Federal Court Litigation Procedures

Federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which provide uniform procedures nationwide. While local rules add variations, the FRCP creates a consistent framework across all federal district courts. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction—they hear federal question cases (arising under federal law) and diversity cases (state law claims between parties from different states with sufficient amount in controversy, typically $75,000). Understanding federal procedures is essential for any federal court litigation.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Overview

The FRCP govern procedure in all US district courts. The rules cover everything from initial pleadings through appeals. They're designed to secure "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." In practice, federal litigation is often more structured and predictable than state court, with clearer standards and more consistent application.

Local rules supplement the FRCP. Each federal district court has local rules addressing specific practices, timing, formatting requirements, and procedures unique to that court. Local rules can significantly affect practice—filing requirements, motion page limits, discovery protocols, and trial procedures vary by district. Practitioners must know both FRCP and applicable local rules.

Electronic filing (CM/ECF) is mandatory in federal courts. All documents are filed electronically through the court's system. This enables immediate access, automatic service, and efficient case management. Electronic filing requires registration and familiarity with the system's requirements.

Federal Pleading Standards

Federal courts require plausible pleading under the Twombly/Iqbal standard. Complaints must allege facts that, if true, would make the claim plausible—not just possible. Mere conclusory statements or formulaic recitations of elements are insufficient. This is stricter than traditional "notice pleading" used in many state courts.

Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain: (1) a short and plain statement of jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and (3) a demand for relief. The "short and plain" requirement means complaints should be concise, not exhaustive narratives.

Rule 9(b) requires heightened pleading for fraud and mistake—these must be stated with particularity. This means specific facts about the fraudulent statement, who made it, when, where, and how it was false. Vague fraud allegations are dismissed.

Rule 12(b)(6) motions challenge legal sufficiency. Courts accept all factual allegations as true and ask only whether they state a claim. This is a legal question, not a factual one. If the complaint fails to allege facts making the claim plausible, dismissal is appropriate even if facts could theoretically support the claim.

Rule 12(b) provides other dismissal grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, and failure to join required parties. These are threshold issues resolved before merits.

Federal Discovery Procedures

Federal discovery is more structured and limited than many state courts. The FRCP emphasize proportionality—discovery must be proportional to needs, considering importance of issues, amount in controversy, parties' resources, and whether burden outweighs benefit.

Rule 26(a)(1) requires initial disclosures within 14 days of the discovery conference. Parties must disclose: individuals likely to have discoverable information, documents supporting claims/defenses, damages computations, and insurance agreements. These disclosures happen automatically, without requests.

Rule 26(b)(1) defines discoverable information: anything relevant to any party's claim or defense, proportional to needs. Relevance is broad but not unlimited. Privileged information (attorney-client, work product) is protected. Discovery can extend to information that would be admissible at trial, plus information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Rule 30 governs depositions—sworn testimony before trial. Parties can depose any person (party or non-party) with relevant information. Depositions are limited to one day of seven hours per deponent (extendable with good cause). Depositions require notice, and non-party depositions require subpoenas. Depositions are expensive but provide opportunity to assess witness credibility and lock in testimony.

Rule 33 governs interrogatories—written questions requiring written answers under oath. Parties can serve up to 25 interrogatories (including discrete subparts) without leave of court. Interrogatories are useful for basic facts but less effective for nuanced information. Objections must be specific, not boilerplate.

Rule 34 governs requests for production—demands for documents, electronically stored information (ESI), and things. Requests must specify items with reasonable particularity. Production typically occurs at the requesting party's location or by agreement. ESI discovery has become central, with rules addressing format, cost allocation, and preservation obligations.

Rule 36 governs requests for admission—statements of fact that the other party must admit, deny, or state insufficient knowledge. Admissions are binding for the litigation—admitted facts don't need proof at trial. Requests for admission are limited to 25 without leave of court. They're useful for narrowing disputed issues.

Rule 26(b)(4) governs expert discovery. Expert witnesses must provide written reports (Rule 26(a)(2)(B)) containing opinions, bases, qualifications, prior testimony, and compensation. Expert reports are due 90 days before trial (or as court orders). Depositions of experts are allowed but limited. Expert discovery is expensive and time-consuming but often critical for complex cases.

Discovery disputes are resolved through motions to compel (seeking court order requiring responses) or motions for protective orders (seeking limits on discovery). Courts can award expenses, including attorney fees, for discovery misconduct. Federal courts actively manage discovery to prevent abuse.

Federal Motion Practice

Federal motion practice follows specific procedures and standards. Understanding these is essential for effective advocacy.

Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss test legal sufficiency. Courts accept facts as pleaded and ask only whether a claim exists. The standard is plausibility—not probability, but more than possibility. Many motions to dismiss fail because complaints need only allege enough to survive, not prove the case.

Rule 56 summary judgment motions seek judgment without trial when no material facts are genuinely disputed. The moving party must show absence of genuine dispute on material facts. The non-moving party then must show that disputes exist. Summary judgment is appropriate when, even viewing facts in light most favorable to non-movant, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is common in federal court and often disposes of cases.

Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings are similar to Rule 12(b)(6) but filed after answer. They test legal sufficiency based on pleadings alone, without considering evidence.

