to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, “Do you own a car,”

the answer would be yes if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses Debtor 1 and

Debtor 2 to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as Debtor 1 and the other as Debtor 2. The

same person must be Debtor 1 in all of the forms.

Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct

information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number

(if known). Answer every question.

Part 1:

Identify Yourself

Bring your picture

identification to your meeting

with the trustee.

All other names you

have used in the last 8

years

Include your married or

maiden names and any

assumed, trade names and

doing business as names.

Do NOT list the name of any

separate legal entity such as

a corporation, partnership, or

LLC that is not filing this

petition.

About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Last name

__________________________________________________

Last name

___________________________

Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III)

___________________________

Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III)

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Last name

__________________________________________________

Last name

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

First name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Middle name

__________________________________________________

Last name

__________________________________________________

Last name

__________________________________________________

Business name (if applicable)

__________________________________________________

Business name (if applicable)

__________________________________________________

Business name (if applicable)

__________________________________________________

Business name (if applicable)

xxx

Your full name

Write the name that is on your

government-issued picture

identification (for example,

your driver’s license or

passport).

About Debtor 1:

Only the last 4 digits of

your Social Security

number or federal

Individual Taxpayer

Identification number

(ITIN)

Official Form 101

– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____

9 xx – xx – ____ ____ ____ ____

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 1

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Middle Name

EIN (Employer

Identification Number)

issued to you, if any.

Do NOT list the EIN of any

separate legal entity such as

your employer, a corporation,

partnership, or LLC that is not

filing this petition.

About Debtor 1:

About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

EIN

___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

EIN

___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

EIN

___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

EIN

Where you live

Why you are choosing

this district to file for

bankruptcy

If Debtor 2 lives at a different address:

_________________________________________________

Number

Street

_________________________________________________

Number

Street

_________________________________________________

City

State

ZIP Code

_________________________________________________

City

State

ZIP Code

_________________________________________________

County

_________________________________________________

County

If your mailing address is different from the one

above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send

any notices to you at this mailing address.

If Debtor 2’s mailing address is different from

yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send

any notices to this mailing address.

_________________________________________________

Number

Street

_________________________________________________

Number

Street

_________________________________________________

P.O. Box

_________________________________________________

P.O. Box

_________________________________________________

City

State

ZIP Code

_________________________________________________

City

State

ZIP Code

Check one:

 Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,

 I have another reason. Explain.

I have lived in this district longer than in any

other district.

(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)

Official Form 101

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

I have lived in this district longer than in any

other district.

(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)

________________________________________

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 2

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Part 2:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case

The chapter of the

Bankruptcy Code you

are choosing to file

under

Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing

for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box.

 Chapter 7

 Chapter 11

 Chapter 12

 Chapter 13

How you will pay the fee

 I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk’s office in your

local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee

yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier’s check, or money order. If your attorney is

submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check

with a pre-printed address.

 I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the

Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).

 I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7.

By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is

less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to

pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the

Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition.

Have you filed for

bankruptcy within the

last 8 years?

10. Are any bankruptcy

cases pending or being

filed by a spouse who is

not filing this case with

you, or by a business

partner, or by an

affiliate?

 No

 Yes. District __________________________ When

_______________ Case number ___________________________

MM / DD / YYYY

District __________________________ When

_______________ Case number ___________________________

MM / DD / YYYY

District __________________________ When

_______________ Case number ___________________________

MM / DD / YYYY

 No

 Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you

District __________________________ When

_______________ Case number, if known____________________

MM / DD / YYYY

Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you

District __________________________ When

11. Do you rent your

residence?

_____________________

_______________ Case number, if known____________________

MM / DD / YYYY

 No. Go to line 12.

 Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you?

 No. Go to line 12.

 Yes. Fill out Initial Statement About an Eviction Judgment Against You (Form 101A) and file it as

part of this bankruptcy petition.

Official Form 101

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 3

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Part 3:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor

12. Are you a sole proprietor

of any full- or part-time

business?

A sole proprietorship is a

business you operate as an

individual, and is not a

separate legal entity such as

a corporation, partnership, or

LLC.

If you have more than one

sole proprietorship, use a

separate sheet and attach it

to this petition.

 No. Go to Part 4.

 Yes. Name and location of business

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Name of business, if any

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Number

Street

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________

City

_______

State

__________________________

ZIP Code

Check the appropriate box to describe your business:

 Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A))

 Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B))

 Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A))

 Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6))

 None of the above

13. Are you filing under

Chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code, and

are you a small business

debtor

For a definition of small

business debtor, see

11 U.S.C. § 101(51D).

If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtor so that it can

set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you are a small business debtor, you must attach your most

recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or if any of

these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B).

 No. I am not filing under Chapter 11.

 No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in the

Bankruptcy Code.

 Yes. I am filing under Chapter 11, I am a small business debtor according to the definition in the

Bankruptcy Code, and I do not choose to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.

 Yes. I am filing under Chapter 11, I am a small business debtor according to the definition in the

Bankruptcy Code, and I choose to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.

Part 4:

Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention

14. Do you own or have any

property that poses or is

alleged to pose a threat

of imminent and

identifiable hazard to

public health or safety?

Or do you own any

property that needs

immediate attention?

For example, do you own

perishable goods, or livestock

that must be fed, or a building

that needs urgent repairs?

 No

 Yes. What is the hazard?

________________________________________________________________________

If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________

Number

Street

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________ _______

City

State

Official Form 101

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

____________________

ZIP Code

page 4

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Part 5:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling

About Debtor 1:

About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

15. Tell the court whether

you have received a

briefing about credit

counseling.

The law requires that you

receive a briefing about credit

counseling before you file for

bankruptcy. You must

truthfully check one of the

following choices. If you

cannot do so, you are not

eligible to file.

If you file anyway, the court

can dismiss your case, you

will lose whatever filing fee

you paid, and your creditors

can begin collection activities

again.

You must check one:

 I received a briefing from an approved credit

Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment

plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.

Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment

plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.

 I received a briefing from an approved credit

counseling agency within the 180 days before I

filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a

certificate of completion.

counseling agency within the 180 days before I

filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a

certificate of completion.

Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition,

you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment

plan, if any.

 I certify that I asked for credit counseling

services from an approved agency, but was

unable to obtain those services during the 7

days after I made my request, and exigent

circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver

of the requirement.

counseling agency within the 180 days before I

filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a

certificate of completion.

Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition,

you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment

plan, if any.

 I certify that I asked for credit counseling

services from an approved agency, but was

unable to obtain those services during the 7

days after I made my request, and exigent

circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver

of the requirement.

To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the

requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining

what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why

you were unable to obtain it before you filed for

bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances

required you to file this case.

To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the

requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining

what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why

you were unable to obtain it before you filed for

bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances

required you to file this case.

Your case may be dismissed if the court is

dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a

briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.

If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must

still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.

You must file a certificate from the approved

agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you

developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case

may be dismissed.

Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted

only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15

days.

Your case may be dismissed if the court is

dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a

briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.

If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must

still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.

You must file a certificate from the approved

agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you

developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case

may be dismissed.

Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted

only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15

days.

 I am not required to receive a briefing about

credit counseling because of:

 I am not required to receive a briefing about

credit counseling because of:

 Incapacity.

I have a mental illness or a mental

deficiency that makes me

incapable of realizing or making

rational decisions about finances.

 Incapacity.

I have a mental illness or a mental

deficiency that makes me

incapable of realizing or making

rational decisions about finances.

 Disability.

My physical disability causes me

to be unable to participate in a

briefing in person, by phone, or

through the internet, even after I

reasonably tried to do so.

 Disability.

My physical disability causes me

to be unable to participate in a

briefing in person, by phone, or

through the internet, even after I

reasonably tried to do so.

 Active duty. I am currently on active military

If you believe you are not required to receive a

briefing about credit counseling, you must file a

motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.

If you believe you are not required to receive a

briefing about credit counseling, you must file a

motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.

duty in a military combat zone.

Official Form 101

counseling agency within the 180 days before I

filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a

certificate of completion.

duty in a military combat zone.

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 5

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Part 6:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes

16. What kind of debts do

you have?

16a. Are your debts primarily consumer debts? Consumer debts are defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) as

“incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.”

 No. Go to line 16b.

 Yes. Go to line 17.

16b. Are your debts primarily business debts? Business debts are debts that you incurred to obtain

money for a business or investment or through the operation of the business or investment.

 No. Go to line 16c.

 Yes. Go to line 17.

16c. State the type of debts you owe that are not consumer debts or business debts.

_______________________________________________________________

17. Are you filing under

Chapter 7?

 No. I am not filing under Chapter 7. Go to line 18.

Do you estimate that

after any exempt

property is excluded and

administrative expenses

are paid that funds will

be available for

distribution to

unsecured creditors?

 Yes. I am filing under Chapter 7. Do you estimate that after any exempt property is excluded and

18.

How many creditors do

you estimate that you

owe?

 1-49

 50-99

 100-199

 200-999

 1,000-5,000

 5,001-10,000

 10,001-25,000

 25,001-50,000

 50,001-100,000

 More than 100,000

19.

How much do you

estimate your assets to

be worth?

 $0-$50,000

 $50,001-$100,000

 $100,001-$500,000

 $500,001-$1 million

 $1,000,001-$10 million

 $10,000,001-$50 million

 $50,000,001-$100 million

 $100,000,001-$500 million

 $500,000,001-$1 billion

 $1,000,000,001-$10 billion

 $10,000,000,001-$50 billion

 More than $50 billion

20.

How much do you

estimate your

liabilities to be?

 $0-$50,000

 $50,001-$100,000

 $100,001-$500,000

 $500,001-$1 million

 $1,000,001-$10 million

 $10,000,001-$50 million

 $50,000,001-$100 million

 $100,000,001-$500 million

 $500,000,001-$1 billion

 $1,000,000,001-$10 billion

 $10,000,000,001-$50 billion

 More than $50 billion

Official Form 101

administrative expenses are paid that funds will be available to distribute to unsecured creditors?

 No

 Yes

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 6

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Part 7:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Sign Below

For you

I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and

correct.

If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13

of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed

under Chapter 7.

If no attorney represents me and I did not pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help me fill out

this document, I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b).

I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this petition.

I understand making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property by fraud in connection

with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to $250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.



______________________________________________

_____________________________

Signature of Debtor 1

Signature of Debtor 2

Executed on _________________

For your attorney, if you are

represented by one

If you are not represented

by an attorney, you do not

need to file this page.

/ DD

Executed on __________________

/ YYYY

MM / DD

/ YYYY

I, the attorney for the debtor(s) named in this petition, declare that I have informed the debtor(s) about eligibility

to proceed under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief

available under each chapter for which the person is eligible. I also certify that I have delivered to the debtor(s)

the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) and, in a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, certify that I have no

knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with the petition is incorrect.

