Rules Committee Research Articles

The NCAA, Concussions, and the Lack of Concern for Athletes

Abstract For most of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) showed little concern for football brain injuries and concussions. It began with the creation of the NCAA (1905–6) and its new Football Rules Committee failing to effectively address the issue following the death of a Union College football player from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered in a pile-up during a 1905 game with New York University. Five months later, new football rules were introduced ostensibly to create a safer game. No specific rules were created to reduce brain concussions or recurring brain injuries, such as requiring doctors to be at practices and games or commanding medical staff to not allow athletes to reenter games or practices. The nonconcern for concussions and brain injuries continued for a century despite mounting scientific and medical evidence through the entire twentieth century that action by collegiate authorities should be taken. There is evidence that NCAA and institution officials were concerned that efforts to make the game safer might detract from the game's collision component, which drew fans and made football the most important sport in colleges. The century-long tradition of prioritizing profits and popularity over the health and safety of college football players continued even as lawsuits multiplied.

Цифровизация гражданского судопроизводства Англии

Introduction: England is going through a period of radical reform of the civil justice system. A new landscape of digital dispute resolution is advancing, based on the idea that the transition from ‘paperbased’ resolution of legal disputes in physical courts to an online environment will help meet the dual requirements of expanded access to justice and significantly reduced system costs. As noted by the English authors, now the country has a semi‐digital justice system and hybrid ways of working. Supporters of the reforms define the current system as unstable and consider growing digitalization to be the only realistic solution. Purpose: to form an idea of the digitalization of civil proceedings in England based on analysis of scientific sources and regulations. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; special scientific methods such as legaldogmatic and the method of interpretation of legal norms. Results: the conducted research has shown that a modernization program is currently being implemented in the courts of England and Wales, focused on the transition from traditional ways of working to the use of digital methods. There have been created various pilot schemes aimed at improving access to justice, at facilitating preliminary resolution of disputes and resolution of disputes at early stages, at reducing the number of claims reaching the court, at increasing the economic efficiency of civil proceedings and judicial efficiency. Judicial reform has been carried out by the UK government for more than 25 years. But the civil justice reform program, with its commitment to digitalization and online process, began in earnest in 2014, when the Ministry of Justice announced that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would implement a reform program the central element of which would be the use of information technology, including online processes, to facilitate dispute resolution. The concept of online court was to create a convenient online system for processing simple monetary claims with a value not exceeding 25,000 pounds. Conclusions: in 2023, the following digital technologies were widely used by UK courts: video hearings (at the discretion of the court); creation of electronic packages of court documents (e‐bundles) and electronic filing of court documents; electronic communication between the parties and the court; online portals for processing various forms of claims; creation of an online system of protocols of preliminary actions (Pre Action Protocols), called online PAPs. Currently, various claim portals designed to handle claims of various types are operating or undergoing pilot testing in the country: the Online Civil Monetary Claims (OCMC) portal (processing of claims for a certain amount of money limited to 25,000 pounds); the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) (processing of claims for damages in the district court); Official Injury Claim (OIC) portal (processing of accident injury claims). An important event was the creation of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) in accordance with the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. This law created the basis for the development of new, simplified Rules for online services in civil, family, and arbitration proceedings. The Recommendations of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) should also be taken into account with regard to the use of blockchain technologies in legal proceedings and judicial practice on this issue. The final report of the UKJT was published on June 28, 2023. The final position of the UKJT was to support common law as the primary means to be used to resolve claims against cryptocurrencies.

Effect of the 2018 NCAA Kickoff Rule Change on Concussion Rates in Collegiate Football: Results From a Division 1 Conference.

Kickoff plays in American football are associated with an increased risk of concussion compared with other play types. In 2018, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Football Rules Committee altered the kickoff rules so a fair catch inside the 25-yard line results in a touchback, with the ensuing drive starting on the 25-yard line. The intention was to decrease the number of kickoff returns with a corresponding decrease in the rate of concussions on kickoff plays. To determine whether the 2018 rule changes had the intended effects in an NCAA Division 1 Conference. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. The study population included football athletes in the NCAA Pacific-12 (Pac-12) Conference. Data on the total number of plays, punts, kickoffs, touchbacks, and fair catches were obtained for all in-conference games from the 2016 to 2021 seasons. The number of game concussions and the play type were provided by each conference institution. Incidence of concussions occurring during kickoff plays before (2016-2017) and after (2018-2021) the rule change were compared with a difference-in-difference analysis using Poisson general linear models. There were 242 concussions in 108,774 total plays in the study period, with an overall concussion rate of 2.2 per 1000 plays. The percentage of touchbacks increased significantly from 45% to 51% (P < .001) and the percentage of fair catches increased from 1% to 7% (P < .001) from before to after the rule change. Kickoffs accounted for 6% of plays both before and after the rule change and 11% of concussions before and 14% after the change. The mean annual concussion rate (per 1000 plays) on kickoffs was 3.42 before and 5.31 after the rule change (rate difference: 1.89; 95% confidence interval, -1.22 to 5.01). Touchbacks and fair catches increased after the kickoff rule change, but there was not a corresponding decrease in concussions during kickoff plays as anticipated. Concussions occurring during other football plays remained stable.

