The Special Masters' Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference asked the Center to examine how often judges appointed special masters and what functions they asked masters to perform. This report documents the incidence of recent special master consideration and appointment. The authors found that such activity was rare and occurred primarily in high-stakes cases that were especially complex. Party initiative, consent, or acquiescence provided the foundation for appointments and the basis for authorizing activities not contemplated by Rule 53. The subcommittee used the report along with other information in framing a proposed revision of Rule 53 that was published in August 2001.

In 1998, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal judges about their experiences with expert testimony in civil cases. Judges answered specific questions about their most recent relevant civil trial, as well as questions drawing on their overall experience with expert testimony in civil cases. The Center conducted a similar survey of judges in 1991, shortly before the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Preliminary analysis of the aggregated data has focused on (1) comparing judges' experiences with expert testimony before and after Daubert and (2) exploring the current concerns of judges regarding expert testimony in civil cases. Additional data have since been collected from attorneys in the trials described in the 1998 survey. Preliminary findings include the following:

 Experts testified most frequently in tort cases.

 Medical and mental health experts were the most common broad category of testifying experts, although economists were the single most frequent specific type of expert. Experts from scientific specialties testified in only a small proportion of cases.

Judges were more likely to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and less likely to admit expert testimony in 1998 than in 1991. Attorneys report filing motions in limine, challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, more frequently after Daubert.

 The two most common problems cited by judges were experts who were not objective and the excessive expense of expert testimony.

 In general, judges' assessments of problems with expert testimony did not differ greatly from 1991 to 1998.

Also see the 2002 expanded version of this report Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials.

Should digital audio recording technology be an approved method for taking the offical record of federal courts proceedings? This report, prepared at the request of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference, summarizes findings from a study of digital audio recording technology as it was used to take the record of court proceedings in six district and six bankruptcy courts. The study was designed to do four things: (1) provide an assessment of the technology by those who use it in court; (2) provide an assessment of the technology by transcriptionists; (3) compare costs, functionality, and benefits of digital and analog recording systems; and (4) collect information to assist the Administrative Office in preparing technical specifications to guide future purchases of equipment.

Bankruptcy courts are different from the district courts in the attorney conduct area in that attorneys who practice in bankruptcy courts are subject to a complex statutory system, which includes bankruptcy-specific conflict of interest criteria and other standards directly governing attorney conduct. The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in conjunction with the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules requested the Federal Judicial Center to conduct a study of attorney conduct issues in the bankruptcy courts. In December 1998, the Center sent 317 questionnaires to all chief bankruptcy judges (including bankruptcy judges in districts with only one bankruptcy judge) and to all other bankruptcy judges. This report presents the results of the survey.