_________________________________

Date

Signature of Attorney for Debtor

_________________

DD / YYYY

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Printed name

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Firm name

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Number Street

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________

City

State

ZIP Code

Contact phone _____________________________________

Email address

______________________________

______________________________________________________ ____________

Bar number

State

Official Form 101

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 7

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name

Middle Name

For you if you are filing this

bankruptcy without an

attorney

If you are represented by

an attorney, you do not

need to file this page.

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

The law allows you, as an individual, to represent yourself in bankruptcy court, but you

should understand that many people find it extremely difficult to represent

themselves successfully. Because bankruptcy has long-term financial and legal

consequences, you are strongly urged to hire a qualified attorney.

To be successful, you must correctly file and handle your bankruptcy case. The rules are very

technical, and a mistake or inaction may affect your rights. For example, your case may be

dismissed because you did not file a required document, pay a fee on time, attend a meeting or

hearing, or cooperate with the court, case trustee, U.S. trustee, bankruptcy administrator, or audit

firm if your case is selected for audit. If that happens, you could lose your right to file another

case, or you may lose protections, including the benefit of the automatic stay.

You must list all your property and debts in the schedules that you are required to file with the

court. Even if you plan to pay a particular debt outside of your bankruptcy, you must list that debt

in your schedules. If you do not list a debt, the debt may not be discharged. If you do not list

property or properly claim it as exempt, you may not be able to keep the property. The judge can

also deny you a discharge of all your debts if you do something dishonest in your bankruptcy

case, such as destroying or hiding property, falsifying records, or lying. Individual bankruptcy

cases are randomly audited to determine if debtors have been accurate, truthful, and complete.

Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime; you could be fined and imprisoned.

If you decide to file without an attorney, the court expects you to follow the rules as if you had

hired an attorney. The court will not treat you differently because you are filing for yourself. To be

successful, you must be familiar with the United States Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure, and the local rules of the court in which your case is filed. You must also

be familiar with any state exemption laws that apply.

Are you aware that filing for bankruptcy is a serious action with long-term financial and legal

consequences?

 No

 Yes

Are you aware that bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime and that if your bankruptcy forms are

inaccurate or incomplete, you could be fined or imprisoned?

 No

 Yes

Did you pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help you fill out your bankruptcy forms?

 No

 Yes. Name of Person_____________________________________________________________________.

Attach Bankruptcy Petition Preparer’s Notice, Declaration, and Signature (Official Form 119).

By signing here, I acknowledge that I understand the risks involved in filing without an attorney. I

have read and understood this notice, and I am aware that filing a bankruptcy case without an

attorney may cause me to lose my rights or property if I do not properly handle the case.



_______________________________________________

______________________________

Signature of Debtor 1

Signature of Debtor 2

Date

_________________

MM / DD / YYYY

Contact phone ______________________________________

Contact phone

________________________________

Cell phone

________________________________

Email address

________________________________

_________________

MM / DD / YYYY

______________________________________

Email address ______________________________________

Official Form 101

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy

page 8

Official Form 101 (Committee Note) (12/26)

Committee Note

Question 4 has been amended to make it clear that

only debtors who themselves have an employer

identification number (EIN) should list it; they should not

include the EIN of their employer or any other entity not

filing the petition.

Fill in this information to identify your case:

Debtor 1

__________________________________________________________________

Debtor 2

________________________________________________________________

First Name

Middle Name

(Spouse, if filing) First Name

Last Name

Middle Name

Last Name

United States Bankruptcy Court for the: ______________________ District of __________

(State)

Case number

 Check if this is an

___________________________________________

(If known)

amended filing

Official Form 106C

Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt

12/26

Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information.

Using the property you listed on Schedule A/B: Property (Official Form 106A/B) as your source, list the property that you claim as exempt. If more

space is needed, fill out and attach to this page as many copies of Part 2: Additional Page as necessary. On the top of any additional pages, write

your name and case number (if known).

For each item of property you claim as exempt, you must specify the amount of the exemption you claim. One way of doing so is to state a

specific dollar amount as exempt. Alternatively, you may claim the full fair market value of the property being exempted up to the amount

of any applicable statutory limit. Some exemptions—such as those for health aids, rights to receive certain benefits, and tax-exempt

retirement funds—may be unlimited in dollar amount. However, if you claim an exemption of 100% of fair market value under a law that

limits the exemption to a particular dollar amount and the value of the property is determined to exceed that amount, your exemption

would be limited to the applicable statutory amount.

Part 1:

Identify the Property You Claim as Exempt

1. Which set of exemptions are you claiming? Check one only, even if your spouse is filing with you.

 You are claiming state and federal nonbankruptcy exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)

 You are claiming federal exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)

2. For any property you list on Schedule A/B that you claim as exempt, fill in the information below.

A. Brief description of the property and line

on Schedule A/B that lists this property

Brief

description:

_________________________

B. Current value of

the portion you

own

C. Amount of the exemption you

claim

Copy the value from

Schedule A/B

Check only one box for each exemption.

$________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

Line from

Schedule A/B: ______

Brief

description:

_________________________

any applicable statutory limit

$________________

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

any applicable statutory limit

D. Specific laws that allow

exemption

2.1 Add the dollar value of all entries from

Column B, including any entries for pages

you have attached.

$________________

2.2 Add the dollar value of all entries with a specific amount from

Column C, including any entries for pages you have attached.

$_____________

3. Are you claiming a homestead exemption of more than $214,000?

(Subject to adjustment on 4/01/28 and every 3 years after that for cases filed on or after the date of adjustment.)

 No

 Yes. Did you acquire the property covered by the exemption within 1,215 days before you filed this case?

 No

Official Form 106C

Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt

page 1 of __

Debtor 1

_______________________________________________________

First Name



Part 2:

Middle Name

Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Last Name

Yes

Additional Page

A. Brief description of the property and

line on Schedule A/B that lists this property

Brief

description:

_________________________

B. Current value of

the portion you own

C. Amount of the exemption you

claim

Copy the value from

Schedule A/B

Check only one box for each exemption

$________________

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

_________________________

Line from

Schedule A/B: ______

Brief

description:

_________________________

$________________

_________________________

$________________

_________________________

$________________

_________________________

$________________

_________________________

Line from

Schedule A/B: ______

Brief

description:

_________________________

$________________

_________________________

Line from

Schedule A/B: ______

Official Form 106C

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

$________________

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

____________________________

any applicable statutory limit

$________________

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

____________________________

any applicable statutory limit

$________________

____________________________

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

____________________________

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

Schedule A/B: ______

Brief

description:

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

____________________________

any applicable statutory limit

Line from

______

Schedule A/B:

Brief

description:

 $ ____________

 100% of fair market value, up to

any applicable statutory limit

$________________

D. Specific laws that allow

exemption

any applicable statutory limit

Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt

page ___ of __

Official Form 106C Committee Note

Committee Note

Part 1 of Official Form 106C is amended to add

spaces for providing the total amount of column B—current

value of the portion of property owned by the debtor—and

of column C—amount of the exemption claimed. In adding

up the exemption amounts claimed in column C, the debtor

should include only those exemptions claimed in specific

dollar amounts.

Excerpt from the December 13, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

H. THOMAS BYRON III

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg, Chair

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

DATE:

December 13, 2024

Introduction

The Civil Rules Advisory Committee met in Washington, D.C., on October 10, 2024.

Members of the public attended in person, and public on-line attendance was also provided. * * *

Part I of this report will present * * * action items. During its October 10 meeting, the

Advisory Committee voted to recommend publication in August 2025 of amendments to * * *

rules:

(a) Rule 81(c): The Advisory Committee proposes publication of an amendment to

Rule 81(c) that clarifies when a jury demand must be made after removal if no jury demand has

been made at the time of removal.

*****

Excerpt from the December 13, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

ACTION ITEMS

(a)

Rule 81(c) -- jury demand after removal

The Standing Committee first saw this issue at its June 2016 meeting, based on submission

15-CV-A, from a lawyer who interpreted restyled Rule 81(c) to mean that he did not need to

demand a jury trial in his removed case because state practice did not require that he make such a

demand prior to the time of removal. Before 2007, Rule 81(c) said: “If state law does not require

an express demand for a jury trial, a party need not make one after removal unless the court orders

the parties to do so within a specified time.” In the 2007 restyling the verb was changed to “did.”

That change could produce confusion when a case is removed from a state court that has a

jury demand requirement but permits that demand later in the litigation. As written before 2007,

the rule excused a jury demand only when the case was removed from a state court that never

requires a jury demand.

When this matter came before the Standing Committee in 2016, two members of the

Committee proposed an alternative that would have mooted the Rule 81(c) concern -- that Rule 38

be amended (parallel with the analogous Criminal Rule) to direct that there always be a jury trial

unless both parties consented to a court trial and the court agreed to hold a court trial. That proposal

led to an FJC research study that eventually persuaded the Advisory Committee that making such

a change to Rule 38 would not be warranted. So the Rule 38 proposal was dropped from the agenda

and the Rule 81(c) proposal came back to the fore.

It seems that the former provision exempting parties accustomed to state courts that don’t

ever require a jury demand unless the court establishes a deadline may have been meant to protect

them against losing the right to a jury trial because they assumed they did not have to take any

action after removal to obtain a jury trial since that would not be required in the state court.

It is not entirely clear how many states provide a jury trial without requiring a demand at

some point. Research by the Rules Law Clerk indicates that there seem to be some such states and

that there is considerable variety in the timing requirements of state courts that don’t entirely

excuse jury demands. * * *

During the Advisory Committee meeting, two possible amendments were proposed. One

would simply change the verb tense from “did” back to what the rule said before 2007 -- “does.”

That could avoid confusing lawyers who faced very prompt removal. At least they would know

that they were not exempt from demanding a jury trial after removal because the state court case

had not reached the point where that was required by state court practice.

But that solution could leave uncertainty about whether a given state practice “does”

require a jury demand. The Rules Law Clerk research suggests that such uncertainty might exist

in some instances.

On the other hand, lawyers who never had to demand a jury trial to get one in state court

might be surprised to find that they had to make a formal jury demand in federal court.

Excerpt from the December 13, 2024 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

The Advisory Committee chose the other alternative -- requiring a jury demand in all

removed cases by the deadline set in Rule 38. One point raised during the Oct. 10 meeting was

that it be made clear that even when a party fails to meet the Rule 38 deadline the court may, under

Rule 39(b), order a jury trial despite the belated request.

So the Advisory Committee unanimously voted to propose that the following draft

Rule 81(c) amendment and Committee Note be published for public comment: * * *

*****

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

CAROLYN A. DUBAY

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg, Chair

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

DATE:

May 15, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The Civil Rules Advisory Committee met in Atlanta on April 1, 2025. Members of the

public attended in person, and public online attendance was also provided. * * *

Part I of this report will present four action items (one of which has two parts). During its

April 1 meeting, the Advisory Committee voted to recommend publication in August 2025 of

amendments to the following rules:

(a) Rule 41(a): The Advisory Committee proposes publication of amendments to Rule 41

to better facilitate voluntary dismissal of one or more claims in a litigation, as opposed to the entire

action. This matter was first presented to the Standing Committee at its January 2025 meeting, but

several questions were raised that prompted re-examination of the proposal. As presented below,

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

the Advisory Committee’s Rule 41 Subcommittee (chaired by Judge Cathy Bissoon, W.D. Pa.)

carefully considered these questions. The Committee retracted its proposal to extend Rule 41(d)

to allow an award of costs after dismissal of even a single claim in a prior action.