Discovery motions include motions to compel (seeking responses to discovery), motions for protective orders (seeking limits on discovery), and motions to quash (challenging subpoenas). These require showing good cause or that discovery is improper.

Motions in limine seek to exclude evidence before trial. These are filed before or at trial start and address evidentiary issues that could prejudice the jury if raised during trial. Motions in limine are common in jury trials.

Motion response times are typically 14 days for most motions, 21 days for summary judgment (Rule 56(c)), though local rules may vary. Reply briefs are typically due 7-14 days after response. Page limits are common (often 15-25 pages for principal briefs, shorter for replies).

Federal Trial Procedures

Federal trials follow structured procedures designed for efficiency and fairness.

Jury selection (voir dire) screens potential jurors for bias. Each side can challenge jurors for cause (showing bias) or use peremptory challenges (limited number, no reason required, but cannot be based on race or gender). Federal juries typically have 6-12 members depending on case type.

Opening statements preview each side's case. They're not evidence but set expectations. Plaintiffs go first, then defendants. Opening statements are limited in time (often 15-30 minutes per side) and scope.

Case-in-chief presents evidence. Plaintiffs present first (they have burden of proof), then defendants. Evidence comes through witnesses (direct examination by calling party, cross-examination by opponent) and exhibits. Federal evidence rules (Federal Rules of Evidence) govern admissibility.

Closing arguments summarize evidence and argue for desired outcome. Plaintiffs go first and last (rebuttal). Closing arguments are limited in time and must stay within evidence presented.

Jury instructions explain legal standards. Judges draft instructions based on pattern instructions and party proposals. Instructions are critical—they tell juries what law to apply.

Verdicts can be general (guilty/not guilty, liable/not liable) or special (answering specific questions). Federal courts often use general verdicts with special interrogatories.

Federal Appeals

Federal appeals go to circuit courts of appeals (13 circuits covering different regions). Appeals from circuit courts go to the US Supreme Court (by certiorari, not as of right).

Standards of review determine appellate deference. De novo review applies to legal questions (no deference). Clear error review applies to factual findings (deference to trial court). Abuse of discretion applies to procedural rulings (significant deference). Understanding the standard matters enormously—most appeals involve legal questions reviewed de novo.

Appeal deadlines are strict. Notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of final judgment (Rule 4(a)(1)). This deadline is jurisdictional—missing it usually bars appeal. Extensions are possible with proper motion showing excusable neglect.

Appellate briefs present arguments. Appellants' briefs argue why the lower court erred. Appellees' briefs defend the lower court's decision. Briefs have page limits (typically 14,000 words or 30 pages for principal briefs). Appellate briefs require careful legal analysis and citation to record and authority.

Oral argument is often scheduled but not always held. When held, it's typically limited (15-30 minutes per side). Oral argument allows judges to ask questions and probe arguments. It's an opportunity to address concerns and emphasize key points.

Appellate decisions can affirm (uphold lower court), reverse (overturn lower court), remand (send back for further proceedings), or modify (change lower court decision). Most appeals affirm—appellate courts defer to trial courts on factual matters and give significant weight to trial court discretion.

Key Differences from State Courts

Federal courts are generally more structured and predictable than state courts. Key differences include:

Discovery scope is more limited in federal court (proportionality requirement). State courts often allow broader discovery.

Pleading standards are stricter in federal court (plausibility required). Many state courts still use notice pleading (any facts supporting claim).

Summary judgment is more common and successful in federal court. Federal courts actively use summary judgment to dispose of cases without trial when facts are undisputed.

Case management is more active in federal court. Judges set discovery deadlines, motion deadlines, and trial dates early. State courts are often more passive.

Expert discovery is more structured in federal court (written reports required). State court expert discovery varies significantly.

Local rules matter more in federal court. Each district has detailed local rules that significantly affect practice.

Common Federal Court Practices

Case management conferences happen early (often within 60-90 days of filing). Judges set discovery schedules, motion deadlines, and trial dates. These conferences are critical—they establish the case timeline.

Settlement conferences are often required. Judges or magistrate judges facilitate settlement discussions. These can be effective, especially when judges actively engage.

Magistrate judges handle many pretrial matters (discovery disputes, settlement conferences, some motions). District judges handle dispositive motions and trials. Understanding the role of magistrate judges is important.

Multi-district litigation (MDL) consolidates related cases from multiple districts before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. MDL is common for mass torts, product liability, and other cases with many similar claims.

Class actions in federal court require meeting Rule 23 requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and (for damages classes) predominance and superiority. Class certification is a critical and often contested issue.

Key Numbers

Initial disclosures: 14 days after discovery conference (Rule 26(a)(1))

Expert reports: 90 days before trial (Rule 26(a)(2)(D))

Motion response: 14 days for most motions, 21 days for summary judgment (local rules may vary)

Appeal deadline: 30 days from entry of final judgment (Rule 4(a)(1))

Deposition limit: One day, seven hours per deponent (Rule 30(d)(1))

Interrogatory limit: 25 per party (Rule 33(a)(1))

Request for admission limit: 25 per party (Rule 36(a)(1))

Summary judgment standard: No genuine dispute of material fact, movant entitled to judgment as law