Reflections on Judge Crawford’s Contributions to the International Court of Justice

Abstract James Crawford was sworn in as a Judge of the International Court of Justice on 6 February 2015. In his nearly seven years on the bench, Judge Crawford made a significant contribution to the jurisprudence, the procedures, and the working environment of the Court. First, Judge Crawford’s declarations and separate and dissenting opinions are discussed in this article, as these best illustrate his personal contributions to the Court’s jurisprudence. Second, Judge Crawford propounded procedural change at the Court long before he joined its bench and he was able to make good on some of these proposals after joining the Court, in particular as a member of the Court’s Rules Committee. Amendments to the Rules of Court and the Court’s Practice Directions made during his time of the bench are discussed in this article, as well as Judge Crawford’s questions to parties during oral proceedings. Finally, this article recognises Judge Crawford’s enormous contribution to the working environment of the Court. He had a lightness that lifted the mood in the otherwise solemn corridors of the International Court. He strived to keep his own and—where possible—other staff happy and motivated. Judge Crawford’s support for the staff union was invaluable. These are just some examples of why Judge Crawford should be remembered for his kind temperament, his patience, and his generosity in mentoring aspiring international practitioners and scholars, over and above his professional achievements.

Safeguarding Access to Justice in the Age of the Online Court

AbstractIn 2016 Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service embarked on a significant modernisation programme with a view to developing online courts. In pursuit of this ambition the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill seeks to introduce new procedural rules to govern the online jurisdiction, giving the Lord Chancellor and an Online Procedure Rule Committee the power to mandate which proceedings will be conducted online and what assistance will be provided to users. In this study we analyse survey data and case decisions to highlight the importance of channel plurality and digital support in light of the shift to online courts. Our findings identify the groups most at risk of digital exclusion, and the expectations the judiciary sets in relation to internet access, capability, and the design of online systems. We conclude by detailing what our findings mean for safeguarding access to justice in the digital age.

The Rise of Multiple-Measures Rules in the House of Representatives

Through most of the modern partisan era, the House Rules Committee adhered to a norm of One Measure, One Rule. Starting in the 1990s, majorities violated this norm on rare occasions, but after 2010, multiple-measures rules became commonplace. This paper argues that multiple, sometimes competing objectives—majority messaging, member position-taking opportunities, and managing limited floor time—motivate the majority’s use of this creative rule. Bills in multiple-measures rules since 2010 have been more majority-unifying and divisive between the parties, and bills appear more in these rules as some time constraints increase. Bills sponsored by rank-and-file members, as compared to committee chairs, are also more likely to be included in multiple-measures packages. A special case of the multiple-measures rule, the bifurcated rule, also governs measures with heightened partisan conflict, and it allows the majority to navigate coalition problems creatively under certain conditions. The multiple-measures trend highlights how the majority continues to evolve special rules to pursue multiple goals under constraints, and it raises important questions about the way these tactics limit floor consideration of procedure.

Testimony of Professor Rebecca Ingber on War Powers Reform, to the House Rules Committee

Professor Rebecca Ingber testified before the U.S. House Committee on Rules hearing on Article I: Reforming the War Powers Resolution for the 21st Century, on March 23, 2021.

Submission to the ACICA Rules Revision Consultation 2020

In 2020, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration undertook a public consultation process regarding amendments to the ACICA Arbitration Rules 2016, with a view to formulating a new ACICA Arbitration Rules 2020. The ACICA Rules Committee released the ACICA Rules 2020 Consultation Draft (current as at 6 April 2020), incorporating proposed changes to the existing ACICA Rules 2016, for public comment. This Submission was prepared for the purpose of that consultation process, and addresses the way in which the ACICA Rules 2020 Consultation Draft addresses identification of the governing substantive law. It makes two different recommendations as to how the Draft Rules' relevant provision can be improved.

Environmental Hearing Board Rules Committee

If you practice before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, you are no doubt familiar with its Rules of Practice and Procedure found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 1021. The rules are the product of a small group of hard-working and dedicated attorneys who volunteer their time as members of the Environmental Hearing Board Rules Committee (Rules Committee). The statutorily-created Rules Committee was established by the Environmental Hearing Board Act, Act of July 13, 1988, P.L. 530, 35 P.S. §§ 7511-7515, at § 7515, and has been in existence since 1989. The nine-member Committee is charged with the task of drafting and recommending procedural rules to the judges of the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB or Board). Although the EHB Act imposes a minimum requirement for Rules Committee members to have three years of practice before the Board (or comparable experience), most attorneys who have served on the Committee have extensive experience handling matters before the Board, and in many instances it is a significant part of their practice. The members of the Rules Committee are named by various appointing authorities.