(b) Rule 45(c) subpoena for remote testimony and clarification amendment to Rule

26(a)(3)(A)(i): The Rule 43/45 Subcommittee, chaired by Judge M. Hannah Lauck (E.D. Va.), met

four times between the Advisory Committee’s October 2024 meeting and its April 1 meeting. It

now proposes publication of an amendment to Rule 45(c), prompted by In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th

1030 (9th Cir. 2023). In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that even though the district court had

found remote testimony justified under Rule 43 it could not, by subpoena, compel a witness to

provide that testimony. The proposed place for the testimony was within 100 miles of the witness’s

residence but more than 100 miles from the courthouse, which the court said was beyond the

“subpoena power” of the district court. The Ninth Circuit recognized that a rule change could alter

this outcome, and the proposed amendment is designed to do that.

In addition, the Advisory Committee recommends publishing a proposed amendment to

Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i) clarifying that each party’s pretrial disclosures must specify whether any of

the witnesses the party expects to present will provide remote testimony. * * *

an amendment to specify methods of service of a subpoena that suffice under the rule, and also to

authorize the court in a given case to approve alternative methods. The authorized methods draw

in part from Rule 4(e)(2)(A) and (B) for service of original process -- personal delivery to the

individual or leaving the subpoena at the person’s dwelling place -- with the addition of service by

U.S. mail or commercial carrier if a confirmation of delivery is provided. The amendment also

authorizes the court to approve another means of service for good cause. The proposed amendment

includes two other changes: (1) relaxing the current requirement that witness fees be tendered at

the time of service, and (2) providing a 14-day notice period (subject to shortening by the court for

good cause) when the subpoena requires attendance at a trial, hearing, or deposition.

(d) Rule 7.1: Responding to concerns that the current disclosure requirements do not

adequately alert judges to possible grounds for recusal, the Advisory Committee recommends

publication of an amendment intended to provide judges with additional needed information. Two

main changes are proposed. One substitutes the term “business organization” for the word

“corporation” in the current rule. This change reflects the reality that business entities often have

non-corporate forms. The other is to require disclosure of any business organization that directly

or indirectly owns 10% or more of the party. These changes are intended to reflect Advisory

Opinion No. 57 from the Judicial Conference Committee on the Codes of Conduct.

*****

ACTION ITEMS

(a)

Rule 41(a)

The Advisory Committee proposes two amendments to Rule 41(a). The first adds

additional flexibility for litigants by explicitly permitting the dismissal of one or more claims in

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

an action, rather than only the entire action, as the text of the current rule suggests. Many courts

already allow such flexibility without presenting problems, and permitting dismissal of claims is

consistent with the policy reflected throughout the rules of narrowing the issues in a case pretrial.

The second is requiring only the signatures of parties that are actively litigating in a case on a

stipulation of dismissal. The Advisory Committee concluded that requiring signatures of parties

who have departed from the litigation creates opportunities for such parties to stymie settlements

if they cannot be found or oppose the stipulation.

Proposed amendments to Rule 41 were presented to the Standing Committee at its January

2025 meeting. Although the Standing Committee was aligned with the Advisory Committee with

respect to the goals of the amendments, there were several areas of concern that the Standing

Committee thought would benefit from a second look. After extensive deliberation the Rule 41

Subcommittee proposed several changes in response to this helpful feedback that the Advisory

Committee adopted.

First, the Advisory Committee abandoned its earlier proposal to amend Rule 41(d), which

provides that the judge may award costs to the defendant “[i]f a plaintiff who previously dismissed

an action in any court files an action based on or including the same claim against the same

defendant.” Previously, the Advisory Committee approved an amendment to this provision that

would have permitted the judge to award costs when the plaintiff had previously dismissed and

refiled “one or more claims,” as opposed to the entire action. Concerns were raised, however, that

such an amendment would leave open the possibility that a judge would disproportionately award

costs of an entire previous action, when the plaintiff had dismissed only a part of it. Upon

reflection, the Subcommittee and Advisory Committee agreed that the amendment was

unnecessary. The existing rule is typically deployed when a plaintiff has in fact dismissed an entire

previous action, usually when the plaintiff is in search of a more favorable forum or judge. It is in

those circumstances that an award of costs is most appropriate. As a result, the Advisory

Committee concluded that Rule 41(d) should remain unchanged.

Second, the Advisory Committee made several minor changes to Rule 41(a) and the

Committee Note to clarify that the deadline for unilateral dismissal of a claim is filing of an answer

or motion for summary judgment by the party opposing the claim.

Third, the Advisory Committee reexamined the text of the proposed amendment to Rule

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that would require that a stipulation of dismissal be signed by “all parties who have

appeared and remain in the action.” The subcommittee’s goal in proposing this amendment is to

ensure that a party who has departed the litigation (either by voluntarily dismissing all of its claims

or having all claims against it voluntarily dismissed) cannot obstruct a stipulation of dismissal if it

cannot be easily found or if it refuses to sign the stipulation. A concern was raised at the Standing

Committee meeting about the interaction between this proposed amendment and Rule 54(b), which

provides that (absent a partial final judgment) all parties “remain” in the action until final

judgment. So, if parties no longer actively litigating in the case are not required to sign a stipulation

of dismissal, those parties may not receive notice that their window to appeal has opened.

Ultimately, after much discussion, the subcommittee decided to retain the proposed

language “remain in the action,” and the Advisory Committee agreed that the proposed language

was sufficiently clear (particularly when compared to alternatives that sought greater precision but

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

were quite clunky). Additions to the committee note have been made to clarify the amendment’s

purpose. Moreover, there are numerous instances in the rules that apply to parties actively litigating

and not to those who are no longer in the case. One example is Rule 33, which permits service of

interrogatories on “a party.” It seems unlikely that anyone would interpret that rule to permit

service of interrogatories on a party that is no longer prosecuting or defending against a live claim,

Rule 54(b) notwithstanding. With respect to concerns that a party might not receive adequate

notice, the Advisory Committee was satisfied that current safeguards make that unlikely, including

the practice that such a party will continue to receive notice of docket entries through CM/ECF,

although typically denominated as “terminated” from the action. In sum, the Advisory Committee

concluded that the benefits of the amendment outweigh any risks, though it is of course open to

reconsideration if the public comment period suggests otherwise.

Rule 41(a) Amendment Proposal

*****

(b)

Rules 45(c) and 26(a)(3)(A)(i)

The Rule 43/45 Subcommittee has been very busy. It held four meetings after the Advisory

Committee’s October meeting to finalize its proposal to amend Rule 45(c) to remove the difficulty

presented by the decision in In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023). That case held that,

despite the 2013 revision of Rule 45 authorizing the court presiding over an action to issue a

subpoena for testimony that can be served anywhere in the United States, for trial testimony that

authority extends only within the “subpoena power” of the court and does not permit the court to

command a distant witness to provide remote trial testimony.

There have been disagreements among district courts about whether they have such power

as to distant trial witnesses. The Kirkland decision seems to be the first court of appeals decision

finding that the district court lacked such authority. The court reached this result even though the

Committee Note accompanying the 2013 amendment to Rule 45 clearly said that such authority

existed. The Ninth Circuit recognized, however, that a rule amendment could solve the problem.

The Kirkland decision is on the books and seems to be having some unfortunate ripple

effects, even in cases involving only discovery rather than trial testimony. So the Subcommittee is

bringing this amendment proposal forward now even though it has another (and possibly more

important) topic on its agenda -- whether to relax the criteria for remote trial testimony under Rule

43(a).

In addition, the Advisory Committee is proposing a slight clarification for Rule

26(a)(3)(A)(i).

Rule 45(c) amendment proposal1

*****

During the Standing Committee’s January 2025 meeting, a question was raised about possible implications

of changes to Rule 45(c) for the “unavailability” criterion for admissibility of deposition transcripts at trial

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

Rule 26(a) amendment proposal

*****

(c)

Rule 45(b)(1)

This proposed amendment responds to a problem that has been brought up repeatedly in

submissions to the Committee over the last two decades or so -- the ambiguity of the requirement

in Rule 45(b)(1) of “serving” the witness with the subpoena and also (at the time of service)

tendering the witness fee to the witness. For the majority of subpoenas, service is not

problematical. But problems have emerged with sufficient frequency to justify a rule change.

The Advisory Committee proposed the amendment presented below to achieve three basic

objectives:

(1) Borrowing from Rule 4(e)(2)(A) and (B) some well-recognized methods of service -personal delivery or leaving at the abode of the person with a person “of suitable age and

discretion who resides there,” and adding service by mail or commercial carrier if that

includes confirmation of receipt, as has been found sufficient in some courts. The proposed

amendment also empowers the district to authorize additional methods for good cause;

(2) Adding a notice period -- 14 days in the draft -- unless the court authorizes a shorter

period; and

(3) Providing that the tender of witness fees is not required to effect service of the

subpoena, so long as the statutory fees are tendered upon service or at the time the witness

appears as commanded by the subpoena.

This amendment proposal is designed to address practical problems that have sometimes

resulted from the ambiguity of Rule 45(b)(1)’s current use of the term “delivering a copy to the

named person” without being more specific about how that is to be done.

There has been at least one recent reported decision in which multiple attempts at service

were deemed ineffective because the witness fee had not also been tendered. And in another recent

case, the server did not initially deliver the witness fee check because it had the server’s

information on it and the server worried for his personal safety if that were revealed to the witness.

*****

under Rule 32(a)(4) or of prior testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 804(a). These questions received substantial

attention before the Advisory Committee subcommittee. After lengthy discussion it was concluded that

clarifying the subpoena power would not produce a change in the application of those other rules, which

deal with hearsay objections. Some efforts were made to draft Committee Note language to affirm that there

was no intention to alter the application of those rules. After lengthy discussion, however, it was concluded

that including that language might cause complications rather than avoid them.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

(d)

Rule 7.1

The Advisory Committee recommends publishing for public comment amendments to Rule

7.1(a) requiring disclosure by a corporate party of parents and business organizations that directly

or indirectly own 10% or more of it. The goal of the amendment is to mandate disclosure of

corporate “grandparents” or “great grandparents” in which a judge may hold a financial interest

that requires recusal. This report elaborates on the reasons for these changes below after presenting

the proposed rule amendment and Committee Note.

Rule 7.1(a) Amendment Proposal

*****

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REASONS FOR PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

Currently, Rule 7.1(a) requires that a nongovernmental corporate party disclose “any parent

corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock.” The Rule 7.1

Subcommittee, created in spring 2023 and chaired by Justice Jane Bland (Supreme Court of Texas),

was formed to consider rule changes to better inform judges of any financial interest “in the subject

matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected

substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).

