# Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, (2026) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/federal_court_rules%3Aus-national%3Ab0799c6b886e330c ## Record - **Collection:** Court rules - **Document type:** Court rule ## 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 25 Bankruptcy Rules 2003, 5005, 8011, 9006, 9036, and 9037 Civil Rules 5, 5.2, 6, and 55 Criminal Rules 11, 32, 45, 49, and 49.1 Evidence Rules 104 and 902 Written Comments Due By February 15, 2027 Prepared by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Judicial Conference of the United States August 2026 COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544 JAMES C. DEVER III CHAIR CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES ALLISON H. EID APPELLATE RULES CAROLYN A. DUBAY SECRETARY REBECCA B. CONNELLY BANKRUPTCY RULES SARAH S. VANCE CIVIL RULES MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CRIMINAL RULES JESSE M. FURMAN EVIDENCE RULES MEMORANDUM TO: The Bench, Bar, and Public FROM: Honorable James C. Dever III, Chair Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure DATE: August 14, 2026 RE: Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules and Forms ____________________________________________________________________________ The Advisory Committees of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure have published proposed amendments to the federal rules of practice and procedure and are seeking public feedback. The proposed amendments to Appellate Rule 25, Bankruptcy Rules 5005, 8011, 9006, 9036, Civil Rules 5 and 6, and Criminal Rules 45 and 49 relate to the ability of self-represented litigants to use a federal court’s electronic filing system to file and serve documents. The proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2, and Criminal Rule 49.1 relate to enhanced protection of taxpayer identification numbers and minors’ names in public court filings. Other proposed amendments include: Bankruptcy Rule 2003 (relating to meetings of creditors); Civil Rule 55 (relating to the clerk’s entry of default); Criminal Rules 11 and 32 (relating to pleas and sentencing); Evidence Rule 104 (relating to deciding preliminary issues of fact); and Evidence Rule 902(1) (relating to self-authentication of public records of federally recognized Indian tribes). The text of the proposed rule amendments and supporting materials are posted on the Judiciary’s website at: https://www.uscourts.gov/formsrules/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment . Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 2 of 209 Memorandum to the Bench, Bar, and Public Page 2 Opportunity to Submit Written Comments Individuals who wish to submit written comments regarding one or more of the proposed amendments must file their comments no later than February 15, 2027 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov/. Written comments must clearly identify the proposed amendment or amendments that are the subject of the comments. Please note that all written comments on proposed rule amendments are part of the official record and will be made publicly available. Opportunity to Testify at Public Hearings Individuals who wish to present oral testimony regarding one or more of the proposed rule amendments must submit a request to testify to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Rules Committee Staff, by email to RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov. Requests to testify must be received no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2026, regardless of the hearing date. If requests to testify are received, the Advisory Committees will conduct virtual public hearings on the proposed rule amendments on the following dates:      Appellate Rules: January 25, 2027; additional day on February 1, 2027, if needed. Bankruptcy Rules: January 8, 2027; additional day on February 9, 2027, if needed. Civil Rules: January 13, 2027; additional day on January 26, 2027, if needed. Criminal Rules: January 20, 2027; additional day on January 27, 2027, if needed. Evidence Rules: January 11, 2027; additional day on January 28, 2027, if needed. Witnesses who request to testify by the deadline will receive a confirmation email with instructions on participating in the public hearing. Witnesses are strongly encouraged to submit a written summary of their proposed testimony by the deadline provided in the confirmation email (generally two weeks prior to the earliest of the two scheduled hearing dates for the relevant Advisory Committee). Providing such a summary alerts the Advisory Committee to the points that will be made and permits committee members to consider whether they have questions before the hearing. It also ensures that all the points the witness wants to make are in the record. If no requests to testify as to a proposed amendment are received by the deadline, the scheduled hearing is subject to cancellation. In such case, the Advisory Committees will conduct their deliberations based upon the written comments. Procedure After the Close of the Comment Period After any public hearings are conducted and the public comment period closes on February 15, 2027, the written comments and oral testimony will be carefully considered by the relevant Advisory Committee. During this review, the Advisory Committee may make revisions to the published version of the proposed amendment to address the written comments, oral testimony, or other concerns raised by committee members during this review. At the conclusion of this review, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 3 of 209 Memorandum to the Bench, Bar, and Public Page 3 the Advisory Committee will either withdraw the proposed rule amendment or approve it, either as published or with revisions to the rule text or committee note. Under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072-2077, upon approval of the proposed rule amendments by the relevant Advisory Committees, the next step is consideration by the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Standing Committee). The Standing Committee may approve the proposed amendment, reject it, or approve it with revisions to the rule text or committee note. If approved by the Standing Committee, the rule amendments are then approved by the Judicial Conference, transmitted to the United States Supreme Court for consideration and adoption, and if adopted by the Court, transmitted to Congress by May 1, 2028. Absent congressional action, the final rule amendments will take effect on December 1, 2028. If you have questions about the rulemaking process or pending rule amendments, please contact the Rules Committee Staff at 202-502-1820 or visit https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 4 of 209 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW: Proposals Relating to Electronic Filing and Service by Self-Represented Litigants..........................8 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing & Service (May 2026) ..........9 OVERVIEW: Proposals Relating to Privacy Rules in Public Court Filings ........................................................................32 Report on the Privacy Rule Amendments (May 2026) ..............................33 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE .............................35 Excerpt from Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules (May 2026) .................................................................36 Rule 25. Filing and Service .................................................................38 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE .........................57 Excerpt from Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules (May 2026) ..............................................................58 Rule 2003. Meeting of Creditors or Equity Security Holders .................61 Rule 5005. Filing Papers and Sending Copies to the United States Trustee ............................................................64 Rule 8011. Filing and Service; Signature ................................................73 Rule 9006. Computing and Extending Time; Motions ...........................91 Rule 9036. Electronic Notice and Service ...............................................92 Rule 9037. Protecting Privacy for Filings .............................................101 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 5 of 209 TABLE OF CONTENTS FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE .......................................108 Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (May 2026) .......................................................................109 Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (December 2025) ..............................................................111 Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers ..................114 Rule 5.2. Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court ...........130 Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers ..................................................................................137 Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment ..................................................138 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ..............................142 Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (May 2026).................................................................143 Rule 11. Pleas ....................................................................................154 Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment ...................................................156 Rule 45. Computing and Extending Time .........................................157 Rule 49. Serving and Filing Papers ...................................................158 Rule 49.1. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court ..........175 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ........................................................182 Excerpt from the Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (May 2026) ................................................................183 Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating .................................187 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions.........................................................189 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 6 of 209 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX .................................................................................................193 Procedures for Committees on Rules of Practice and Procedure ..........................................................................................194 List of Committee Members ...................................................................199 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 7 of 209 OVERVIEW: Proposals Relating to Electronic Filing and Service by Self-Represented Litigants Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 8 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 2026 TO: Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure FROM: Catherine T. Struve RE: Project on self-represented litigants’ filing and service I write to provide an overview of the package of proposed amendments relating to service and electronic filing by self-represented litigants. This package includes proposed amendments to Appellate Rule 25, Bankruptcy Rules 5005, 8011, 9006, and 9036, Civil Rules 5 and 6, and Criminal Rules 45 and 49. I enclose a chart showing how components of the package compare across the rule sets. I also enclose the proposed amendments. As the Committee knows, this project focuses on two broad topics: (1) increases to electronic access to court by self-represented litigants (whether via the court’s electronic-filing system or alternative means) and (2) service (of papers subsequent to the complaint) by selfrepresented litigants on those who will receive an electronic notice of filing (“notice of case activity”) through the court’s electronic-filing system or through a court-based electronicnoticing program. As to service, the proposed amendments would eliminate the requirement of separate (paper) service (of documents after the complaint) on a litigant who receives a notice of case activity through the court’s electronic-filing system or a court-based electronic-noticing program. As to filing, the proposed amendments would: (1) presumptively permit self-represented litigants to file electronically (unless a court order or local rule bars them from doing so) and (2) provide that a local rule or general court order that bars self-represented litigants from using the court’s electronic-filing system must include reasonable exceptions or must permit the use of another electronic method for filing documents and receiving electronic notice of activity in the case. A court could comply with the amended filing rule by doing either of the following: (1) allowing reasonable access for self-represented litigants to the court’s electronic-filing system; or (2) not allowing self-represented litigants to access the court’s electronic-filing system, but providing them with an alternative electronic means for filing (such as by email or upload) and an alternative electronic means for receiving notice of court filings and orders (such as an electronic noticing program). Under the amended filing rule, a court would need to adopt a local 1 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 9 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service rule or court order disallowing access to the court’s electronic-filing system for self-represented litigants if it wanted to foreclose such access; the default would be access. The rule would permit a court to enter an order barring a particular litigant from using the court’s electronic-filing system. Part I of this memo recounts a brief history of the project, including efforts to coordinate the work across the four sets of rules in order to produce a consistent set of provisions. Part II highlights key features of the proposed amendments. Part III discusses the remaining variances across the four sets of proposed amendments, including (in Part III.C) one aspect of the proposed Note language that the Standing Committee may wish to consider standardizing across the rule sets. I. Brief history of the project The proposals discussed here grow out of a multi-year, cross-committee study of electronic court access for self-represented litigants and of the service consequences that flow from increasingly electronic court processes. That study began after Judge Bates, then Chair of the Standing Committee, convened a working group composed of reporters, Rules Office attorneys, and Federal Judicial Center researchers to consider pending suggestions relating to electronic filing by self-represented litigants. (The working group would later expand to include the relevant advisory committees’ clerk representatives, who worked closely with us to provide real-world expertise and drafting help.) The group first met in December 2021. It was asked not only to consider possible rule amendments, but also to gather information about actual court practices, especially in light of developments after the 2018 electronic-filing amendments and the experience of courts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2018 amendments had adopted a general rule requiring represented parties to file electronically, while treating unrepresented litigants differently. Under the current national rules, self-represented litigants generally must file non-electronically unless authorized to file electronically by court order or local rule. The central policy question for the working group was whether developments since 2018 justified moving away from that default approach. The suggestions that prompted renewed consideration shared a common concern: that the existing rules often left self-represented litigants with less timely, less convenient, and less equal access to the courts than represented litigants. A number of 2020 submissions urged that selfrepresented litigants be allowed to file electronically for reasons of fairness, safety, disability accommodation, and equal access. Several of those suggestions were spurred by pandemic conditions and stressed the burdens and health risks of requiring paper filing through the mail or in person, as well as the disadvantages self-represented litigants face when they must wait for paper orders while represented litigants receive immediate electronic notice. 