Also known as: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure · FRCP · Fed. R. Civ. P.
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A set of procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act that govern the conduct of civil actions in United States district courts. The rules address filing, service, discovery, motions, trials, judgments, and appeals while remaining valid only if they regulate practice or procedure without abridging substantive rights.
Fusion Power produced over 40,000 pages of documents to opposing counsel without a privilege screen. Among them were annotated trial notes. Upon discovering the error the next day, Fusion Power sent a clawback letter and moved to strike portions of an expert report that incorporated the notes. The court evaluated whether prompt rectification occurred under the applicable federal rule.
Fatima Flores sued Fidelity Trust in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. She served the front-desk supervisor at a resort pursuant to the federal rule on service of corporations. State law required service on a separately incorporated subsidiary. Fidelity Trust moved to dismiss for insufficient service. The court applied the federal rule to deny the motion.
Fernando Farrell, a defendant in a state-court contract action, filed a notice of removal in the proper federal district court. The notice was signed under Rule 11 and included a short statement of grounds together with copies of all process and pleadings served in state court. The plaintiff challenged the removal as procedurally defective.
Frederick Ferguson sued Fairview Manufacturing in diversity seeking to represent a class of policyholders for unpaid interest. A state statute barred class actions for interest-only claims. Ferguson moved for certification under the federal class-action rule. The court applied that rule to decide whether certification was available.
Francesca Fowler sued Flagship Logistics in federal diversity court. The court dismissed the action under the forum state's shorter statute of limitations. Fowler refiled in another state where the claim remained timely. Flagship asserted claim preclusion based on the prior dismissal. The second court determined the preclusive effect under its own law.
Flora Ford, an in-house counsel at Fusion Power, prepared memoranda analyzing litigation strategy. During discovery the company produced some of those documents. The opposing party sought to compel additional similar materials. The court assessed whether the documents qualified for protection under the federal discovery rule.
Upjohn Co. manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals in the United States and abroad. In January 1976, independent accountants conducting an audit of one of Upjohn's foreign subsidiaries discovered that the subsidiary had made payments to or for the benefit of foreign government officials in order to secure government business. The accountants informed Gerard Thomas, Upjohn's Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel. Thomas is a member of the Michigan and New York Bars and had served as General Counsel for twenty years. Thomas consulted with outside counsel and R. T. Parfet, Jr., Upjohn's Chairman of the Board. It was decided that the company would conduct an internal investigation of what were termed questionable payments. As part of this investigation, the attorneys prepared a letter containing a questionnaire that was sent to all foreign general and area managers over the Chairman's signature. The letter noted recent disclosures that several American companies had made possibly illegal payments to foreign government officials. It stated that Thomas had been asked to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and magnitude of any such payments. Managers were instructed to treat the investigation as highly confidential and to send responses directly to Thomas. Thomas and outside counsel also interviewed the recipients of the questionnaire and thirty-three other Upjohn officers or employees. On March 26, 1976, Upjohn voluntarily submitted a preliminary report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K disclosing the questionable payments. A copy of the report was simultaneously submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS immediately began an investigation to determine the tax consequences of the payments. On November 23, 1976, the Service issued a summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 demanding production of the records described in the summons. The records included written questionnaires sent to managers of the Upjohn Company's foreign affiliates. They also included memorandums or notes of the interviews conducted in the United States and abroad with officers and employees of the Upjohn Company and its subsidiaries. Upjohn declined to produce the documents specified in the summons on the grounds that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and constituted attorneys' work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. On August 31, 1977, the United States filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan seeking enforcement of the summons under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). The district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the summons should be enforced. Upjohn appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit rejected the magistrate's finding of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. However, it held that the privilege did not apply to the extent the communications were made by officers and agents not responsible for directing Upjohn's actions in response to legal advice. The court remanded to the district court for a determination of who was within the control group. In a footnote, the court stated that the work-product doctrine is not applicable to administrative summonses issued under 26 U.S.C. § 7602. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA federal rule applies when it is on point and valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it regulates procedure rather than substantive rights. Courts do not engage in forum-shopping analysis once a valid federal rule addresses the issue.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 41(b) addresses the effect of dismissals within the federal system but does not control claim-preclusion consequences. The preclusive effect is determined by federal common law that ordinarily incorporates the preclusion law of the state where the rendering federal court sat.
Supporting sources
The notice must be signed under Rule 11, contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, and be accompanied by copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant in the state action.
Supporting sources
Rule 502(b)(3) requires the privilege holder to take prompt reasonable steps to rectify the error, which may include following the procedures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) for returning or destroying the material.
Supporting sources
…the parties, service of process shall be made in the manner prescribed by state law or that set forth in Rule 4 (d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for personal…