More specifically, this project was sparked by concerns that judges are not sufficiently

informed in situations in which they might hold an interest in a business organization that is a

“grandparent” or “great-grandparent” of a party. For instance, a judge might hold an interest in a

“grandparent” corporation that wholly owns a subsidiary that, in turn, owns a party. Under such

circumstances, that judge likely has a financial interest requiring her to recuse. But because the

rule requires disclosure of only a “parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning

10% of more of [a corporate party’s] stock,” the judge will remain in the dark.

Although there do not appear to be serious concerns that judges have acted in a biased

manner due to this lack of information, it is also the case that whenever a judge presides over a

case in which she has an arguable financial interest in the outcome there is a threat to perceptions

of the court’s legitimacy and impartiality. As a result, over the last two years, the Subcommittee

has considered several possible revisions to the rule that would make it more likely that

“grandparents” and other entities up the corporate chain of ownership of a party, in which a judge

is reasonably likely to hold an interest, will be disclosed without imposing unnecessarily onerous

requirements on litigants.

Notably, the committee note to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, whose relevant language is identical

to Rule 7.1, has since 1998 provided that:

Disclosure of a party’s parent corporation is necessary because a judgment against

a subsidiary can negatively impact the parent. A judge who owns stock in the parent

corporation, therefore, has an interest in litigation involving the subsidiary. The

rule requires disclosure of all of a party’s parent corporations meaning

grandparent and great grandparent corporations as well. For example, if a

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

party is a closely held corporation, the majority shareholder of which is a

corporation formed by a publicly traded corporation for the purpose of acquiring

and holding the shares of the party, the publicly traded grandparent corporation

should be disclosed. (Emphasis added.) 2

This requirement does not appear to have spawned litigation, confusion, or controversy. Despite

using the same language, though, Rule 7.1 has by and large been interpreted to require disclosure

of only “parents,” and not grandparents or other corporate relatives.

In the early days of this project, the Rules Law Clerk and Reporters canvassed a wide swath

of disclosure requirements, including districts’ local rules and various state rules, to develop an

array of options. Among state and local rules, the two dominant approaches were to either use a

broad catch-all term (such as to require disclosure of all “affiliates” of a party) or a lengthy

“laundry list” of various specific business relationships. Subcommittee deliberation and outreach

revealed that both approaches had problems. Broad catch-all provisions requiring disclosure of

“affiliates” (or some such term) sweep in a wave of entities that the judge is unlikely to hold and

often lead to vast disclosures in which any pertinent information might be buried. On the other

hand, the “laundry list” approach seemed to encounter the ever-present danger of lists, that they

are overinclusive and underinclusive and require constant maintenance to account for the

constantly evolving variety of business relationships. Recognizing that no rule can uncover all

instances when recusal might be required by the statute’s demand that a judge disqualify on the

basis of any interest “however small,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(d)(4), our effort has been focused on

threading the needle between a rule that is too capacious and one that is too specific. So, after

much study, the Subcommittee returned to where it began: an effort to ensure disclosure of

corporate “grandparents” and such, as Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 does now, albeit in the note.

In the midst of the Subcommittee’s work, in February 2024, the Codes of Conduct

Committee issued new guidance to judges: Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion

No. 57: Disqualification Based on a Parent-Subsidiary Relationship. This guidance directs a judge

to focus on whether a parent corporation that does not wholly own a party “has control of a party.”

The guidance does not define “control” but instead “advises that the 10% disclosure requirement

in the Federal Rules (e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1, and

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8012) creates a threshold rebuttable presumption of control for recusal purposes.”

Should a party disclose an owner of 10% of more of a party, the guidance advises that “a judge

may exercise his or her discretion to seek information from the parties or their attorneys; a judge

may also review publicly available sources, such as Securities and Exchange Commission filings.”

In light of this guidance, the Subcommittee also considered amending Rule 7.1 to require

corporate parties to disclose any entity that has control over it. This move would, however, beg the

question (as does the Codes of Conduct Committee guidance) as to what constitutes “control.” The

guidance does not attempt such a definition; instead, it refers to the 10% ownership figure in the

various Federal Rules as a proxy for control.

This language was added to the note in response to a public comment that disclosure of only a “parent”

was too narrow. Review of the minutes and agenda books of the Appellate Rules Committee and the

Standing Committee reveal no opposition, or even discussion, of this addition to the note. The amended

rule was subsequently approved by the various bodies up the chain of command and went into effect in

December 1998.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

Based on the Codes of Conduct Committee guidance, the Subcommittee concluded that a

rule that continues to mandate disclosure of ownership of a party is the most promising avenue

toward disclosure of grandparents, et al. The goal is to better equip judges to comply with the

Codes of Conduct guidance, and therefore their statutory and ethical obligations. This is, and

always has been, a tricky exercise. Although the appellate rule has not caused controversy, a rule

cannot be amended by amending only the committee note, so the challenge has been to draft rule

language that will best meet our goals without being over or underinclusive.

As a result, the Advisory Committee has settled on two proposed changes to the rule, as

reflected in the above proposal:

(1)

Replace references to “a corporate party” with the broader term “business

organizations.”

(2)

Require disclosure of “a parent business organization” and “any publicly held business

organization that directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of” a party.

The Subcommittee’s rationale for each of these changes follows.

Business Organizations

The Advisory Committee was concerned that references to “corporations” in the rule are

too narrow since there are many business organizations other than corporations whose disclosure

would assist judges in complying with their recusal obligations. For instance, “LLCs” or “Master

Partnerships” are not necessarily defined as corporations under some state laws. Having concluded

that the term corporation now feels too narrow, the next question becomes what to replace it with.

The Subcommittee considered several possibilities, but “business organizations” quickly emerged

as the most common and generally understood term. For instance, the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association have long authored the

“Uniform Business Organizations Code.” Texas also has a “Business Organizations Code.”

Additionally, while some schools have stuck with the traditional name “Corporations,” most

leading law schools’ introductory corporate law courses are now called “Business Organizations”

or “Business Associations.”

Direct or Indirect Ownership

As explained above, and as the draft Committee Note reflects, the primary goal was to

better inform judges of the possibility that the value of interests they hold in “grandparents” and

others up the chain of ownership from parties might be affected by the outcome of cases before

them. Although this requirement does not seem controversial, as evidenced by the lack of

controversy that has emerged from 27 years of experience with the appellate rule’s committee note,

drafting rule language to capture this goal has proven challenging. But once the Subcommittee

settled on a lodestar of consistency with the Codes of Conduct Committee’s guidance, its focus

turned to ensuring disclosure of owners of 10% or more of a party. 3 Candidly, absolute precision

As reflected in the draft amendment, the proposed rule abandons the term “stock” to define ownership,

since ownership interests may have many different labels.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

has proven elusive, so the Subcommittee eventually converged on rule language that reflects the

intent of the amendment and will hopefully prompt parties to reveal owners and part owners in

which judges are likely to hold investments and whose value may be affected by the outcome of

the litigation.

First, the Advisory Committee decided to retain the requirement that a “parent business

organization” be disclosed. “Parent” is to some degree an elusive term that might be defined in

numerous ways. Nevertheless, it has been part of the various federal disclosure rules since their

inception, and it does not seem to have caused significant problems. The Advisory Committee

considered eliminating the requirement of disclosing a parent altogether (that is, requiring only

disclosure of publicly held direct or indirect owners of 10% or more) but concluded that there was

no good reason to eliminate it, and that there may very well be occasions when a judge holds an

interest in a privately held entity that is a parent of a party, but the judge is unaware.

Second, the Advisory Committee opted for language requiring disclosure of direct or

indirect owners of 10% or more of a party. As the Committee Note explains, this is a pragmatic

concept intended to prompt disclosure of grandparents or others who may own a significant share

of a party via ownership of another intermediate entity. Such disclosure would trigger the

suggestion in the Codes of Conduct Committee advisory opinion that a judge investigate further

whether recusal is necessary. As was the case when the words “parent corporation” were discussed

in the 1990s, there is a certain inherent imprecision to the language, but parties have long been

trusted to meet their disclosure obligations faithfully and practically based on the purpose of those

obligations. The Subcommittee labored over whether to prescribe a mathematical formula for

indirect ownership or to lay out a series of examples of indirect ownership (or lack thereof) in the

note, but ultimately opted against either option, in favor of a more general standard informed by a

purpose defined in the committee note.

Of course, rulemakers should always be wary of imposing vague requirements on litigants.

At the same time, however, this is not a rule that governs how parties conduct litigation or interact

with one another. Nor is it a rule that is related to the law, facts, and merits of a case. Rather, it is

a rule that attempts to help judges comply with a mandate that itself is rather vague. To borrow

from mathematics, the Rule’s relationship to the recusal standard is something like an asymptote - a line that a curve approaches but never touches. After several years of deliberation and study,

the Advisory Committee is eager to hear the reactions of those potentially affected by the rule in

the public-comment period. If in fact, what is proposed is too vague or onerous compared to the

potential benefits, we will surely learn that then.

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 7.1.

(a)

Disclosure Statement

Who Must File; Contents.

(1)

Nongovernmental Corporations Business

Organizations. A nongovernmental

corporate business organization that

is a party or a nongovernmental

corporation that seeks to intervene

must file a statement that:

(A)

identifies any parent corporation

business

organization

and

any

publicly held corporation business

organization owning that directly or

indirectly owns 10% or more of its

stock it; or

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(B)

states that there is no such corporation

business organization.

*****

Committee Note

Rule 7.1(a)(1) is amended in two ways intended to

better assist judges in complying with their statutory and

ethical duty to recuse in cases in which they or relevant

family members have “a financial interest in the subject

matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any

other interest that could be substantially affected by the

outcome of the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4); Code of

Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3C(1)(c).

First, the amended rule substitutes “business

organization” in place of references to “corporation” to

cover entities not organized as “corporations,” defined

narrowly. “Business organizations” is a more capacious term

intended to flexibly adapt to the ever-changing variety of

commercial entities, and the term is generally accepted and

well understood. See, e.g., Uniform Business Organizations

Code (2015).

Second, the rule is amended to require disclosure of

business organizations that “directly or indirectly own 10%

or more of” a party, whether or not that ownership interest is

formally denominated as stock. Such a direct or indirect

owner is presumed to hold a sufficient interest in a party to

raise a rebuttable presumption that a judge’s financial

interest in the owner extends to the party, warranting recusal.

See U.S. Judicial Conference, Guide to Judiciary Policy

§ 220, Committee on Codes of Conduct, Advisory Opinion

No. 57: Disqualification Based on a Parent-Subsidiary

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Relationship (Feb. 2024). Under the amended rule, a party

must disclose not only a parent business organization but

also any publicly held business organization that is a

grandparent, great-grandparent, or other corporate relative

that owns 10% or more of a party, whether directly or

through another business organization. The requirement to

disclose “indirect” owners of 10% or more of a party is a

pragmatic effort to better inform judges of circumstances

when their financial interests may be affected by a litigation

or when further inquiry into the ownership interests in a

party is appropriate.