1 John Hawkinson pointed to districts that categorically barred non-attorney pro se litigants from even seeking 1 See, e.g., Suggestion 20-CV-J (Dr. Usha Jain), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/formsrules/records-rules-committees/suggestions/usha-jain-20-cv-j. 2 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 10 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service electronic-filing privileges and suggested that the rules should discourage such blanket bans, perhaps by indicating that leave should be freely given. 2 Sai advocated reversing the presumption against access and replacing it with nationwide presumptive permission for pro se use of CM/ECF, including for case-initiating filings; treating pro se status as presumptive good cause for nonelectronic filing; forbidding restrictions based solely on pro se or non-attorney status; permitting individualized prohibitions for good cause, such as vexatious conduct; and providing parity with attorney filers as to training and registration, without fees. 3 From the beginning, committee discussions suggested that the problem was not unitary. The appellate courts appeared to be more receptive to self-represented electronic filing than district courts, and bankruptcy courts presented distinct concerns because of case-initiation effects, signature issues, and the availability of electronic self-representation systems. Meanwhile, another issue surfaced: when a self-represented litigant filed on paper or by another non-CM/ECF method and the clerk’s office then uploaded the filing to CM/ECF, should the rules still require that litigant to make separate traditional service on parties who would receive a notice of electronic filing anyway? The FJC’s 2022 study of federal courts’ electronic filing practices for pro se litigants provided the project’s first broad empirical baseline.4 That study showed substantial variation across court types and districts. The courts of appeals were the most receptive to CM/ECF access for non-incarcerated self-represented litigants; district courts were much more mixed; and bankruptcy courts rarely gave self-represented debtors CM/ECF access, though a number used electronic self-representation systems. The study also confirmed that “electronic filing” could mean different things: full CM/ECF access, filing by email, and electronic upload portals. 5 2 See Suggestion 20-CV-EE (John A. Hawkinson), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/formsrules/records-rules-committees/suggestions/john-hawkinson-20-cv-ee. 3 See Suggestion 21-CV-J (Sai), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/recordsrules-committees/suggestions/sai-21-cv-j. 4 See Tim Reagan, Carly Giffin, and Roy Germano, Federal Courts’ Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants (FJC 2022), available at https://www.fjc.gov/content/368499/federal-courts-electronicfiling-pro-se-litigants. An additional FJC study on filing times underscored one practical consequence of electronic access: because clerk’s offices are open only during limited daytime hours, while electronic filing ordinarily remains available until midnight, represented litigants are often able to file after counter hours; indeed, the study found that nearly one third of district-court responses were filed after 5:00 p.m. See Tim Reagan et al., Electronic Filing Times in Federal Courts 4 (FJC 2022), available at https://www.fjc.gov/content/365889/electronic-filing-timesfederal-courts. 5 An FJC study of local rules, published in 2025, confirmed that local practice in the district courts remains varied: “more than two thirds of the federal district courts permit self-represented litigants to use the court’s electronic filing system at least on a case-by-case basis,” while 29 3 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 11 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service The advisory committees’ discussions in fall 2022 and early 2023 brought the project into sharper focus. Across the committees, members raised a number of concerns: the difficulty of case initiation in CM/ECF, the possibility of inappropriate filings, burdens on clerks’ offices, training needs, cybersecurity, privacy and sealing issues, and the special problems posed by prisoner and bankruptcy litigation. At the same time, many participants emphasized the benefits of broader electronic access: fewer paper filings, reduced mailing burdens, more timely receipt of court orders and notices, and fewer disputes about what had been filed and when. The Bankruptcy Rules Committee showed substantial sympathy for the project’s access-to-courts rationale but also voiced concerns about screening, signatures, and bankruptcy matters that featured multiple unrepresented litigants. In the Civil Rules Committee discussions, some skepticism was voiced about whether some aspects of the matter were better handled through technology and administration rather than rules. The Appellate Rules Committee appeared relatively open to broader access, reflecting existing appellate practice. And the Criminal Rules Committee, while seeing less urgency in expanding filing access because of the small number of nonincarcerated self-represented criminal litigants, showed real interest in the service issue because it could affect incarcerated litigants and § 2255 movants who otherwise would spend time and limited funds sending paper copies to recipients already receiving electronic notice. To test the service issue and the practical consequences of broader access, Dr. Tim Reagan and I conducted follow-up interviews in spring 2023 with court personnel from districts that had eliminated redundant service requirements (some of which had also broadened electronic access).6 Interviewees from districts that exempted self-represented paper filers from separately serving CM/ECF participants reported that the practice worked well and imposed no additional burden on clerks’ offices. The interviews also suggested that courts providing CM/ECF access or other electronic pathways to self-represented litigants generally viewed those programs positively, citing reduced paper handling, easier service of court orders, and creation of a reliable electronic record. Although questions remained about sealed filings, staffing, training, and the rare case involving multiple self-represented litigants, the interviews materially strengthened the case for a service amendment and narrowed the factual uncertainties surrounding increased access. By 2023 and 2024, work focused on the two subjects now reflected in the current districts “generally prohibit” such use; the study also found continued use in a number of courts of alternatives such as email filing, online portals, and electronic-noticing programs. See Tim Reagan, United States District Courts’ Local Rules and Procedures on Electronic Filing by SelfRepresented Litigants 1 (FJC 2025), available at https://www.fjc.gov/content/391989/unitedstates-district-courts-local-rules-and-procedures-electronic-filing-self. 6 See September 18, 2023 memorandum concerning spring 2023 district-court interviews, included starting at page 264 of the Civil Rules Committee’s fall 2023 agenda book, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/202310_civil_rules_committee_meeting_agenda_book_11-6_final_0.pdf. 4 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 12 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service proposals. The first concerns filing: whether the rules should presumptively permit selfrepresented litigants to file electronically, subject to court order or local rule, and whether courts that generally bar use of the court’s electronic-filing system should be required either to make reasonable exceptions or to provide another electronic means for filing and receiving notice. The second concerns service: whether the rules should eliminate the requirement that a selfrepresented litigant separately serve papers filed after the complaint on persons who will receive a notice of filing through the court’s electronic-filing system or a court-based electronic-noticing program. In fall 2024, the committees reviewed a tentative sketch of a possible amendment to Civil Rule 5 that embodied those two policy choices. The Bankruptcy Rules Committee’s position changed significantly over the course of the project. Although bankruptcy participants were initially sympathetic to the project’s access-tocourts rationale, by late 2024 and early 2025 the Committee appeared likely to decline participation because of concerns about case initiation, signatures and verification, burdens on clerk’s offices, inappropriate filings, and the possibility of multiple self-represented participants who might not know whom they still had to serve by paper. In April 2025, however, rather than definitively opting out, the Committee referred the matter to its Technology, Privacy, and Public Access Subcommittee for further study. In summer 2025, that Subcommittee concluded that the Committee should join the project at least through publication, both to preserve consistency with the other rules sets and to obtain the benefit of public comment. The Committee voted in September 2025 to participate on that basis. At the same time, some Bankruptcy Rules Committee members continued to express reservations and indicated that they viewed publication as a way to gather further information; depending on the comments received, they might oppose final adoption after publication. By early spring 2026 the working-group participants had fashioned the coordinated set of proposed amendments. Prior to the Advisory Committee meetings, the Style Consultants to the Standing Committee provided a thorough and helpful review of the package of proposed amendments. II. Key features of the proposals The proposed amendments address two related topics: electronic filing by selfrepresented litigants and service of papers after the complaint on persons who receive electronic notice through the court’s filing system or a court-based electronic-noticing program. Across the affected rules, the proposals would move the national rules away from a presumption against electronic access for self-represented litigants and toward a presumption in favor of such access, while preserving courts’ authority to impose reasonable limits. At the same time, the proposals would eliminate redundant paper service when the court’s system will generate a notice of case activity to the recipient. As to filing, the central change is that self-represented litigants would be presumptively allowed to use the court’s electronic-filing system to file papers and receive notice of activity in 5 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 13 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service the case, unless a court order or local rule provides otherwise. Under the current rules, the default runs in the opposite direction: a self-represented litigant may file electronically only if a court order or local rule allows it. The proposed amendments would reverse that presumption in Appellate Rule 25, Bankruptcy Rules 5005 and 8011, Civil Rule 5, and Criminal Rule 49. In the Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Rules, the proposals would retain the existing authority to require electronic filing by an unrepresented litigant by case-specific order or by local rule with reasonable exceptions. The Criminal Rules proposal differs slightly in wording because Criminal Rule 49 currently does not authorize requiring all self-represented parties to file electronically, but the proposal likewise would allow self-represented parties to use the system unless restricted by order or local rule. The proposals do not create an unlimited right of electronic access. Each set of amendments would expressly authorize courts to impose reasonable conditions and restrictions on access. The Committee Notes give examples such as limiting access to nonincarcerated litigants, requiring training or certifications, restricting certain categories of filings, or denying or revoking access for a particular litigant. But the proposals would also place a new national limit on blanket local bans: a court could not bar all self-represented litigants from using the court’s electronic-filing system unless the prohibition either includes reasonable exceptions or is paired with another electronic method for filing papers (such as email filing or an upload portal) and receiving notice (such as a court-based noticing program). In that respect, the proposals seek not only to expand access to CM/ECF itself, but also to ensure that courts maintaining more restrictive CM/ECF regimes still provide some meaningful electronic path for filing and notice. . As to service, the proposals would eliminate the need for separate paper service of postcomplaint filings on persons who will receive a notice of case activity through the court’s electronic-filing system. This change applies in Appellate Rule 25, Bankruptcy Rules 8011 and 9036, Civil Rule 5, and Criminal Rule 49. The basic idea is straightforward: when a selfrepresented litigant files a paper document or uses another non-CM/ECF method, court staff ordinarily upload that filing into the electronic docket. Once that occurs, the court’s system generates an electronic notice to registered recipients. The proposals would treat that notice of case activity as service, so the filer need not also serve those same recipients separately on paper. This extends to self-represented non-electronic filers the same practical benefit already enjoyed when a registered user serves another registered user through the electronic-filing system. The service provisions are also reorganized to reflect the modern primacy of service through the court’s electronic system. In each rules set, service by a notice of case activity is addressed first, and the proposals add a common definition of “notice of case activity” broad enough to include “notice of electronic filing,” “notice of docket activity,” and similar future terminology. The proposals preserve other service methods as alternatives, including (variously) other consented-to electronic means, personal delivery, mail, and commercial carrier. This is important because a filer may still wish to serve by another permissible means before the clerk’s office uploads a non-electronic filing and the system generates the notice. 6 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 14 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service The proposals also address when service by notice of case activity is complete. For purposes of deadlines to make service, service by the notice of case activity would be treated as complete on the date of filing. But for deadlines that run from the date of service, service by the notice of case activity would be treated as complete on the date of the notice of case activity. That distinction is meant to protect the recipient in the event there is a lag between the time the filing is received by the court and the time it is uploaded into the electronic system. The proposals likewise carry forward the current principle that electronic service is not effective if the filer learns that it did not reach the intended recipient. They also allow courts, by order or local rule, to require other means of service for sealed filings; the appellate proposal additionally allows a local requirement of other-means service for certain case-initiating proceedings in the court of appeals. Finally, the package includes a few conforming amendments. Civil Rule 5 and Criminal Rule 49 are revised so that no certificate of service is required when service occurs through the court’s electronic-filing system under the amended provisions. Civil Rule 6, Criminal Rule 45, and Bankruptcy Rule 9006 are amended to conform cross-references governing the extra three days added after certain kinds of service. III. Remaining variances The enclosed comparison chart shows the text of the proposed Rules across the different Rule sets. As is customary for joint committee projects, the participants strove to maintain parallel treatment across the four rule sets. As is also not unusual, there do remain some aspects of the proposals as to which the committees’ approaches diverge. The remainder of this memo focuses on explaining those divergences. A. Self-represented litigant (“SRL”) provisions generally: “unrepresented” versus “self-represented” The Bankruptcy, Civil, and Appellate Rules proposals use the term “unrepresented” to describe self-represented litigants, whereas the Criminal Rule uses “self-represented.” Though the latter term is preferred by many project participants, implementing that preference is not practicable in the Bankruptcy, Civil, and Appellate Rules because too many existing rules in those sets would have to be amended correspondingly. This difference seems warranted by differences between the rules sets (that is, that the current Criminal Rules use the term “unrepresented” only in Rule 49). Notably, the proposed amendments to Criminal Rule 17 presented for final approval in this agenda book use the term “self-represented.” This variance seems justified. 7 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 15 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service B. SRL e-filing: Self-represented “parties” or self-represented “individuals” Three of the four rule sets would extend the new e-filing default approach only to selfrepresented “parties,” but the Bankruptcy Rules proposal would extend it to self-represented “individuals.” The reason for the difference has to do with concerns that may balance out differently in the bankruptcy context. The current rules vary in the term that they use to denote an unrepresented filer. Criminal Rule 49 says “party,” Appellate Rule 25 and Civil Rule 5 say “person,” and the Bankruptcy Rules say “individual.” (Terminology in the Bankruptcy Rules is affected by the definitions in the Bankruptcy Code.) The self-represented litigant e-filing provisions proposed for the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Rules refer to access for unrepresented “parties.” This is a shift from the current Civil and Appellate Rules (which refer to an unrepresented “person”), though it carries forward current Criminal Rule 49’s reference to a self-represented “party.” The reason for the shift is that the amended provision flips the default presumption from one of non-access to one of access to the court’s electronic-filing system. Once the presumption is inverted to say that self-represented litigants may e-file unless barred by order or local rule, it seems advisable to change “person” to “party” so that lay people who are not parties to the case do not cite the rule as granting them access.7 In the Criminal Rules context, there is an additional reason to use “party” – that is, because that is the term used in current Criminal Rule 49. Criminal Rule 49(b)(3)(B) deals only with electronic filing by a “party not represented by an attorney.” Meanwhile, Criminal Rule 49(c) provides: “A nonparty may serve and file a paper only if doing so is required or permitted by law. A nonparty must serve every party as required by Rule 49(a), but may use the court's electronic-filing system only if allowed by court order or local rule.” The self-represented litigant e-filing provisions proposed for Bankruptcy Rules 5005 and 8011 refer to access for unrepresented “individuals.” Current Rules 5005 and 8011 also use the term “individual.” The Bankruptcy Rules Committee considered and rejected the term “unrepresented party,” because it is concerned that that term would erroneously suggest to readers that a nonhuman litigant could represent itself. To avoid that possibility, the Bankruptcy Rules Committee determined that the Bankruptcy Rules should continue to use “individual,” which is the term those rules use to refer to a human being. As Professor Gibson succinctly put it, the choice between “party” and “individual” depends on a judgment call about “which is more likely (or more harmful): [1] having someone read ‘unrepresented party’ to mean any party (whether a real person or not) can appear without an attorney, or [2] having someone read ‘unrepresented individual’ to mean you don’t need to be connected to a case to file a paper in it.” The Bankruptcy Rules Committee’s decision to use 7 We have heard from participants that, from the clerk’s perspective, it’s important that the rule draw that boundary. 8 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 16 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service “individual” may be justified by features specific to bankruptcy practice – that is, the number of artificial entities (e.g., small creditors) that may participate in a bankruptcy proceeding and might wish to appear without a lawyer. Meanwhile, the other three sets of rules already use words (to denote unrepresented litigants) that encompass artificial entities – they say either “person” (Civil and Appellate) or “party” (Criminal) – and we haven’t heard of those terms giving rise to any erroneous assumptions that artificial entities can appear without a lawyer; so the Bankruptcy Rules Committee’s concern may not be as salient for the other three sets of rules. Accordingly, this variance seems justifiable. C. SRL e-filing: Note language on requiring court permission to use e-filing system As presented in the Advisory Committee agenda books, the Committee Notes to the proposed electronic-filing provisions included a bracketed sentence concerning the permissibility of a local provision requiring unrepresented parties to obtain court permission to use the court’s e-filing system. This language was included in the draft based on a suggestion from a member of the Criminal Rules Committee. The bracketed statement – as shown in the Civil, Bankruptcy, and Criminal agenda books – read: “[For example, local provisions that require unrepresented parties who seek to use the court’s electronic-filing system to obtain permission from the judge to whom the case is assigned would count as including reasonable exceptions, so long as such permission is not unreasonably withheld in practice.]” 8 Although the Civil and Bankruptcy Rules Committees voted to approve the draft for publication with this sentence included in the relevant Committee Notes, the sentence drew attention and a good deal of skeptical comment, particularly in the Civil Rules Committee discussion. On one hand, including this language would recognize existing practices in more than half of the federal courts of appeals and district courts 9 and would give clerks’ offices something to point to when applying a requirement that a self-represented litigant seek court permission in order to use the court’s electronic-filing system. On the other hand, because it would be challenging for an unrepresented party to demonstrate that a court unreasonably withholds permission in practice, participants expressed concern that this Note language might seem to bless local provisions that effectively deny e-filing to unrepresented parties in general. 8 The relevant sentence in the Note to Appellate Rule 25 as set out in the Appellate Rules Committee’s agenda book was similar but not identical. 9 See Tim Reagan, United States District Courts’ Local Rules and Procedures on Electronic Filing by Self-Represented Litigants (FJC 2025) at 1 (reporting that 54 federal districts “permit self-represented litigants to request permission to use the electronic filing system”); Tim Reagan, Carly Giffin, and Roy Germano, Federal Courts’ Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants (FJC 2025) at 6-7 (reporting that seven courts of appeals “allow [pro se litigants to register as CM/ECF users] with individual permission”). 9 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 17 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service During the Appellate Rules Committee meeting, a member proposed revised language – which the Appellate Rules Committee adopted – that accounts for the concerns of both participants who favored the original bracketed language and participants who were concerned by that original language. The revised language adopted by the Appellate Rules Committee reads: “A local provision requiring unrepresented parties to obtain the court’s permission in order to use the court’s electronic-filing system would count as including reasonable exceptions, so long as such permission is granted or withheld in accordance with the reasonable conditions and restrictions on access set by the court.” (The concluding phrase refers back to the ‘reasonable conditions and restrictions’ that are discussed earlier in the Committee Note.) The hope is that with this change, the Note language validates the practices of courts that wish to build in a requirement of court permission, while avoiding the risk that the Note would seem to bless the practice of a court where standardless discretion to withhold permission results in effective denial of access in practice. Because the Appellate Rules Committee met after the Civil and Bankruptcy Rules Committees, those two committees did not have the opportunity to consider the Appellate Rules Committee’s revised language. The Criminal Rules Committee met last. Though some support was voiced for the Note language as set forth in the Criminal Rules Committee’s agenda book, the Committee ultimately voted to adopt language paralleling the Appellate Committee Note. As adopted by the Criminal Rules Committee, the relevant sentence in the Criminal Rule 49 Committee Note reads: “For example, local provisions that require self-represented parties who seek to use the court’s electronic-filing system to obtain the court’s permission would count as including reasonable exceptions, so long as such permission is granted or withheld in accordance with the reasonable conditions and restrictions on access set by the court.” I recommend that the Standing Committee consider adopting similar language for the Committee Notes to Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(B), Bankruptcy Rule 5005(a)(3)(B), and Bankruptcy Rule 8011(a)(2)(C). That proposed language is shown as a bracketed alternative in those Committee Notes, following the bracketed sentence that originally appeared in the Civil and Bankruptcy Rules Committees’ agenda books. * D. SRL e-filing: “in the case” versus “in the party’s case” Proposed Bankruptcy Rules 5005(a)(3)(B)(i) and 8011(a)(2)(C)(i) refer to “receiv[ing] notice of activity in the case,” while proposed Appellate Rule 25(a)(2)(C)(i), Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(B)(i), and Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(B)(i) refer to “receiv[ing] notice of activity in the party’s case.” The latter three rules specify “in the party’s case” because we have heard from clerk participants how important it is to make clear that the default principle of access to e-filing should extend only to the case in which the SRL is a party, and not to other cases. But the Bankruptcy Rules will say, simply, “in the case” – because in the bankruptcy context, there is a * Revised August 14, 2026: The Standing Committee approved the proposed bracketed alternative language in the committee notes at its June 2026 meeting. 