As before, this rule does not capture every scenario

that might require a judge to recuse. As reflected in the

Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 57,

a judge may need to seek additional information about a

party’s business affiliations when deciding whether to

recuse. And, as before, districts may promulgate local rules

requiring additional disclosures.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 26.

(a)

Duty to Disclose; General Provisions

Governing Discovery

Required Disclosures.

*****

(3)

Pretrial Disclosures.

(A)

In General. In addition to the

disclosures

26(a)(1) and (2), a party must provide

to the other parties and promptly file

the following information about the

evidence that it may present at trial

other than solely for impeachment:

(i)

the

required

name

and,

Rules

(if

not

provided),

the

previously

address and telephone number

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

of each witness—separately

identifying those the party

expects to present and those it

may call if the need arises, and

whether the testimony will be

in person or remote;

(ii)

the

designation

those

witnesses whose testimony

the party expects to present by

deposition and, if not taken

stenographically, a transcript

of the pertinent parts of the

deposition; and

*****

Committee Note

Under Rule 43, the court may permit remote

testimony at trial. Because Rule 26 requires disclosure of

witnesses a party “expects to present,” it should be

understood to include witnesses who will testify remotely

upon court approval. This amendment clarifies that the

disclosure requirement applies whether or not the witness is

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

testifying in person or remotely and alerts the parties and the

court that a party proposes to present one or more witnesses

remotely.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 41.

(a)

Dismissal of Actions or Claims

Voluntary Dismissal.

(1)

By the a Plaintiff.

(A)

Without a Court Order. Subject to

Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and

any applicable federal statute, the a

plaintiff may dismiss an its action or

one or more of its claims without a

court order by filing:

(i)

a notice of dismissal before

the opposing party serves

either an answer or a motion

for summary judgment; or

(ii)

a stipulation of dismissal

signed by all parties who have

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

appeared and remain in the

action.

*****

(2)

By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action or one or more

claims may be dismissed at the a plaintiff’s

request only by court order, on terms that the

court considers proper. If a defendant has

pleaded a counterclaim before being served

with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the

action, claim, or claims may be dismissed

over the defendant’s objection only if the

counterclaim

independent adjudication. Unless the order

states otherwise, a dismissal under this

paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

can

*****

remain

pending

for

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Committee Note

Rule 41 is amended in two ways. First, Rule 41(a)

has been amended to add language clarifying that a plaintiff

may voluntarily dismiss “one or more of its claims” in a

multi-claim case. A plaintiff may accomplish dismissal of

either its action or one or more of its claims unilaterally prior

to an answer or motion for summary judgment by a party

opposing that claim, or by stipulation or court order. Some

courts interpreted the previous language to mean that only

an entire case, i.e. all claims against all defendants, or only

all claims against one or more defendants, could be

dismissed under this rule. The language suggesting that

voluntary dismissal could only be of an entire case has

remained unchanged since the 1938 promulgation of the

rule. In the intervening years, multi-claim and multi-party

cases have become more typical, and courts are now

encouraged to both simplify and facilitate settlement of

cases. The amended rule is therefore more consistent with

widespread practice and the general policy of narrowing the

issues during pretrial proceedings. This amendment to Rule

41(a), permitting voluntary dismissal of a claim or claims,

does not affect the operation of Rule 41(d), whose

applicability is limited to situations when the plaintiff has

previously dismissed an entire action.

Second, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is amended to clarify

that a stipulation of dismissal need be signed only by all

parties who have appeared and remain in the action. Some

courts had interpreted the prior language to require all parties

who had ever appeared in a case to sign a stipulation of

dismissal, including those who have dismissed all claims, or

had all claims against them dismissed. Such a requirement

can be overly burdensome and an unnecessary obstacle to

narrowing the scope of a case; signatures of the parties

currently litigating claims at the time of the stipulation

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

provide both sufficient notice to those actively involved in

the case and better facilitate formulating and simplifying the

issues and eliminating claims that the parties agree to

resolve.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 45.

Subpoena

*****

(b)

Service.

(1)

By Whom and How; Tendering Means;

Notice Period; Fees.

(A)

By Whom and How. Any person who

is at least 18 years old and not a party

may serve a subpoena. Serving a

subpoena requires:

(i)

delivering a copy to the

named person personally;

(ii)

leaving a copy at the person’s

dwelling or usual place of

abode

with

someone

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

suitable age and discretion

who resides there;

(iii)

sending a copy to the person’s

last known address by a

method of United States mail

commercial-carrier

delivery,

method provides confirmation

of actual receipt; or

(iv)

the

selected

using another means that is

authorized by the court for

good cause and is reasonably

calculated to give notice.

(B)

Time to Serve if Attendance Is

Required; Tendering Fees. and, iIf

the subpoena requires that the named

person’s attendance, a trial, hearing,

or deposition, unless the court orders

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

otherwise, the subpoena must be

served at least 14 days before the date

on which the person is commanded to

attend. In addition, the party serving

the subpoena must tendering the fees

for 1 day’s attendance and the

mileage allowed by law at the time of

service, or at the time and place the

person is commanded to appear. Fees

and mileage need not be tendered

when the subpoena issues on behalf

of the United States or any of its

officers or agencies.

*****

Committee Note

Rule 45(b)(1) is amended to clarify the means of

serving a subpoena. Courts have disagreed about whether the

rule requires hand delivery. Though service of a subpoena

usually does not present problems—particularly with regard

to deposition subpoenas—uncertainty about what the rule

requires has on occasion caused delays and imposed costs.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The amendment removes that ambiguity by

providing that methods authorized under Rule 4(e)(2)(A)

and (B) for service of a summons and complaint constitute

effective service of a subpoena. Though the issues involved

with service of a summons are not identical with service of

a subpoena, the basic goal is to give notice and the

authorized methods should assure notice. In place of the

current rule’s use of “delivering,” these methods of service

also are familiar methods that ought easily adapt to the

subpoena context.

The amendment also adds another option—service

by United States mail or commercial carrier to the person’s

last known address, if the selected method provides

confirmation of actual receipt. The rule does not prescribe

the exact means of confirmation, but courts should be alert

to ensuring that there is reliable confirmation of actual

receipt. Cf. Rule 45(b)(4) (proving service of subpoena).

Experience has shown that this method regularly works and

is reliable.

The amended rule also authorizes a court order

permitting an additional method of serving a subpoena so

long as that method is reasonably calculated to give notice.

A party seeking such an order must establish good cause,

which ordinarily would require at least first resort to the

authorized methods of service. The application should also

demonstrate that the proposed method is reasonably

calculated to give notice.

The amendment adds a requirement that the person

served be given at least 14 days’ notice if the subpoena

commands attendance at a trial, hearing, or deposition.

Rule 45(a)(4) requires the party serving the subpoena to give

notice to the other parties before serving it, but the rule does

not presently require any advance notice to the person

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

commanded to appear. Compliance may be difficult without

reasonable notice. Providing 14-day notice is a method of

avoiding possible burdens on the person served. In addition,

emergency motions for relief from a subpoena can burden

courts. For good cause, the court may shorten the notice

period on application by the serving party.

100

101

102

The amendment also simplifies the task of serving

the subpoena by removing the requirement that the witness

fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1821 be tendered at the time of service

as a prerequisite to effective service. Though tender at the

time of service should be done whenever practicable, the

amendment permits tender to occur instead at the time and

place the subpoena commands the person to appear. The

requirement to tender fees at the time of service has in some

cases further complicated the process of serving a subpoena,

and this alternative should simplify the task.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 45.

Subpoena

*****

(c)

Place of Compliance.

(1)

For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A

subpoena may command a person to attend a

trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:

(A)

within 100 miles of where the person

resides, is employed, or regularly

transacts business in person; or

(B)

within the state where the person

resides, is employed, or regularly

transacts business in person, if the

person:

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(i)

is a party or a party’s officer;

(ii)

is commanded to attend a trial

or hearing and would not

incur substantial expense.

(2)

For

Remote

Testimony.

Under

Rule 45(c)(1), the place of attendance for

remote testimony is the location where the

person is commanded to appear in person.

(32)

For Other Discovery. A subpoena may

command:

(A)

production

documents,

electronically stored information, or

tangible things at a place within 100

miles of where the person resides, is

employed, or regularly transacts

business in person; and

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(B)

inspection of premises at the premises

to be inspected.

*****

Committee Note

In 2013, Rule 45(a)(2) was amended to provide that

a subpoena must issue from the court where the action is

pending, and Rule 45(b)(2) now provides that such a

subpoena can be served at any place within the United

States.

Since the 2013 amendments, however, some courts

have concluded that they are without authority to command

witnesses to provide remote trial testimony because the

witnesses are not within the “subpoena power” of the

presiding court. See, e.g., In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 (9th

Cir. 2023) (holding that a subpoena can compel remote trial

testimony from a witness only if the witness resides or

transacts business in person within 100 miles of the court or

within the state in which the court sits). Questions have also

been raised about whether a subpoena can compel a nonparty

to provide discovery if the nonparty witness is located

outside the geographical scope of the subpoena power to

command the witness to appear in court. See, e.g., York

Holding, Inc. v. Waid, 345 F.R.D. 626 (D. Nev. 2024)

(rejecting the argument that a Nevada district court subpoena

could not command production of documents within 100

miles of the nonparty’s place of business in New

Hampshire).

This 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

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

witness to travel farther than the distance authorized under

Rule 45(c)(1), which provides protections against undue

burdens on persons subject to subpoenas. It specifies that,

for purposes of Rule 45(c)(1), the witness “attends” at the

place where the person must appear to provide the remote

testimony. For purposes of Rule 43 and Rule 77(b), such

remote testimony occurs in the court where the trial or

hearing is conducted.

The amendment does not alter the standards for

deciding whether to permit in-court remote testimony.

Instead, it applies to any subpoena for witness testimony.

Ordinarily, court approval is required for remote testimony

in court. Rule 43, for example, authorizes remote testimony

in trials and hearings but depends on court permission for

such testimony. Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i) requires that the parties

disclose the identities of witnesses whose testimony will be

presented, without distinguishing between in-person and

remote testimony. Even remote deposition testimony is

authorized only by stipulation or court order. See

Rule 30(b)(4).

When a subpoena commands a witness to provide

remote testimony, it is the responsibility of the serving party

to ensure that the necessary technology is available at the

remote location for such testimony.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Rule 81.

Applicability of the Rules in General;

Removed Actions

*****

(c)

Removed Actions.

(1)

Applicability. These rules apply to a civil

action after it is removed from a state court.

*****

(3)

Demand for a Jury Trial.

(A)

Before Removal As Affected by State

Law. A party who, before removal,

expressly demanded a jury trial in

accordance with state law need not

renew the demand after removal.