10 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 18 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service concern that saying “in the individual’s case” would suggest that the denoted individual must always be the debtor, and that’s not true, because the rule is designed to extend to selfrepresented human creditors as well. This variance seems justified. E. SRL e-filing: requirements to file electronically This variance is carried forward from the existing rules. Unlike the other SRL e-filing default rules, proposed Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(B)(i) (like existing Criminal Rule 49(b)(3)(B)) contains no provision about the circumstances under which a SRL can be required to e-file, because the Criminal Rules Committee has made a judgment call that the Criminal Rule shouldn’t authorize a court to require a SRL to e-file. As the 2018 Committee Note to Criminal Rule 49 explains, [Rule 49](b)(3)(B) requires unrepresented parties to file nonelectronically, unless allowed to file electronically by court order or local rule. This language differs from that of the amended Civil Rule, which provides that an unrepresented party may be “required” to file electronically by a court order or local rule that allows reasonable exceptions. A different approach to electronic filing by unrepresented parties is needed in criminal cases, where electronic filing by pro se prisoners presents significant challenges. Pro se parties filing papers under the criminal rules generally lack the means to e-file or receive electronic confirmations, yet must be provided access to the courts under the Constitution. This variance has already been determined to be justified. F. E-filing and signatures Currently, all five relevant rules contain (with immaterial variations) the following provision, added in 2018: “A filing made through a person’s electronic-filing account and authorized by that person, together with that person’s name on a signature block, constitutes the person's signature.” See, e.g., Civil Rule 5(d)(3)(C). The Bankruptcy Rules Committee has decided to amend their signature provisions to use “individual” instead of “person.” Their reason is that “person” (as defined in Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code) includes some artificial entities, and that it does not make sense to refer to an artificial entity as having its own electronic-filing account and engaging in the act of signing. As noted above, to denote human entities, the Bankruptcy Rules use the term “individual.” The Bankruptcy Code’s definitions are not relevant to the non-bankruptcy rule sets, and “person” has been used in all the signature rules for nearly eight years without causing any perceptible problem, so no change to the non-bankruptcy rules’ signature provisions is proposed 11 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 19 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report on Self-Represented Litigants’ Filing and Service for the other three sets of rules. Approving the Bankruptcy Rules Committee’s proposal to amend their signature provisions to use “individual” does not seem to me to provide a reason to require the other three Advisory Committees to similarly amend their signature provisions. G. “Documents” versus “papers” The choice between referring to “documents” or to “papers” is not substantive. But it is a considered choice. Bankruptcy Rule 5005, Civil Rule 5, Criminal Rule 49, and (in the main) Appellate Rule 25 use the word “paper,” while Bankruptcy Rules 8011 and 9036 use the word “document.” On the theory that internal consistency within a rule may be more valuable than consistency across rules, the proposals use “paper” in the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 5005, Civil Rule 5, Criminal Rule 49, and Appellate Rule 25, but use “document” in the amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 8011 and 9036. ***** 12 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 20 of 209 SRL provision comparison chart, April 30, 2026 This comparison chart shows – as clean rule text – the various SRL e-filing and service provisions, along with other related provisions in the a ected rules. Bankruptcy (not appellate) E-filing general rule: Bankruptcy Rule 5005(a)(3)(A): (3) Electronic Filing and Signing. (A) By a Represented Entity--Generally Required; Exceptions. An entity represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for cause or is allowed or required by local rule. Bankruptcy (appellate) Appellate Civil Criminal E-filing general rule: Bankruptcy Rule 8011(a)(2)(B): (B) Electronic Filing By a Represented Entity— Generally Required; Exceptions. An entity represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for cause or is allowed or required by local rule. E-filing general rule: FRAP 25(a)(2)(B): (B) Electronic Filing by a Person Represented by Counsel--Generally Required; Exceptions. A person represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for good cause or is allowed or required by local rule. E-filing general rule: Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(A): (2) Electronic Filing and Signing. (A) By a Person Represented by Counsel—Generally Required; Exceptions. A person represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for good cause or is allowed or required by local rule. E-filing general rule: Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(A): (2) Electronic Filing and Signing. (A) By a Party Represented by Counsel – Generally Required; Exceptions. A party represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for good cause or is allowed or required by local rule. 1 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 21 of 209 E-filing SRL default rule: Bankruptcy Rule 5005(a)(3)(B)(i): (B) By an Unrepresented Individual—When Allowed or Required. (i) In General. An unrepresented individual may use the court’s electronic-filing system to file papers and receive notice of activity in the case, unless a court order or local rule prohibits the individual from doing so. An unrepresented individual may be required to file electronically only by order in a case or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions. E-filing SRL default rule: Bankruptcy Rule 8011(a)(2)(C)(i): (C) Electronic Filing By an Unrepresented Individual—When Allowed or Required. (i) In General. An unrepresented individual may use the court’s electronic-filing system to file documents and receive notice of activity in the case, unless a court order or local rule prohibits the individual from doing so. An unrepresented individual may be required to file electronically only by order in a case or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions. E-filing SRL default rule: FRAP 25(a)(2)(C)(i): (C) Electronic Filing by an Unrepresented Party-When Allowed or Required. (i) In General. An unrepresented party may use the court’s electronic-filing system to file papers and receive notice of activity in the party’s case, unless a court order or local rule prohibits the party from doing so. An unrepresented person may be required to file electronically only by order in a case or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions. E-filing SRL default rule: Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(B)(i): (B) By an Unrepresented Party—When Allowed or Required. (i) In General. An unrepresented party may use the court’s electronic-filing system to file papers and receive notice of activity in the party’s case, unless a court order or local rule prohibits the party from doing so. An unrepresented person may be required to file electronically only by order in a case or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions. E-filing SRL default rule: Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(B)(i): (B) By a Self-Represented Party – When Allowed. (i) In General. A selfrepresented party may use the court’s electronic-filing system to file papers and receive notice of activity in the party’s case, unless a court order or local rule prohibits the party from doing so. 2 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 22 of 209 E-filing SRL conditions: Bankruptcy Rule 5005(a)(3)(B)(ii): (ii) Conditions and Restrictions on Access. A court may set and enforce reasonable conditions and restrictions on unrepresented individuals’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system (including by denying or revoking access for a particular unrepresented individual). But the court may not prohibit all unrepresented individuals from using the system unless that prohibition includes reasonable exceptions or the court permits the use of another electronic method for filing papers and receiving electronic notice of activity in the case. E-filing SRL conditions: Bankruptcy Rule 8011(a)(2)(C)(ii): (ii) Conditions and Restrictions on Access. A court may set and enforce reasonable conditions and restrictions on unrepresented individuals’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system (including by denying or revoking access for a particular unrepresented individual). But the court may not prohibit all unrepresented individuals from using the system unless that prohibition includes reasonable exceptions or the court permits the use of another electronic method for filing documents and receiving electronic notice of activity in the case. E-filing SRL conditions: FRAP 25(a)(2)(C)(ii): (ii) Conditions and Restrictions on Access. A court may set and enforce reasonable conditions and restrictions on unrepresented parties’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system (including by denying or revoking access for a particular unrepresented party). But the court may not prohibit all unrepresented parties from using the system unless that prohibition includes reasonable exceptions or the court permits the use of another electronic method for filing papers and receiving electronic notice of activity in the party’s case. E-filing SRL conditions: Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(B)(ii): (ii) Conditions and Restrictions on Access. A court may set and enforce reasonable conditions and restrictions on unrepresented parties’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system (including by denying or revoking access for a particular unrepresented party). But the court may not prohibit all unrepresented parties from using the system unless that prohibition includes reasonable exceptions or the court permits the use of another electronic method for filing papers and receiving electronic notice of activity in the party’s case. E-filing SRL conditions: Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(B)(ii): (ii) Conditions and Restrictions on Access. A court may set and enforce reasonable conditions and restrictions on selfrepresented parties’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system (including by denying or revoking access for a particular selfrepresented party). But the court may not prohibit all selfrepresented parties from using the system unless that prohibition includes reasonable exceptions or the court permits the use of another electronic method for filing papers and receiving electronic notice of activity in the party’s case. 3 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 23 of 209 E-filing & signature: Bankruptcy Rule 5005(a)(3)(C): (C) Signing. A filing made through an individual’s electronic-filing account and authorized by that individual, together with the individual’s name on a signature block, constitutes the individual’s signature. E-filing & signature: Bankruptcy Rule 8011(e): (e) Signature Always Required. (1) Electronic Filing. Every document filed electronically must include the electronic signature of the individual filing it or, if an entity is represented, the counsel's electronic signature. A filing made through an individual’s electronic-filing account and authorized by that individual—together with that individual’s name on a signature block— constitutes the individual’s signature. (2) Paper Filing. Every document filed in paper form must be signed by the individual filing it or, if an entity is represented, by the entity’s counsel. E-filing & signature: FRAP 25(a)(2)(D): (D) Signing. A filing made through a person's electronic-filing account and authorized by that person, together with that person's name on a signature block, constitutes the person's signature. E-filing & signature: Civil Rule 5(d)(2)(C): (C) Signing. A filing made through a person's electronic-filing account and authorized by that person, together with that person's name on a signature block, constitutes the person's signature. E-filing & signature: Criminal Rule 49(b)(2)(D): (D) Signature. A filing made through a person's electronic-filing account and authorized by that person, together with the person's name on a signature block, constitutes the person's signature. 4 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 24 of 209 Service required: [NB: No need to revise Rule 5005(b) (“Sending Copies to the United States Trustee”), because it does not specify that sending must be “at or before the time of filing.” Rule 9036 does not include a provision requiring service.] Service required: Rule 8011(b): (b) Service of All Documents Required. Unless a rule requires service by the clerk or the document will be served through the court’s electronic-filing system under (c)(1), a party must, at or before the time of the filing of a document, serve it on the other parties to the appeal. Service on a party represented by counsel must be made on the party's counsel. Service required: FRAP 25(b): (b) Service of All Papers Required. Unless a rule requires service by the clerk or the paper will be served through the court’s electronic-filing system under Rule 25(c)(1), a party must, at or before the time of filing a paper, serve a copy on the other parties to the appeal or review. Service on a party represented by counsel must be made on the party's counsel. Service required: [NB: No need to revise Civil Rule 5(a) (“Service: When Required”), because it does not specify that service must be “at or before the time of filing.”] Service required: [NB: No need to revise Criminal Rule 49(a)(1) (“Service on a Party. What is Required”), because it does not specify that service must be “at or before the time of filing.”] 5 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 25 of 209 Service by NCA: Rule 9036(c)(1): (c) Notices from and Service by an Entity. (1) Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing System. A notice of case activity sent to an entity registered to receive it through the court’s electronic-filing system constitutes notice or service on that entity, with these qualifications: (A) such notice or service is not e ective if the filer learns that it did not reach the entity to be notified or served; and (B) a court may provide by order or local rule that if a document is filed under seal, neither service nor notice occurs under this paragraph (c)(1). Service by NCA: Rule 8011(c)(1): (c) Manner of Service. (1) Service by a Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing System. A notice of case activity sent to an entity registered to receive it through the court’s electronic-filing system constitutes service on that entity, with these qualifications: (A) such service is not e ective if the filer learns that it did not reach the entity to be served; and (B) a court may provide by order or local rule that if a document is filed under seal, it must be served by other means. Service by NCA: FRAP 25(c)(1): (c) Manner of Service. (1) Service by a Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing System. A notice of case activity sent to a person registered to receive it through the court’s electronic-filing system constitutes service on that person, with these qualifications: (A) such service is not e ective if the filer learns that it did not reach the person to be served; and (B) a court may provide by order or local rule that if a paper is filed under seal or initiates a proceeding in the court of appeals under Rule 5, 6(c), 15, or 21, it must be served by other means. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Service by NCA: Civil Rule 5(b)(2): (b) Service: How Made.… (2) Service by a Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing System. A notice of case activity sent to a person registered to receive it through the court’s electronic-filing system constitutes service on that person. For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. But these qualifications apply: (A) such service is not e ective if the filer learns that it did not reach the person to be served; and (B) a court may provide by order or local rule that if a paper is filed under seal, it must be served by other means. Service by NCA: Criminal Rule 49(a)(3): (3) Service by a Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing System. A notice of case activity sent to a person registered to receive it through the court’s electronic-filing system constitutes service on that person. For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. But these qualifications apply: (A) such service is not e ective if the filer learns that it did not reach the person to be served; and (B) a court may provide by order or local rule that if a paper is filed under seal, it must be served by other means. 6 Page 26 of 209 Service / other electronic means: [NB: Rule 9036 focuses on electronic notice & service, so its “other means” provision focuses only on other electronic means.] Rule 9036(c)(2): (2) Electronic Means Consented To. An entity may also send notice or serve a document by electronic means that the recipient consented to in writing, including by designating an electronic address for receiving notices. But such notice or service is not e ective if the sender learns that it did not reach the entity to be notified or served. Service / other means: Service / other means: Service / other means: Service / other means: Rule 8011(c)(2): (2) Service by Other Means. A document may also be served under this rule by: (A) personal delivery; (B) mail; (C) third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 days; or (D) electronic means that the entity served has consented to in writing, but such electronic service is not e ective if the sender learns that it did not reach the entity to be served. FRAP 25(c)(2): (2) Service by Other Means. A paper may also be served under this rule by: (A) personal delivery, including delivery to a responsible person at the o ice of counsel; (B) mail; (C) third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 days; or (D) sending it by electronic means that the person to be served has consented to in writing, but such electronic service is not e ective if the sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served. Civil Rule 5(b)(3): (3) Service by Other Means. A paper may also be served under this rule by: (A) handing it to the person; (B) leaving it: (i) at the person’s o ice with a clerk or other person in charge or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the o ice; or (ii) if the person has no o ice or the o ice is closed, at the person’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; (C) mailing it to the person’s last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing; (D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address; Criminal Rule 49(a)(4): (4) Service by Other Means. A paper may also be served by: (A) handing it to the person; (B) leaving it: (i) at the person's o ice with a clerk or other person in charge or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the o ice; or (ii) if the person has no o ice or the o ice is closed, at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; (C) mailing it to the person's last known address – in which event service is complete upon mailing; (D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address; 7 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 27 of 209 (E) sending it by electronic means that the person has consented to in writing—in which event service is complete upon sending, but is not e ective if the sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served; or (F) delivering it by any other means that the person has consented to in writing—in which event service is complete when the person making service delivers it to the agency designated to make delivery. (E) sending it by electronic means that the person has consented to in writing – in which event service is complete upon sending, but is not e ective if the sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served; or (F) delivering it by any other means that the person has consented to in writing—in which event service is complete when the person making service delivers it to the agency designated to make delivery. 8 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 28 of 209 Service / completeness: Rule 9036(d): (d) When Notice or Service Is Complete; Keeping an Address Current. (1) Notice of Case Activity Sent Through the Court’s ElectronicFiling System. For any notice or service deadlines, notice or service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of notice or service, notice or service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of the notice of case activity. (2) Other Electronic Means. Electronic notice or service by other electronic means is complete upon sending. Service / completeness: Rule 8011(c)(3): (3) When Service Is Complete. (A) For Service by a Notice of Case Activity. For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. (B) For Service by Other Electronic Means. Service by other electronic means is complete on sending. (C) For Service by Mail or Commercial Carrier. Service by mail or by third-party commercial carrier is complete on mailing or delivery to the carrier. Service / completeness: FRAP 25(c)(4): (4) When Service Is Complete. (A) For Service by Mail or Commercial Carrier. Service by mail or by commercial carrier is complete on mailing or delivery to the carrier. (B) For Service by a Notice of Case Activity. For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. (C) For Service by Other Electronic Means. Service by other electronic means is complete on sending. Service / completeness: [Civil Rule 5 does not have a discrete subpart focused on completeness. Rather, the current rule addresses completeness in Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (E), and (F). The amended rule retains those mentions of completeness and addresses completeness for service by means of the NCA in Rule 5(b)(2).] Civil Rule 5(b)(2): For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. Service / completeness: [Criminal Rule 49 does not have a discrete subpart focused on completeness. Rather, the current rule addresses completeness in Rules 49(a)(3)(A) & (B) and 49(a)(4)(C) & (E). The amended rule retains (though relocates) three of these mentions of completeness and addresses completeness for service by means of the NCA in Rule 49(a)(3).] Criminal Rule 49(a)(3): For any service deadlines, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing. For any deadlines that run from the date of service, service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the notice’s date. 9 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 29 of 209 NCA defined: Rule 9036(c)(3): (3) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” The term “notice of case activity” includes a notice of docket activity, a notice of electronic filing, and any other similar electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of activity on the docket. NCA defined: Rule 8011(c)(4): (4) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” The term “notice of case activity” includes a notice of docket activity, a notice of electronic filing, and any other similar electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of activity on the docket. NCA defined: FRAP 25(c)(5): (5) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” The term “notice of case activity” includes a notice of docket activity, a notice of electronic filing, and any other similar electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of activity on the docket. NCA defined: Civil Rule 5(b)(4): (4) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” The term “notice of case activity” includes a notice of docket activity, a notice of electronic filing, and any other similar electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of activity on the docket. NCA defined: Crim Rule 49(a)(5): (5) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” The term “notice of case activity” includes a notice of docket activity, a notice of electronic filing, and any other similar electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of activity on the docket. 10 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 30 of 209 Certificate of service: [NB: Rule 5005 doesn’t discuss service, and while Rule 9036 addresses service, it does not address proof of service.] Certificate of service: [NB: The overarching SRL project does not give rise to a need to revise Rule 8011(d)(1) (“Proof of Service. Requirements”), because it already uses the language “if it was served other than through the court's electronicfiling system,” thus accommodating service (by means of the notice of case activity) of a filing made in paper form by a SRL. However, based on its review of bankruptcyspecific terminology, the Bankruptcy Rules Committee will update Rule 8011(d)(1) to use the terms “entity” and “individual” instead of “person.”] Certificate of service: [NB: No need to revise FRAP 25(d)(1) (“Proof of Service”), because it already uses the language “if it was served other than through the court's electronic-filing system,” thus accommodating service (by means of the notice of case activity) of a filing made in paper form by a SRL.] Certificate of service: Civil Rule 5(d)(1)(B): (B) Certificate of Service. No certificate of service is required when a paper is served through the court’s electronic-filing system under Rule 5(b)(2). When a paper that is required to be served is served by other means: (i) if it is filed, a certificate of service must be filed with it or within a reasonable time after service; and (ii) if it is not filed, a certificate of service need not be filed, unless filing is required by court order or by local rule. Certificate of service: Criminal Rule 49(b)(1): (b) Filing. (1) When Required; Certificate of Service. Any paper that is required to be served must be filed no later than a reasonable time after service. No certificate of service is required when a paper is served through the court’s electronicfiling system under Rule 49(a)(3). When a paper is served by other means, a certificate of service must be filed with it or within a reasonable time after service or filing. 11 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 31 of 209 OVERVIEW: Proposals Relating to Privacy Rules in Public Court Filings Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 32 of 209 May 11, 2026 Report on the Privacy Rule Amendments MEMORANDUM To: Judge James C. Dever III Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure From: Carolyn Dubay, Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff Edward Hartnett, Standing Committee Reporter Date: May 11, 2026 Re: Report on Status of Privacy Rule Amendments The Standing Committee is asked to approve for publication and public comment proposed amendments to the privacy rules found in Civil Rule 5.2, Criminal Rule 49.1, and Bankruptcy Rule 9037. Redlined versions of the proposed amended rules are included following this memorandum. These amendments reflect years of study and coordination, with the Criminal Rules Advisory Committee taking the lead on these issues and the Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Committee considering the special need for at least partially redacted taxpayer identification numbers in bankruptcy proceedings. The proposed changes, which stem from suggestions received from Senator Ron Wyden in 2022 and the Department of Justice in 2024, would do the following: (1) Require complete redaction of social security numbers (SSNs), individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) and employer identification numbers (EINs) in civil and criminal cases (Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1), subject to the existing exceptions in those Rules. These changes would expand the privacy protections in these rules in two ways. First, the current redaction requirement permits the inclusion of the last four digits of these numbers; the proposed amendments would require complete redaction. Second, EINs are not expressly covered by the existing rules, although redaction of EINs is required in U.S. Tax Court and in the Court of Federal Claims. However, for reasons explained in the Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Committee Report to the Standing Committee in January 2026, Bankruptcy Rule 9037 would not change with respect to social security numbers or taxpayer identification numbers and would not expand to protect employer identification numbers. (2) Require the use of pseudonyms rather than initials to reference minors in court filings in civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases (Civil Rule 5.2, Criminal Rule 49.1, Bankruptcy Rule 9037). Note that the proposed amendments do not address the use of a pseudonym for a minor in a court filing once the minor ages out, but public comment may provide insight into whether this is an issue that should be addressed in a rule rather than through protective orders in individual cases. (3) In all three rule sets, clarify that the redaction/pseudonym requirement applies to all documents in the court filing, including exhibits and attachments. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 33 of 209 May 11, 2026 Report on the Privacy Rule Amendments As an additional matter, the Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Committee at its spring 2026 meeting voted to approve for publication and public amendments to Rule 8011 governing bankruptcy appeals. Those proposed amendments would add an additional layer of privacy protection in appeals from bankruptcy courts to district courts and bankruptcy appellate panels. These proposed amendments were intended to mirror amendments that the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee is considering with respect to Appellate Rule 25(a)(5). At its spring Advisory Committee meeting, however, the Appellate Rules Committee determined that further study was needed regarding those proposed amendments and it is not seeking publication at this time of proposed amendments to Rule 25(a)(5). For this reason, we recommend that the Standing Committee postpone publication and public comment on the proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 8011 to allow for coordination with the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee as it continues to study the issue. Importantly, the delay in moving forward with the appellate privacy rules (Bankruptcy Rule 8011 and Appellate Rule 25(a)(5)) should not delay publication for public comment of the proposed amendments to Civil Rule 5.2, Criminal Rule 49.1, and Bankruptcy Rule 9037. Existing Appellate Rule 25(a)(5) incorporates those Rules by reference, so any changes to those Rules will apply on appeal without the need to amend Appellate Rule 25(a)(5). For reference, that Rule provides: Privacy Protection. An appeal in a case whose privacy protection was governed by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 is governed by the same rule on appeal. In all other proceedings, privacy protection is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, except that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 governs when an extraordinary writ is sought in a criminal case. The provisions on remote electronic access in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(1) and (2) apply in a petition for review of a benefits decision of the Railroad Retirement Board under the Railroad Retirement Act. The amendments to Appellate Rule 25(a)(5) that the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has been considering would add another layer of privacy protection on appeal, requiring redactions in appellate filings even of material that need not be redacted under the Civil, Criminal, and Bankruptcy Rules. It was poised to ask the Standing Committee to publish a proposal along these lines but, at its April 2026 meeting, new concerns were raised about the breadth and impact of that proposal. In particular, the U.S. Department of Justice (echoed by others) raised concerns about the costs and difficulties involved in redacting the contents of an appendix. The possibility that a party might forfeit this additional layer of protection was also raised. Recognizing that any changes made to the Civil, Criminal, and Bankruptcy Rules will automatically flow through to the courts of appeals, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules decided to study these concerns further before seeking to impose another layer of protection, and it formed a subcommittee to do so. Any changes it considers can also be shared with the Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Committee regarding parallel amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 8011. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 34 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 35 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 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 JAMES C. DEVER III CHAIR CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES ALLISON H. EID APPELLATE RULES CAROLYN A. DUBAY SECRETARY REBECCA B. CONNELLY BANKRUPTCY RULES SARAH S. VANCE CIVIL RULES MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CRIMINAL RULES JESSE M. FURMAN EVIDENCE RULES MEMORANDUM Hon. James C. Dever III, Chair Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure TO: FROM: Hon. Allison H. Eid, Chair Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules RE: Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules DATE: May 11, 2026 I. Introduction The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules met on Thursday, April 16, 2026, in Charlotte, North Carolina. * * * The Advisory Committee has several action items for the June 2026 meeting. ***** In addition, the Advisory Committee asks the Standing Committee to publish for public comment (per Part III of this report) proposed amendments to Rule 25, as part of the cross-committee project to address electronic filing by self-represented litigants. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 36 of 209 Excerpt from the May 11, 2026 Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules ***** III. Item for Publication A. Electronic Filing and Service by Self-Represented Parties (21AP-E) The Advisory Committee defers to the Consultant to the Standing Committee for the update regarding the joint project on electronic filing and service by self-represented litigants. ***** Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 37 of 209 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1 1 Rule 25. 2 (a) 3 Filing and Service Filing. (1) Filing with the Clerk. A paper required or 4 permitted to be filed in a court of appeals 5 must be filed with the clerk. 6 (2) Filing: Method and Timeliness. (A) 7 Nonelectronic Filing. (i) 8 In General. For a paper not 9 filed electronically, filing may 10 be accomplished by mail 11 addressed to the clerk, but 12 filing is not timely unless the 13 clerk receives the papers 14 within the time fixed for New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is lined through. 1 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 38 of 209 2 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE filing. 15 16 (ii) A Brief or Appendix. A brief 17 or appendix not filed 18 electronically is timely filed, 19 however, if on or before the 20 last day for filing, it is: 21 • mailed to the clerk by 22 first-class mail, or other 23 class of mail that is at least 24 as expeditious, postage 25 prepaid; or • 26 dispatched to a third-party 27 commercial carrier for 28 delivery the clerk 29 within 3 days. If an to Inmate Filing. 31 institution has 32 designed for legal mail, an 30 (iii) Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 a system Page 39 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 3 33 inmate confined there must 34 use that system to receive the 35 benefit 36 25(a)(2)(A)(iii). A paper not 37 filed electronically by an 38 inmate is timely if it is 39 deposited in the institution’s 40 internal mail system on or 41 before the last day for filing 42 and: 43 • of this Rule it is accompanied by: a 44 declaration in compliance 45 with 28 U.S.C. § 1746— 46 or a notarized statement— 47 setting out the date of 48 deposit and stating that 49 first-class postage is being 50 prepaid; or evidence (such Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 40 of 209 4 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 51 as a postmark or date 52 stamp) showing that the 53 paper was so deposited 54 and that postage was 55 prepaid; or • 56 the court of appeals 57 exercises its discretion to 58 permit the later filing of a 59 declaration or notarized 60 statement that satisfies 61 Rule 25(a)(2)(A)(iii). 62 (B) Electronic Filing and Signing. 63 (i) By by a Represented Person 64 Represented 65 Generally Required; Exceptions. A 66 person represented by an attorney 67 must 68 nonelectronic filing is allowed by the file by Counsel— electronically, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 unless Page 41 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 5 69 court for good cause or is allowed or 70 required by local rule. 71 (ii)(C) Electronic Filing by 72 Unrepresented 73 When Allowed or Required. 74 (i) In Person By an Party— General. An 75 unrepresented party person 76 not 77 attorney: 78 electronically only if allowed 79 by use the court’s electronic- 80 filing system to file papers 81 and receive notice of activity 82 in the party’s case, unless a 83 court order or by local rule 84 prohibits the party from doing 85 so.; and • An unrepresented 86 person may be required to file represented Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 • by an may file Page 42 of 209 6 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 87 electronically only by court 88 order in a case, or by a local 89 rule that includes reasonable 90 exceptions. 91 (ii) Conditions and Restrictions 92 on Access. A court may set 93 and 94 conditions and restrictions on 95 unrepresented parties’ access 96 to the court’s electronic-filing 97 system (including by denying 98 or revoking access for a 99 particular 100 party). But the court may not 101 prohibit 102 parties from using the system 103 unless 104 includes Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 enforce reasonable unrepresented all that unrepresented prohibition reasonable Page 43 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 105 exceptions 106 permits the use of another 107 electronic method for filing 108 papers 109 electronic notice of activity in 110 the party’s case. 111 (iii)(D) Signing. A filing made through a 112 person’s electronic-filing account and 113 authorized by that person, together 114 with that person’s name on a 115 signature 116 person’s signature. block, or 7 the and court receiving constitutes the 117 (iv)(E) Same as a Written Paper. A paper 118 filed electronically is a written paper 119 for purposes of these rules. ***** 120 121 122 (b) Service of All Papers Required. Unless a rule requires service by the clerk or the paper will be Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 44 of 209 8 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 123 served through the court’s electronic-filing system 124 under Rule 25(c)(1), a party must, at or before the 125 time of filing a paper, serve a copy on the other 126 parties to the appeal or review. Service on a party 127 represented by counsel must be made on the party’s 128 counsel. 129 130 (c) Manner of Service. (1) Service by a Notice of Case Activity Sent 131 Through the Court’s Electronic-Filing 132 System. A notice of case activity sent to a 133 person registered to receive it through the 134 court’s electronic-filing system constitutes 135 service 136 qualifications: 137 (A) on that person, with these such service is not effective if the filer 138 learns that it did not reach the person 139 to be served; and 140 (B) a court may provide by order or local Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 45 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9 141 rule that if a paper is filed under seal 142 or initiates a proceeding in the court 143 of appeals under Rule 5, 6(c), 15, or 144 21, it must be served by other means. 145 146 147 148 (2) Service by Other Means. A paper may also be served under this rule by: Nonelectronic service may be any of the following: (A) personal delivery, including delivery 149 to a responsible person at the office of 150 counsel; 151 (B) by mail; or 152 (C) by third-party commercial carrier for 153 delivery within 3 days; or 154 (D) . (2) Electronic service of a paper may be 155 made (A) by sending it to a registered 156 user by filing it with the court’s 157 electronic-filing system or (B) by 158 sending it by other electronic means Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 46 of 209 10 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 159 that the person to be served has 160 consented to in writing., but such 161 electronic service is not effective if 162 the sender learns that it did not reach 163 the person to be served. 164 (3) Considerations in Choosing Other Means. 165 When reasonable considering such factors as 166 the immediacy of the relief sought, distance, 167 and cost, service on a party must be by a 168 manner at least as expeditious as the manner 169 used to file the paper with the court. 170 171 (4) When Service Is Complete. (A) For Service by Mail or Commercial 172 Carrier. Service by mail or by 173 commercial carrier is complete on 174 mailing or delivery to the carrier. 175 176 (B) For Service by a Notice of Case Activity. For any service deadlines, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 47 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 11 177 service by a notice of case activity is 178 complete as of the date of filing. For 179 any deadlines that run from the date 180 of service, service by a notice of case 181 activity is complete as of the notice’s 182 date. 183 (C) For Service by Other Electronic 184 Means. Service by other electronic 185 means is complete on filing or 186 sending, unless the party making 187 service is notified that the paper was 188 not received by the party served. 189 (5) Definition of “Notice of Case Activity.” 