(B)

After Removal. If no demand has

been

made

before

removal,

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted

is lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 38(b) governs a demand for a

jury trial. If all necessary pleadings

have been served at the time of

removal, a party entitled to a jury trial

under Rule 38(b) must be given one if

the party serves a demand within 14

days after:

If the state law did not require an

express demand for a jury trial, a

party need not make one after

removal unless the court orders the

parties to do so within a specified

time. The court must so order at a

party’s request and may so order on

its own. A party who fails to make a

demand when so ordered waives a

jury trial.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(B)

Under Rule 38. If all necessary

pleadings have been served at the

time of removal, a party entitled to a

jury trial under Rule 38 must be given

one if the party serves a demand

within 14 days after:

(i)

it files a notice of removal; or

(ii)

it is served with a notice of

removal filed by another

party.

Committee Note

Rule 81(c) is amended to remove uncertainty about

when and whether a party to a removed action must demand

a jury trial. Prior to 2007, the rule said no demand was

necessary if the state court “does” not require a jury demand

to obtain a jury trial. State practice on jury demands varies,

and it appears that in at least some state courts no demand

need be made, although it is uncertain whether those states

actually guarantee a jury trial unless the parties affirmatively

waive jury trial. In other state courts, a jury demand is

required, but only later in the case than the deadline in

Rule 38 for demanding a jury trial. A number of states have

rules similar to Rule 38, but time limits for making a jury

demand differ from the time limit in Rule 38.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

This amendment is designed to remove uncertainty

about whether and when a jury demand must be made after

removal. It explicitly preserves the right to jury trial of a

party that expressly demanded a jury trial before removal.

But otherwise it makes clear that Rule 38 applies to removed

cases. If all pleadings have been served at the time of

removal, the demand must be made by the removing party

within 14 days of the date on which it filed its notice of

removal, and by any other party within 14 days of the date

on which it was served with a notice of removal. If further

pleadings are required, Rule 38(b)(1) applies to the removed

case.

When no demand has been made either before

removal or in compliance with Rule 38(b), the court has

discretion under Rule 39(b), on motion, to order a jury trial

on any issue for which a jury trial might have been

demanded.

The amendment removes the prior exemption from

the jury demand requirement in cases removed from state

courts in which an express demand for a jury trial is not

required. Courts no longer have to order parties to cases

removed from such state courts to make a jury demand; the

rule so requires.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OF THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

JOHN D. BATES

CHAIR

CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

ALLISON H. EID

APPELLATE RULES

CAROLYN A. DUBAY

SECRETARY

REBECCA B. CONNELLY

BANKRUPTCY RULES

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

CIVIL RULES

JAMES C. DEVER III

CRIMINAL RULES

JESSE M. FURMAN

EVIDENCE RULES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Hon. John D. Bates, Chair

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

FROM:

Hon. James C. Dever III, Chair

Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

RE:

Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

DATE:

May 15, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules met in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 2025.

***

The Advisory Committee has one action item: it unanimously recommends publication of

amendments to Rule 17 and the accompanying Committee Note.

*****

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

II.

ACTION ITEM: RULE 17 SUBPOENA AUTHORITY (22-CR-A; 24-CR-J; 25-CRG)

The Advisory Committee voted unanimously at its April 2025 meeting to recommend that

the Standing Committee approve for publication the proposed amendments to Rule 17 and the

accompanying Committee Note. A copy of the proposed amendments is attached to this report.

An overview of the proposed amendments follows a recap of their development.

Developing the Proposed Amendments to Rule 17 and the Committee Note

In the spring of 2022, the Advisory Committee received a proposal to amend Rule 17 from

the White Collar Crime Committee of the New York City Bar (22-CR-A). The proposal urged

revision of the rule to allow subpoenas to third parties for information “relevant and material to

the preparation of the prosecution or defense.” This “materiality” standard, the proposal argued,

would be more appropriate than the test announced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon,

418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974), which almost all federal courts now apply to restrict defense subpoenas

to third parties under Rule 17(c).

Nixon involved a subpoena issued by the Special Prosecutor ordering then President Nixon

to produce White House tapes for use in the criminal prosecution of White House staff. The

prosecutor had filed a motion seeking trial court authorization of the subpoena, and the Court,

quoting language that remains today in the rule, stated:

[I]n order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that

the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise

procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the

party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in

advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably

to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not

intended as a general “fishing expedition.”

Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. The Court continued, “the Special Prosecutor, in order to carry his

burden, must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” Id. at 700.

The New York City Bar’s proposal noted that the Court in Nixon declined to decide if the

standard it announced was appropriate for third-party subpoenas by the defense; that the restrictive

requirements applied in Nixon were developed in Bowman Dairy v. United States, 341 U.S. 214

(1951), where the Court suggested concern that the subpoena there between parties could provide

an end run around restrictions in Rule 16; that unlike prosecutors, defendants have no access to

grand jury subpoenas or search warrants to obtain evidence from third parties; that defendants

should have at least as much access to information from third parties when facing incarceration

and criminal punishment as they do when defending against civil claims; and that a few district

courts have already recognized that the strict Nixon test should not apply to defense subpoenas to

third-parties.1 In addition to replacing the Nixon standard with “materiality,” the proposal included

These arguments are forcefully made as well in a petition for certiorari seeking review of the question “Whether a

criminal defendant seeking pretrial production of documents from a third party by subpoena under Federal Rule of

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

other revisions. This included adding “electronically stored information” to the list of items a

subpoena recipient may be ordered to produce, restoring language removed during restyling that

had restricted Rule 17(h) to subpoenas to the government or to the defendant, and eliminating

language in Rule 17(c)(1) to make it clear that no court order or prior approval is required to issue

a subpoena, regardless of whether it seeks production in advance of trial, unless it seeks personal

and confidential information.

To evaluate the proposal to amend Rule 17, then Chair of the Advisory Committee Judge

Raymond Kethledge appointed a Subcommittee chaired by Judge Jacqueline Nguyen to develop a

recommendation for the Advisory Committee.

While the Subcommittee undertook its work, the Advisory Committee also received two

additional letters related to Rule 17 from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

(NACDL) (24-CR-J and 25-CR-G). NACDL raised similar concerns to those in the New York

City Bar’s proposal, and it added other considerations (for example, authorization of ex parte

subpoenas and expanding availability of subpoenas to criminal proceedings other than trials).

Over a period of more than two years, the Subcommittee’s examination of the problem

included the following:



organizing a day-long information session at the Advisory Committee’s October 2022

meeting, with eleven defense and prosecution practitioners invited from around the country

to share their experience and concerns about Rule 17 and answer questions from Advisory

Committee members;



meeting with experts representing tech companies, banks, and financial service companies,

whose practices included responding to subpoenas;



hearing summaries of the Reporters’ discussions with individuals representing medical

providers, hospitals, and schools, as well as attorneys from the Department of Justice who

work on victim and witness issues in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and



reviewing multiple research memoranda by the Reporters and Rules Law Clerks about the

rule’s history, as well as subpoena law and practice in both federal and state courts.

The Subcommittee’s investigation identified several concerns about the language of the

rule, which has remained essentially unchanged since its adoption in 1944, except for the addition

of (c)(3) in 2008 to implement the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. In brief, the rule’s existing guidance

about obtaining, reviewing, and responding to subpoenas to produce items is ambiguous and

incomplete, and it has produced conflicting interpretations that afflict multiple aspects of subpoena

practice. Even the Nixon standard itself is applied in different ways from district to district. That

Criminal Procedure 17(c) must satisfy the heightened standard applied in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683

(1974) – a question that Nixon expressly left open.” See Rand v. United States of America, Petition for a writ of

certiorari, No. 16-526, 2016 WL 6123829, at *i (Oct. 18, 2016). See United States v. Rand, 853 F.3d 451 (4th Cir.

2016), cert. denied, 580 U.S. 1001 (2016).

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

inconsistency, the Advisory Committee learned, has meant that access to evidence from third

parties is nearly impossible in some places, and much easier in others. In addition, the conflicting

interpretations have created uncertainty and increased costs for parties and courts.

More important, some of the most restrictive interpretations of the rule can deprive the

defense of a realistic opportunity to secure evidence needed for accurate adjudication. Many

practitioners related their experience with courts reading the rule to bar all ex parte motions and

subpoenas, or to mandate that everything produced must be provided to both sides. Attorneys noted

that without ex parte motions, “the government will be able to see what the defense is seeking and

then get a copy of the documents when they come in—even if he would not have been required to

disclose them to the government under Rule 16.” Minutes of the Oct. 27, 2022 Meeting of the

Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, at p. 18. One said, “it was “somewhat terrifying … that

a rule exists that can result in us actually not following or adhering to our ethical duties as defense

attorneys. It should not depend on how liberal the judge is in terms of his or her reading of the

statute.” Id. at p. 42. This attorney added, “Many things are left in the dark because, as a defense

attorney, you don’t want to run the risk of disclosing information that can end up harming your

client.” Id. at p. 58. Another attorney related this example:

[I]n a sexual assault the defense investigation uncovered from its own witness

interviews that the alleged victim, instead of immediately reporting the assault or

immediately going to a hospital and Medical Center, instead went to a casino and

spent considerable time there. … The videos would show that what happened was

inconsistent with the victim’s statement. The government had not turned over this

information, which wasn’t in its control. This evidence, which was critical to their

theory of defense, was in the hands of a third party. Disclosing the request for this

information would have tipped the hand of what their defense theory was and

identified the witnesses they were talking to. So her office very much wanted to file

this request for information from the casino ex parte and under seal. The trial ended

in an acquittal, and the information obtained by subpoena was very important.”

Id. at p. 29.

As for the Nixon test, defense practitioners related that judges had interpreted that test to

categorically prohibit subpoenas for impeachment evidence, or to prohibit a subpoena unless a

party first presents a nearly verbatim recital of the contents of each item sought as proof of its

certain admissibility. One participant related a case in which a subpoena for phone records

provided evidence that defendant was in fact innocent, and the charges were dropped on the first

day of trial. “But if there had been a motion to quash under Nixon,” he said, he “would have been

unable to satisfy the Nixon test.” Id. at p. 17. Another stated many courts “read the Nixon standard

to require you to describe the documents with super precision,” which he could rarely do. Another

agreed he cannot pass the Nixon standard unless he knows “exactly what this camera is going to

show or exactly what the phone records will say.” Id. at p. 42.

These strict readings are not just problematic, they are unnecessary. Despite repeated

inquiries to practitioners and other experts, no one reported that “fishing expeditions,” harassment,

unwarranted disclosure, or other abuses of Rule 17 existed or were more of a problem in the

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

jurisdictions that follow more flexible interpretations of the rule. Instead, both government and

defense practitioners reported that judges tend to manage subpoenas for sensitive information,

problematic parties or counsel, and other issues on a case-by-case basis, using tools such as

requiring motions before issuance, ordering returns to the court, in camera review, and strict

protective orders regulating who can access or review specific material obtained, for what purpose,

and how the material must be redacted, anonymized, stored, and destroyed.

The Subcommittee also hoped to clarify several procedural issues in the rule text and

expand, to some extent, access to third party information under the rule, while preserving sufficient

judicial control over the subpoena process. Its first discussion draft of an amendment:



required a motion and court order to ensure judicial oversight for every non-grand jury

subpoena to produce documents or information, not just for those seeking “personal

and confidential information” about a victim;



contained two separate sets of procedures—one for subpoenas seeking either “personal

or confidential information about a victim” or information likely to be “protected by [a

privilege, confidentiality protection, or privacy protection under federal or state law]”

and less rigorous set of procedures for subpoenas seeking other, unprotected

information;



included issuance standards for both sets of subpoenas with two requirements derived

from the Nixon test—the requesting party had to describe each designated item with

reasonable particularity and state facts showing that the item is not reasonably available

to the party from another source—but others that departed from the Nixon admissibility

standard. A subpoena for unprotected information required a “materiality” showing—

that the information is “material to preparing the prosecution or defense”—while a

subpoena for protected information required a showing that it is likely to be admissible

or exculpatory;



permitted production of the designated items to the requesting party’s counsel only

when the subpoena sought unprotected information; required for all other subpoenas

that the subpoena recipient turn over all items to the court: and then required the court

to review those items in camera and ensure that any disclosure complied with federal

law;



added a provision expressly authorizing ex parte subpoenas upon a showing of good

cause, and limiting disclosure of items produced to non-requesting parties; and



clarified which provisions of the rule applied to non-grand jury subpoenas only,

distinguishing provisions that governed grand jury subpoenas as well.

For a full day at its November 2024 meeting, Advisory Committee members and a dozen

invited defense, prosecution, privacy, and victim experts shared their views about the issues

highlighted in the discussion draft:

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules



Need for judicial oversight. Participants voiced strong support for more flexibility than

the draft allowed. They argued that many subpoenas are now available to the parties

without a motion and court order even when seeking production before trial, and that

they should remain so. They also recommended that the rule permit some subpoenas to

be returnable directly to the requesting party and not be returned to the court. There

was general agreement that in camera review by judges is burdensome, particularly

when a large amount of material is involved, and not needed in all cases. The

practitioners also emphasized that negotiation rather than litigation between the

requesting party and subpoena recipient is the norm for many cases and should be

encouraged. Protective orders are common, developed by the parties for court approval,

or by the court if there is an ex parte subpoena or the parties cannot agree.



Bifurcated approach to protected and unprotected information. This aspect of the

discussion draft received little support, with many participants questioning the need for

different standards for protected and unprotected information, and warning that

defining that distinction could create burdensome litigation.



Modifying the Nixon standard. Despite continued support by some for a more generous

standard allowing access to the information that would “lead to” admissible evidence,

others expressed concern that any change to the Nixon test could increase abuse by

defendants as well as decrease cooperation by victims and witnesses. Participants did

agree that it might be possible to reach consensus on a standard that would relax,

somewhat, Nixon’s “admissibility” requirement.



Allowing subpoenas for other types of proceedings. Participants favored adding text

that would clarify that subpoenas should be available to both parties for sentencing and

at least some evidentiary hearings in addition to trial, including hearings on suppression

motions.



Access to ex parte subpoenas. Participants generally agreed with the draft’s approach,

emphasizing that parties do sometimes need to proceed ex parte, and when material is

produced for an ex parte subpoena, disclosure to the opposing party should not be

required. Participants echoed the experience of those at earlier sessions who related

that when judges did not allow ex parte motions, defense counsel was left with two

untenable options: either risk harming the client by revealing defense strategy or even

uncovering inculpatory information the government would otherwise not have known,

or forego a subpoena, abandoning pursuit of information that they believe is essential

to defend the client.

Using this helpful guidance, the Subcommittee developed the present draft, which adopts

a more incremental, flexible approach, and attempts to replicate and preserve the policies followed

where subpoena practice is reportedly working well. At its April 2025 meeting, the Committee

rejected (by a vote of 8 to 4) a more significant departure from Nixon that would have required

that the items be likely to “lead to” admissible evidence, and also rejected (by a vote of 11 to 1) a

proposed addition to Rule 17(c)(3) that would have expanded the motion and notice requirements

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

in that subsection to include subpoenas seeking personal and confidential information about

witnesses as well as victims.

After making several minor modifications, the Advisory Committee unanimously

approved the draft amendments to the Rule and Committee Note as ready for referral to the

Standing Committee for publication. The attached versions include several style changes

incorporated after that approval.

Overview of the Substantive Amendments to Rule 17

The Advisory Committee’s proposed amendments to Rule 17 are concentrated in section (c)

of the rule, which governs subpoenas to produce documents and other items. A list of the seven

primary issues addressed in the amendments appears below. The draft Committee Note contains

additional explanations of the proposed amendments.

(1)

Application to Proceedings Other Than Trial

Some courts had interpreted the existing language in Rule 17(c)(1), which refers only to

“trial,” as barring subpoenas for all proceedings other than trial. This interpretation leaves the

defense with no mechanism to obtain evidence from third parties for proceedings other than trial,

and drastically limits the government’s options.2 To fix this, new Rule 17(c)(2)(A) expressly

authorizes the use of subpoenas at sentencing and suppression hearings (where these subpoenas

are already used regularly in many districts), as well as detention and revocation hearings, where

there is statutory or rule authority for parties to present evidence and the need for third party

evidence arises on occasion.

The Advisory Committee had an extended discussion of which proceedings should be

listed in the rule. The Advisory Committee decided to include revocations on the list after multiple

members – defense, prosecution, and judges – spoke about the occasional need for subpoenas for

revocation proceedings to obtain, for example, police reports, body camera footage, and treatment

records. As for detention hearings, everyone agreed it would be rare to use a 17(c) subpoena at an

initial detention, but a clear majority expressed support for including them in the amended rule.

The members’ reasons included the possibility of a reconsideration of detention where items such

as employment records would be useful, the importance of this stage, and the Bail Reform Act’s

allowance of the presentation of witnesses and information. There was no support for attempting

to specify which detention hearings should allow subpoenas and which should not.

Responding to the concern that there would be few limits on subpoenas when the rules of

evidence do not apply, members noted the party seeking the subpoena would also have to describe

it with particularity, establish the recipient has the information, and that it cannot be obtained any

other way, and that even where judges have accepted subpoenas for detention hearings, they have

seldom been used.

The government may obtain evidence from third parties for non-trial proceedings with a search warrant, or, under

limited circumstances, with a grand jury subpoena.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

The amendment also provides flexibility to the court to allow the use of subpoenas for other

evidentiary hearings in an individual case. As explained in the proposed Committee Note,

proceedings such as preliminary hearings occur very early in the process, and there is seldom time

to seek a subpoena. But there are rare cases in which there may be an opportunity to seek a

subpoena and a need to do so, and the rule provides flexibility for the courts to authorize subpoenas

in such cases.

(2)

Codifying a Somewhat Loosened Nixon Standard

Rather than substituting an entirely different standard for non-grand-jury subpoenas

seeking the production of documents or other items, the amendment makes a more incremental

change, codifying in Rule 17(c)(2)(B) an interpretation of the Nixon standard that is slightly looser

than what some courts have demanded. Some courts have required the requesting party to prove

with certainty that the information would be admitted, thus barring, for example, subpoenas for

impeachment evidence until after the other party had presented its witnesses. The Advisory

Committee was persuaded these decisions had applied the admissibility requirement in Nixon’s

interpretation of prior text too rigidly. In other districts, judges have found the “admissibility”

requirement of Nixon can be satisfied by a showing of likely admissibility, and defense and

government practitioners in such districts reported no problems. Retaining some relationship to

admissibility narrowed the scope of what can be sought by tying that information to the designated

proceeding and further preventing “fishing expeditions.” As the Criminal Division Chief for the

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina stated at the Committee’s

November meeting, “Admissibility is what tethers it to the trial or hearing; if you sever that, it

becomes a completely different beast.” Minutes of the November 6-7, 2024, Meeting of the

Advisory Committee for the Criminal Rules, p. 39.

The Advisory Committee, by a vote of 8 to 4, adopted the “likely admissible” language to

indicate that somewhat more flexibility is intended. In doing so, it rejected an alternative

formulation— “likely to lead to” admissible evidence—that would have nudged the amendments

even closer to the standards supported by the New York City Bar Committee, NACDL, and many

of the defense practitioners who spoke with the Advisory Committee.

Other aspects of the standard codified in the rule are also derived from the Nixon decision.

Requiring that items be described with reasonable particularity is intended to replace whatever

“specificity” metric courts had been applying under Nixon. That the items are not reasonably

available from another source replaces the Nixon mandate that a party show that the items “are not

otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence.” That the items

are “likely to be possessed by the recipient,” is not separately addressed in Nixon. But, like the

other requirements, is an important aspect of protecting against “fishing expeditions,” which Nixon

does mention. In addition to the statement in (2)(B), both (c)(2)(D) and (c)(7) reference these

modified Nixon requirements as necessary showings when seeking a subpoena by motion or

defending a subpoena against a motion to quash.

The proposed amendments continue to restrict Rule 17 subpoenas so that they are not tools

for discovery (e.g., by limiting them to items described with reasonable particularity that are

“likely admissible” as evidence in a designated proceeding). But the amendments do not perpetuate

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

the outdated policy of requiring a motion and heightened justification whenever a subpoena seeks

production in advance of trial. Nixon’s standard included the statement that a subpoena to produce

items before trial is not available unless the party “cannot properly prepare for trial without such

production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may

tend unreasonably to delay the trial.” Many courts applying the Nixon test today often do not

discuss this requirement, instead sticking to “relevance, specificity, and admissibility.” And for

good reason. When Rule 17 was adopted and its requirements first developed, pretrial access to

evidence was much more restricted than it is now. The rule’s authorization of production in

advance of trial to avoid delay and expedite trial was novel, and the Court termed it the rule’s

“chief innovation.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698. These days, mid-trial production and other late

revelations tend to be unwelcome surprises or lapses, not standard procedure.

(3)

When Motion and Order Required

New Rule 17(c)(2)(C) provides a clear rule explaining when a party must obtain the court’s

permission by motion before serving a subpoena and when the party may serve a subpoena without

motion. Courts continue to differ on when a motion is required based in part on the ambiguity of

the language in Rule 17(c)(1), and the Nixon Court’s interpretation of this provision as requiring

court authorization for a subpoena seeking production in advance of trial. In many districts,

motions before issuance are not routinely required. Practitioners and judges expressed significant

concerns about the burdens that a motion requirement for all or most Rule 17(c) subpoenas would

create in their districts, for both counsel and courts. 3

The added text creates a default, allowing a party to serve the subpoena without a motion

unless a motion is required by local rule, court order, or by Rule 17(c)(3)—the existing provision

regulating subpoenas seeking certain victim information—or new Rule 17(c)(4) requiring a motion

before a self-represented party may serve a subpoena to produce items. The new provision ensures

court supervision when needed most, and it provides flexibility to courts to add oversight to

accommodate particular types of subpoenas or individual cases.

The Committee Note also suggests that even without a motion, other procedures in the rule

or otherwise available to the court, such as protective orders, are available to control potential

abuse of the subpoena process by the parties.