190 The term “notice of case activity” includes a 191 notice of docket activity, a notice of 192 electronic filing, and any other similar 193 electronic 194 participants through the court’s electronic- notice Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 provided to case Page 48 of 209 12 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 195 filing system to inform them of activity on the 196 docket. 197 198 (d) Proof of Service. (1) A paper presented for filing must contain 199 either of the following if it was served other 200 than through the court’s electronic-filing 201 system: 202 (A) person served; or 203 204 an acknowledgment of service by the (B) proof of service consisting of a 205 statement by the person who made 206 service certifying: 207 (i) service; 208 209 (ii) 212 the names of the persons served; and 210 211 the date and manner of (iii) their mail or electronic addresses, facsimile numbers, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 49 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 13 213 or the addresses of the places 214 of delivery, as appropriate for 215 the manner of service. 216 (2) When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing 217 or dispatch in accordance with Rule 218 25(a)(2)(A)(ii), the proof of service must also 219 state the date and manner by which the 220 document was mailed or dispatched to the 221 clerk. 222 (3) Proof of service may appear on or be affixed 223 to the papers filed. 224 ***** 225 Committee Note 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 Rule 25 is amended to address two topics concerning unrepresented parties. (Concurrent amendments are made to Bankruptcy Rules 5005, 8011, and 9036, Civil Rule 5, and Criminal Rule 49.) Rule 25(a)(2) is amended to expand the availability of electronic modes by which unrepresented parties can file documents with the court and receive notice of filings that others make in the case. Rule 25(c) is amended to address service of documents filed by an unrepresented litigant in paper form. Because all such paper filings are uploaded by court staff into the court’s electronic-filing Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 50 of 209 14 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 236 237 238 239 240 system, there is no need to require separate paper service by the filer on case participants who receive an electronic notice of the filing from the court’s electronic-filing system. Rule 25(c)’s treatment of service is also reorganized to reflect the primacy of service by means of the electronic notice. 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 Subdivision (a)(2)(C). Under new Rule 25(a)(2)(C)(i), an unrepresented party is presumptively authorized to use the court’s electronic-filing system to file documents in the case. If a court of appeals wishes to restrict unrepresented parties’ access to the electronic-filing system, it must do so by order or local rule. This presumption in favor of access by unrepresented parties is the opposite of the presumption set by the prior Rule 25(a)(2)(B)(ii). The reference to an unrepresented ‘party,’ rather than an unrepresented ‘person,’ excludes an unrepresented nonparty from its scope; the rule does not grant nonparty nonlawyers any right to use the court’s e-filing system. However, the court may not require electronic filing by any unrepresented person, including any unrepresented nonparty, except by order in a particular case or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions. 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 New Rule 25(a)(2)(C)(ii) states that the court may set reasonable conditions and restrictions on access by unrepresented parties to the court’s electronic-filing system. Where appropriate, access to the electronic-filing system might be allowed only to a particular type of unrepresented party: for example, one who is not incarcerated (if the distinctive logistical considerations that apply in carceral settings justify such a limitation), one who has satisfactorily completed required training and certifications, one who complies with other reasonable conditions on access, and so on. Reasonable conditions or restrictions might also distinguish between particular types of filings: for example, filings that initiate a case in the court of appeals and those Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 51 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 15 270 271 272 273 274 that do not. The subdivision explicitly contemplates that, in appropriate circumstances, a reasonable restriction might also include an order barring a specific unrepresented party from accessing the court’s electronic-filing system or revoking that party’s access to the system. 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 However, new Rule 25(a)(2)(C)(ii) also expressly prohibits a court from barring all unrepresented parties from using the electronic-filing system, unless the court also either (1) includes reasonable exceptions to the prohibition, or (2) permits unrepresented parties to use another electronic method for filing documents (such as by email or by upload through an electronic document submission system) and for receiving notice of court filings and orders (such as an electronic noticing program). A local provision requiring unrepresented parties to obtain the court’s permission in order to use the court’s electronic-filing system would count as including reasonable exceptions, so long as such permission is granted or withheld in accordance with the reasonable conditions and restrictions on access set by the court. 290 291 Former Rules 25(a)(2)(B)(iii) and (iv) are carried forward but renumbered as Rules 25(a)(2)(D) and (E). 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 Subdivision (b). Former Rule 25(b) generally required that a party, “at or before the time of filing a paper, [must] serve a copy on the other parties to the appeal or review.” The former rule exempted from this requirement instances when “a rule requires service by the clerk.” The rule is amended to add a second exemption, for instances when “the paper will be served through the court’s electronic-filing system under Rule 25(c)(1).” This amendment reflects that new Rule 25(c)(1) encompasses service by the notice of case activity that results from the clerk’s uploading into the system a paper filing by an Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 52 of 209 16 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 303 304 unrepresented litigant. (As to when such service is complete, see subdivision (c)(4)(B).) 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 Subdivision (c). Rule 25(c) is restructured so that the primary means of service – that is, service by means of the court’s electronic-filing system – is addressed first, in Rule 25(c)(1). Former Rule 25(c)(1) becomes new Rule 25(c)(2), which continues to address alternative means of service. New Rule 25(c)(5) defines the term “notice of case activity” as any electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronic-filing system to inform them of a filing or other activity on the docket. 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Subdivision (c)(1). Amended Rule 25(c)(1) eliminates the requirement of separate (paper) service on a litigant who is registered to receive a notice of case activity from the court’s electronic-filing system. Litigants who are registered to receive a notice of case activity include those litigants who are participating in the court’s electronic-filing system with respect to the case in question and also include those litigants who receive the notice because they have registered for a court-based electronic-noticing program. (Former Rule 25(c)(2)’s provision for service by “sending [a paper] to a registered user by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing system” had already eliminated the requirement of paper service on registered users of the court’s electronic-filing system by other registered users of the system; the amendment extends this exemption from paper service to those who file by a means other than through the court’s electronic-filing system.) 331 332 333 334 335 New Rule 25(c)(1)(A) provides that service by means of the court’s electronic-filing system is not effective if the filer learns that it did not reach the person to be served. This provision carries forward the principle previously contained in former Rule 25(c)(4). Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 53 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 17 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 New Rule 25(c)(1)(B) states that a court may provide by order or local rule that if a paper is filed under seal or initiates a proceeding in the court of appeals under Rule 5, 6(c), 15, or 21, it must be served by other means. This sentence is designed to account for circuits (if any) in which parties in the case cannot access other participants’ sealed filings via the court’s electronic-filing system. It also accounts for circuits that permit the use of the court’s electronic-filing system to file case-initiating petitions but that do not wish to permit the filer to rely on the court’s electronic-filing system for service of such a petition. The rule does not set a national requirement that all caseinitiating documents be served other than through the court’s electronic-filing system; a court of appeals may decide that, in some instances, service of such documents through the court’s electronic-filing system is an appropriate option. 352 353 354 Subdivision (c)(2). Subdivision (c)(2) carries forward the contents of former Rule 25(c)(1), with three changes. 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 The subdivision’s introductory phrase (“Nonelectronic service may be any of the following”) is amended to read “A paper may also be served under this rule by.” This locution reflects the inclusion of other electronic means (apart from service through the court’s electronicfiling system) in new Rule 25(c)(2)(D) and also ensures that new Rule 25(c)(2) remains an option for serving any litigant, even one who receives notices of filing. This option might be useful to litigants who will be filing non-electronically but who wish to effect service on their opponents before the time when the court will have uploaded the filing into the court’s system (thus generating the notice of case activity). 367 368 The prior reference to “sending [a paper] to a registered user by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 54 of 209 18 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 369 370 system” is deleted, because this is now covered by new Rule 25(c)(1). 371 372 373 374 The concept that service by other electronic means is not effective if the sender learns that the document was not received by the person served – previously contained in prior Rule 25(c)(4) – is relocated to what now is Rule 25(c)(2)(D). 375 376 377 378 379 380 Subdivision (c)(4). Amended subdivision (c)(4) carries forward the prior rule’s provisions that service by electronic means other than through the court’s electronicfiling system is complete on sending and that service by mail or by commercial carrier is complete on mailing or delivery to the carrier. 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 As to service through the court’s electronic-filing system, the amended rule provides that service by a notice of case activity is complete as of the date of filing for purposes of any deadlines for making service. But the amended rule provides that, for purposes of any deadlines that run from the date of service, service is complete as of the date of the notice of case activity. Thus, the amended rule ensures that if there is a delay between the date the court receives a filing not made through the electronic-filing system and the date the court uploads that filing into the electronic-filing system, that delay will not diminish the time allowed to the party whose deadline runs from the date of service. 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 In addition to providing when service was complete, former Rule 25(c)(4) addressed what happened if the person making electronic service learned that the document was not received by the person to be served. The latter is now addressed by new Rules 25(c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(D), which provide that electronic service is not effective if the filer or sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 55 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 19 Subdivision (c)(5). New Rule 25(c)(5) defines the term “notice of case activity” as any electronic notice provided to case participants through the court’s electronicfiling system to inform them of a filing or other activity on the docket. There are two equivalent terms currently in use: Notice of Electronic Filing and Notice of Docket Activity. “Notice of case activity” is intended to encompass both of those terms, as well as any equivalent terms that may come into use in future. The word “electronic” is deleted as superfluous now that electronic filing is the default method. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 56 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 57 of 209 Excerpt from the May 7, 2026 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 JAMES C. DEVER III CHAIR CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES ALLISON H. EID APPELLATE RULES CAROLYN A. DUBAY SECRETARY REBECCA B. CONNELLY BANKRUPTCY RULES SARAH S. VANCE CIVIL RULES MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CRIMINAL RULES JESSE M. FURMAN EVIDENCE RULES MEMORANDUM TO: Hon. James C. Dever III, 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 7, 2026 I. *** Introduction The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules met in Charlotte, N.C., on April 15, 2026. ***** In addition to the rules discussed in Professor Struve’s report on electronic filing and service by self-represented litigants, the Advisory Committee also agreed to seek publication for comment of proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 2003 (Meeting of Creditors or Equity Security Holders) and 9037 (Privacy Protection for Filings Made With the Court). Part II of this report presents those action items. They are organized as follows: Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 58 of 209 Excerpt from the May 7, 2026 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules ***** B. II. Items for Publication ● Rule 2003; and ● Rule 9037. Action Items ***** ***** B. Items for Publication The Advisory Committee recommends that the following rule amendments be published for public comment in August 2026. Bankruptcy Tab 17 includes Rule 2003, and Rule 9037 is included in Ms. Dubay’s report on the privacy rules amendments. Action Item 4. Rule 2003 (Meeting of Creditors or Equity Security Holders). A chapter 12/chapter 13 trustee submitted a suggestion (Suggestion 24-BK-G), which she later revised (Suggestion 25-BK-B), to amend Rule 2003 as pertains to the timing and location of meetings of creditors. She made this suggestion, which was endorsed by the Association of Chapter 12 Trustees (“ACT12”) and the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees, in response to the current practice of conducting the meetings remotely by means of Zoom. The National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (“NABT”) also submitted a suggestion (25-BK-C) to amend Rule 2003 to take account of remote meetings of creditors. Because some of the concerns raised by the suggestions relate to policies of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees (“EOUST”), the Advisory Committee suggested that discussions between that office and trustee representatives might be helpful in determining whether a consensus could be reached about the need for possible amendments to Rule 2003. Those discussions took place, and ACT 12 and NABT submitted new suggestions (26-BK-1 and 26-BK-2) that proposed amendments to Rule 2003(a) that the EOUST and the trustee groups agreed on, plus an additional amendment that the EOUST did not support. The Advisory Committee approved the proposed amendments for publication, with minor changes suggested by the style consultants, and by a 10-4 vote rejected the language to which the EOUST objected. These proposed amendments would allow more time to convene the meeting of creditors in chapter 12 and 13 cases, extending the deadline in chapter 12 cases from 35 to 60 days, and in chapter 13 cases, from 50 to 60 days, after the order for relief. They would also expressly authorize meetings of creditors to be “conducted in person or remotely” and would allow the U.S. trustee to designate in which manner a meeting would be conducted. The Advisory Committee declined to add the sentence, “A remote meeting is deemed to take place in the district in which the case was filed.” Action Item 5. Rule 9037 (Protecting Privacy for Filings). All the advisory committees have been considering suggestions that address particular issues relating to the privacy rules, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 59 of 209 Excerpt from the May 7, 2026 Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules including suggestions regarding redaction of social-security numbers (“SSNs”) in federal-court filings and a suggestion relating to initials of known minors in court filings. The Advisory Committee has approved for publication amendments to Rule 9037 that would extend the protection of the rule to exhibits and attachments and would require the use of a pseudonym in place of initials for an individual known to be and identified as a minor. It does not propose amending the rule to require the complete redaction of SSNs. A Federal Judicial Center survey of bankruptcy debtor attorneys; chapter 7, 12, and 13 trustees; creditor attorneys; various tax authorities; and representatives of the National Association of Attorneys General revealed a need for the last 4 SSN digits in order to associate filings with the correct individual. The Advisory Committee also decided not to require the redaction of EINs, which the bankruptcy petition forms currently require an employer-debtor to provide. These numbers are used to monitor repeat filings, and the Advisory Committee was unaware of any demonstrated need for redacting them. The Advisory Committee has also approved for publication a new Rule 8011(a)(4) that would require full redaction of SSNs or other taxpayer-identification numbers—including EINs— from any filing made in appeals from the bankruptcy court to the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel. These amendments were drafted to parallel amendments to Appellate Rule 25, which the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee has been considering. However, in light of that committee’s continuing consideration of those amendments, the Advisory Committee recommends that the Standing Committee postpone publication of the new Rule 8011(a)(4) to allow for coordination with the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee as it continues to study the issue. ***** Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 60 of 209 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1 1 2 Rule 2003. Meeting of Creditors or Equity Security Holders 3 (a) 4 Date and Place of the Meeting. (1) Date. Except as provided in § 341(e), the 5 United States trustee must call a meeting of 6 creditors to be held: 7 (A) in a Chapter 7 or 11 case, no fewer 8 than 21 days and no more than 40 9 days after the order for relief; or (B) 10 in a Chapter 12 or 13 case, no fewer 11 than 21 days and no more than 35 60 12 days after the order for relief; or (C) 13 in a Chapter 13 case, no fewer than 14 21 days and no more than 50 days 15 after the order for relief. New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is lined through. 1 Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 61 of 209 2 16 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE (2) Effect of a Motion or an Appeal. The 17 United States trustee may set a later date for 18 the meeting if there is a motion to vacate the 19 order for relief, an appeal from such an 20 order, or a motion to dismiss the case. 21 (3) Place; Manner of Conducting Possible 22 Change in the Meeting Date. The meeting 23 may be held at a regular place for holding 24 court place and in the manner designated by 25 the United States trustee. Or the United 26 States trustee may designate any other place 27 in the district The meeting may be conducted 28 in person or remotely. An in-person meeting 29 may be held at a regular place for holding 30 court, or at any place in the district 31 designated by the United States trustee that 32 is convenient for the parties in interest. If the 33 designated meeting place is not regularly Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 62 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 3 34 staffed by the United States trustee or an 35 assistant who may preside, the meeting may 36 be held no more than 60 days after the order 37 for relief. 38 ***** 39 Committee Note 40 41 Subdivision (a) is amended to better reflect current practices in the conduct of meetings of creditors. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 In paragraph (1) the time for convening the meeting of creditors in a chapter 12 or 13 case is extended to a maximum of 60 days after the order for relief. Prior to the amendment, meetings were frequently called for a date that was as many as 60 days after the order for relief under a provision in paragraph (3) that allowed such lengthening of the timeframe when “the designated meeting place [was] not regularly staffed by the United States trustee or an assistant who [could] preside.” Now that provision has been deleted, and the rule allows the U.S. trustee to call for a meeting of creditors in any chapter 12 or 13 case to be held no fewer than 21 days and no more than 60 days after the order for relief. 55 56 57 58 Paragraph (3) is amended to clarify that, consistent with § 341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, meetings of creditors may be held remotely, as well as in person, as designated by the U.S. trustee. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 63 of 209 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE1 1 2 Rule 5005. Filing Papers and Sending Copies to the United States Trustee 3 (a) Filing Papers. ***** 4 5 (3) Electronic Filing and Signing. (A) 6 By a Represented Entity—Generally 7 Required; Exceptions. An entity 8 represented by an attorney must file 9 electronically, unless nonelectronic 10 filing is allowed by the court for cause 11 or is allowed or required by local rule. (B) 12 By an Unrepresented Individual— 13 When Allowed or Required. 14 (i) In General. An unrepresented individual not represented by 15 1 New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is lined through. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 64 of 209 2 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 16 an attorney: (i) may file 17 electronically only if allowed 18 by use the court’s electronic- 19 filing system to file papers 20 and receive notice of activity 21 in the case, unless a court 22 order or local rule; and 23 prohibits the individual from 24 doing so. An unrepresented 25 individual 26 required to file electronically 27 only by court order in a case, 28 or by a local rule that includes 29 reasonable exceptions. 30 (ii) (ii) may be Conditions and Restrictions 31 on Access. A court may set 32 and 33 conditions and restrictions on Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 enforce reasonable Page 65 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 3 34 unrepresented 35 access 36 electronic-filing 37 (including by denying or 38 revoking 39 particular 40 individual). But the court may 41 not prohibit all unrepresented 42 individuals from using the 43 system unless that prohibition 44 includes 45 exceptions 46 permits the use of another 47 electronic method for filing 48 papers 49 electronic notice of activity in 50 the case. 51 (C) to individuals’ the court’s system access for a unrepresented reasonable or and the court receiving Signing. A filing made through a Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 66 of 209 4 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 52 person’s an individual’s electronic- 53 filing account and authorized by that 54 person individual, together with the 55 person’s individual’s name on a 56 signature 57 person’s individual’s signature. (D) 58 block, constitutes the Same as a Written Paper. A paper 59 filed electronically is a written paper 60 for purposes of these rules, the 61 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62 made applicable by these rules, and 63 § 107. 64 65 (b) Sending Copies to the United States Trustee. (1) Papers Sent Electronically. All papers 66 required to be sent to the United States trustee 67 may be sent by using the court’s electronic- 68 filing system in accordance with Rule 9036, 69 unless a court order or local rule provides Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 67 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 5 otherwise. 70 (2) 71 Papers Not Sent Electronically. If an entity 72 other than the clerk sends a paper to the 73 United States trustee without using the 74 court’s electronic-filing system, the entity 75 must promptly file a statement identifying the 76 paper and stating the manner by which and 77 the date it was sent. The clerk need not send 78 a copy of a paper to a United States trustee 79 who requests in writing that it not be sent. 80 81 (c) When a Paper Is Erroneously Filed or Delivered. (1) Paper Intended for the Clerk. If a paper 82 intended to be filed with the clerk is 83 erroneously delivered to a person an entity 84 listed below, that person entity must note on 85 it the date of receipt and promptly send it to 86 the clerk: 87  the United States trustee; Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 68 of 209 6 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 88  the trustee; 89  the trustee’s attorney; 90  a bankruptcy judge; 91  a district judge; 92  the clerk of the bankruptcy appellate panel; or 93  94 95 (2) the clerk of the district court. Paper Intended for the United States 96 Trustee. If a paper intended for the United 97 States trustee is erroneously delivered to the 98 clerk or to another person entity listed in (1), 99 the clerk or that person entity must note on it 100 the date of receipt and promptly send it to the 101 United States trustee. 102 (3) Applicable Filing Date. In the interests of 103 justice, the court may order that the original 104 receipt date shown on a paper erroneously 105 delivered under (1) or (2) be deemed the date Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 69 of 209 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 7 106 it was filed with the clerk or sent to the United 107 States trustee. 108 Committee Note 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Rule 5005(a)(3)(B) is amended to address electronic filing by unrepresented individuals. (Concurrent amendments are made to Rules 8011 and 9036 and to Civil Rule 5, Criminal Rule 49, and Appellate Rule 25.) The amendments expand the availability of electronic modes by which unrepresented individuals can file documents with the court and receive notice of filings that others make in the case. The amendments also conform to the terminology used elsewhere in the Bankruptcy Rules by replacing “person” with “entity” (when the intent is to encompass the broadest possible range of actors) or with “individual” (when the intent is to refer to a human being). 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 Under amended Rule 5005(a)(3)(B)(i), the presumption is the opposite of the presumption set by the prior rule. That is, under the amended rule, unrepresented individuals are presumptively authorized to use the court’s electronic-filing system to file documents in their case. If a court wishes to restrict unrepresented individuals’ access to the court’s electronic-filing system, it must adopt an order or local rule to impose that restriction. 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Amended Rule 5005(a)(3)(B)(ii) states that the court may set reasonable conditions and restrictions on access by unrepresented individuals to the court’s electronic-filing system. For example, access to electronic filing could be allowed only to unrepresented individuals who are not incarcerated (in light of the distinctive logistical considerations that apply in carceral settings), satisfactorily complete required training and certifications, and comply Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2026 Page 70 of 209 8 FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 137 with other reasonable conditions on access. 138 139 140 141 142 143 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/federal_court_rules%3Aus-national%3Ab0799c6b886e330c. Public record. Not legal advice.