Consider this description from a CJA attorney:

In her experience, an attorney’s first Rule 17(c) motion takes 20 hours, which is close to $3,000 of

taxpayer money. Subsequent ones now take her three hours, which is $500.00 of taxpayer money.

Additionally, there will be a hearing, which adds to the cost. All of this cost is imposed on many

people who are not bad actors. She explained that even putting in three hours plus court time and

then potentially fighting with the recipient means she will hit her funding cap really early as a CJA

lawyer, requiring her to apply to exceed the cap. It requires her to explain things more and raises a

worry about voucher cutting. If she did a lot of investigative work, but the subpoenas don’t pan out,

she worries that the judge may not want to approve funds to compensate for her work.

Minutes of the Oct. 27, 2022 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, p. 43.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

(4)

Proceeding Ex Parte

New Rule 17(c)(2)(E) and (F) respond to concerns about interpretations of the existing text

of the rule that mandate disclosure of every motion and subpoena to all parties. The Advisory

Committee concluded that both the defense and the government had advanced persuasive reasons

for proceeding ex parte under Rule 17(c), and that permitting ex parte motions and production had

been working well in many districts.

New subsection (E) to Rule 17(c)(2) provides that upon a showing of good cause a court

must permit a party to file ex parte a required motion for a subpoena under Rule 17(c). The

proposed amendment uses mandatory language to avoid any possibility that an individual judge,

or a court in a local rule, could prohibit ex parte motions. New (c)(2)(F) also states that a party has

no duty to inform the other parties about a subpoena when no motion is required, absent an order

to do so.

(5)

Place of Production

New Rule 17(c)(5) clarifies the circumstances that require a subpoena recipient to produce

the designated items to the court rather than to the requesting party. This is yet another issue that

has divided courts interpreting the rule’s existing text in Rule 17(c)(1). Some courts read the rule

as requiring recipients of all subpoenas to produce the designated items to the court. Others

regularly permit returns directly to the party seeking the items. The revised text again adopts a

default rule, mandating returns to the court if the requesting party is self-represented, unless the

court orders otherwise. It also makes returns to a party’s counsel discretionary, allowing courts to

determine when they wish to receive and review subpoenaed materials before receipt by counsel.

(6)

Preserving Disclosure Policies in Rule 16

New Rule 17(c)(6) resolves another dispute about the meaning of the rule’s existing text,

which some courts have read to allow them to order a subpoena recipient to provide all items

received to the opposing party, regardless of whether they would be subject to discovery under

Rule 16.

The Advisory Committee recognized that the policies regulating disclosure between parties

have been carefully codified in Rule 16 and other discovery rules. Rule 17(c) should not modify

them. Accordingly, the new text states that disclosure of information and other items between

parties, including information and items a party may obtain by subpoena, is regulated by Rule 16

and other discovery rules.

(7)

Clarifying Which Provisions Apply to Different Proceedings

To improve clarity and avoid confusion, the amendments clearly indicate what types of

proceedings are governed by each subdivision in Rule 17:

Subdivision (a) applies to all subpoenas: those to testify and those to produce material, and

to grand jury and non-grand-jury subpoenas.

Excerpt from the May 15, 2025 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

Subdivision (b) applies only to subpoenas to testify.

Subdivision (c) applies only to subpoenas to produce designated items. Within subdivision

(c), paragraphs (2) through (6) apply only to non-grand-jury subpoenas.

Subdivisions (d) and (e) regarding service apply to both subpoenas for testimony and

subpoenas to produce designated items.

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1

Rule 17.

(a)

Subpoena

Content

In General. A subpoena must state

the court’s name and the proceeding’s title of the

proceeding, include the court’s seal of the court, and

command require the witness recipient to attend and

testify or produce designated items at the a specified

time and place the subpoena specifies. The clerk

must issue a blank subpoena—signed and sealed—to

the party requesting it, and that party, who must fill

in the blanks before the subpoena is served.

(b)

Subpoena to Testify—Defendant Unable to Pay

Costs and Witness Fees. Upon a defendant’s ex

parte application, the court must order that a

subpoena be issued for a named witness if the

New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is

lined through.

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

defendant shows an inability to pay the witness’s fees

and the necessity of the witness’s presence for an

adequate defense. If the court orders a subpoena to

be issued, the and an inability to pay the witness’s

fees. The process costs and witness fees will then be

paid in the same manner as those paidthey are for

witnesses the responding to government subpoenas.

(c)

Producing Documents and Subpoena to Produce

Data, Objects, or Other Items.

(1)

In General—Items Obtainable. A subpoena

may order require the witness recipient to

produce any books, papers, documents, item,

including any data or information or any

book, paper, document, or other objects the

subpoena designates object. The court may

direct the witness to produce the designated

items in court before trial or before they are

to be offered in evidence. When the items

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

arrive, the court may permit the parties and

their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.

(2)

Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On

motion made promptly, the court may quash

or modify the subpoena if compliance would

be unreasonable or oppressive. Non-Grand-

Jury Subpoena—When Available; Required

Content

Disclosure.

(A)

and

Limitations;

Issuance;

When Available. A non-grand-jury

subpoena is available for a trial; for a

hearing on detention, suppression,

sentencing, or revocation; or—with

the

individual case—for any additional

evidentiary hearing.

(B)

court’s

permission

Required Content and Limitations.

The subpoena must describe each

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

designated item with reasonable

particularity and seek only items that:

(i)

are likely to be possessed by

the subpoena’s recipient;

(ii)

are not reasonably available to

the party from another source;

and

(iii)

are, or contain information

that is, likely to be admissible

as evidence in the designated

proceeding.

(C)

Motion and Order Not Ordinarily

Required. A motion and order are not

required before service of a non-

grand-jury subpoena unless (3) or (4),

a local rule, or a court order requires

them.

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(D)

Necessary Showing In a Required

Motion. The movant must:

(i)

describe each designated item

with reasonable particularity;

and

(ii)

item satisfies (2)(B) (i)-(iii).

state facts showing that each

(E)

Ex-Parte Motion. The court must, for

good cause, permit the party to file

the motion ex parte.

(F)

Disclosure When No Motion Is

Required.

required, a party need not disclose to

any other party that it is seeking or has

served the subpoena, unless a local

rule

otherwise.

When

court

order

motion

provides

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(3)

Non-Grand-Jury Subpoena for Personal or

Confidential Information About a Victim.

(A)

Motion and Order Required. After a

complaint, indictment, or information

is filed, a non-grand-jury subpoena

requiring the production of personal

or confidential information about a

victim may be served on a third party

only by court order upon motion.

Before entering the order and unless

there are exceptional circumstances,

the court must require giving notice to

the victim so that the victim can move

to quash or modify the subpoena or

otherwise object.

100

(B)

Notice to a Victim. Unless there are

101

exceptional circumstances, the court

102

must, before entering the order,

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

103

require giving notice to the victim so

104

that the victim can move to quash or

105

modify the subpoena or otherwise

106

object.

107

(4)

Subpoena by a Self-Represented Party. A

108

subpoena is available to a self-represented

109

party only after the party:

110

(A)

files a motion;

111

(B)

makes the showing described in

(2)(D); and

112

(C)

113

114

(5)

obtains an order.

Place to Produce the Designated Items.

115

Unless the court orders otherwise, a subpoena

116

requested by a self-represented party must

117

require

118

designated items to the court. A non-grand-

119

jury subpoena requested by a represented

the

recipient

produce

the

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

120

party may require the recipient to produce the

121

designated items to that party’s counsel.

(6)

122

Disclosing to Other Parties the Items

123

Received. A party must disclose to an

124

opposing party an item the party receives

125

from a subpoena’s recipient only if the item

126

is discoverable.

(7)

127

Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On

128

motion made promptly, the court may quash

129

or modify the subpoena if compliance would

130

be unreasonable or oppressive. A party

131

responding to a motion to quash a non-grand-

132

jury subpoena must make the showing

133

described in (2)(D).

134

(d)

Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any

135

nonparty who is at least 18 years old may serve a

136

subpoena. The server must deliver a copy of the

137

subpoena to the witness or to the subpoena’s

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

138

recipient and must tender to the witness one day’s

139

witness-attendance fee and the legal mileage

140

allowance. But the The server need not tender the

141

attendance fee or mileage allowance if_when the

142

United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency

143

has requested the subpoena.

144

(e)

Place of Service.

(1)

145

In the United States. A subpoena requiring a

146

witness to attend a hearing or trial—or

147

requiring a recipient to produce designated

148

items—may be served at any place within the

149

United States.

(2)

150

In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a

151

foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs

152

the subpoena’s service.

153

154

155

(f)

IssuingSubpoena for a Deposition Subpoena.

(1)

Issuance. A court order to take a deposition

authorizes the clerk in the district where the

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

156

deposition is to be taken to issue a subpoena

157

for any witness named or described in the

158

order.

(2)

159

Place. After considering the convenience of

160

the witness and the parties, the court may

161

order—and the subpoena may require—the

162

witness to appear anywhere the court

163

designates.

164

(g)

Contempt Order for Disobeying a Subpoena. The

165

court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in

166

contempt a witness or subpoena recipient who,

167

without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued

168

by a federal court in that district. AUnder 28 U.S.C.

169

§ 636(e), a magistrate judge may hold in contempt a

170

witness or subpoena recipient who, without adequate

171

excuse, disobeys a subpoena issued by that

172

magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e).

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

173

(h)

Information Not Subject to a Subpoena. No party

174

may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a

175

prospective witness under this rule. Rule 26.2

176

governs the production of the statement.

177

Committee Note

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

The amendments to Rule 17 respond to gaps and

ambiguities in its text that have contributed to conflicting

interpretations in the courts and difficulties in application.

The changes include revisions that clarify the procedures for

subpoenas to produce data, objects, or other items and the

availability of such subpoenas for proceedings other than

trial, as well as revisions that delineate which provisions

apply to certain types of subpoenas. The amendments also

include stylistic revisions to text and headings.

187

188

189

190

Rule 17(a). In addition to stylistic changes, the text

in (a)(1) has been revised to clarify that it applies to

subpoenas for producing items as well as those for

testimony.

191

192

193

194

Rule 17(b) formerly headed “Defendant Unable to

Pay,” has been retitled to clarify that it applies only to

subpoenas for testimony. Changes to the text are stylistic

only.

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

Rule 17(c), covering subpoenas to produce data,

objects, or other items, has been revised to address multiple

issues with the prior language that had contributed to

conflicting interpretations in the courts. Formerly it had

three subsections, now it has seven. The changes are

intended to promote clarity about what the Rule requires,

while safeguarding the discretion of courts to tailor subpoena

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

202

203

204

205

practice to the circumstances of a district or case. The

section’s heading —“Subpoena to Produce Information,

Objects, or Other Items”—has been revised to more

accurately describe the amended language in (c)(1).

206

207

208

209

210

211

Rule 17(c)(1) continues to describe what a subpoena

may obtain, but it has been revised to refer to “items” that

include not only data, but also any “information” or objects.

This recognizes that parties use subpoenas to obtain

electronically stored information and other intangible items

in addition to “data,” “do

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.