Histological classification of breast tumors in the General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Recording of Breast Cancer (18th edition).

The histological classification of breast tumors by the General Rule Committee of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society has been revised in the General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Recording of Breast Cancer (18th edition). In this article, the contents of the General Rules 18th edition are presented, and its revised points are briefly described in comparison with the classification of the General Rules 17th edition. The present classification takes into consideration the classification of breast tumors by the World Health Organization 4th edition, however, some differences remain. These differences will be briefly mentioned.

Presidents on the Fast Track: Fighting Floor Amendments with Restrictive Rules

Among presidents’ lesser known legislative powers is urgency authority. Seven Latin American presidents wield it: the constitutional power to impose on lawmakers a short deadline to discuss and vote selected bills. This power is similar to the fast-track authority that Congress grants periodically to the U.S. president. We claim that the key consequence of urgency authority is procedural: urgency prevents amendments during floor consideration. By using fast track authority, presidents can protect bills and committee agreements; in essence becoming a single-member Rules Committee with ability to impose closed rules on the floor. A formal model generates hypotheses that we test with original data from Chile between 1998 and 2014. Results confirm that preference overlap between the president and committee chairs drives the use of fast track authority systematically. Patterns in Chile are reminiscent of restrictive rule usage in the U.S.

An Empirical Evaluation of Proposed Civil Rules for Multidistrict Litigation

Recently the Civil Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States began considering the need for specific rules related to multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings. The possibility of creating rules specifically for MDL has its origins in recent proposed legislation prompted by groups typically tied to the defense bar. One area under consideration by the Civil Rules Committee is the use of fact sheets in MDL proceedings. These party-negotiated questionnaires, directed at parties to the case (both plaintiff and defendant), provide judges and attorneys with information about the scope of the proceeding. Understanding whether these case management tools are currently being used and how they work with other tools such as bellwether trials in MDL proceedings will help inform a discussion of the need for specific MDL rules. Despite their importance, there is very little published empirical work looking at fact sheets in MDL proceedings. This is the first such study of the use of fact sheets. Using a sample of 116 mass tort proceedings (typically involving products liability) centralized through MDL between 2008 and 2018, we examine when fact sheets were ordered, what were the procedures for complying with the case management order, what information was collected, and what effect they have on the termination of the proceedings. The proceeding ranged between 3 and 40,533 actions and were open a minimum of 118 days and a maximum of 3,811 days. Actions terminated within the proceeding at least 98% of the time, but little information is available on how the actions terminated. Proceedings were centralized in 40 districts. We find that fact sheets are ordered more than half the time, and were most likely to be used in the largest proceedings. The information in fact sheets is used in several ways within the proceeding, including identifying cases for bellwether trials and winnowing cases, and the use of fact sheet processes leads to faster termination of the proceeding, all else being equal. Our sample of proceedings suggests judges use fact sheets to organize products liability proceedings when judges perceive they are merited, after considering the size of the proceeding or the nature of the litigation. The frequency with which judges already employ fact sheets and the variation in the use calls into question both the need for a rule and how to write one without tying the hands of transferee judges. Many issues regarding how fact sheets are used remain to be studied more in-depth. We encourage future studies regarding how fact sheets are used across MDL proceedings.

Washington Hotline

Legislation authored by the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee to shift the right and responsibility of appointing the Register of Copyright from the Librarian of Congress to the President (H.R. 1695) was passed by the House of Representatives in May by a vote of 378 to 48 just weeks after it was introduced. Shortly afterwards, an exact replica of H.R 1695 was introduced in the Senate (S. 1010). It was expected to fly through the Senate as well until the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration claimed jurisdiction. The Rules Committee wants to take time to look at Copyright Office modernization holistically and found no reason to immediately act on legislation that, in isolation, would do nothing to further that widely supported objective.

Walter Camp: Football and the Modern ManJulie DesJardins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Walter Camp: Football and the Modern Man Julie Des Jardins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Debates are swirling around the vices and virtues of football. Does the game promote unnecessary violence? Are the known injuries worth the risk? Why does it remain the most popular sport in the United States? Julie Des Jar dins's recent biography, Walter Camp: Football and Manhood in America, provides a valuable historical perspective on the origins of football and its continued appeal to Americans. She uses the life of Walter Camp, The Father of American Football, to analyze the cultural shifts in America at the turn of the twentieth century. She deftly traces Camp from his childhood in New Flaven, Connecticut, to his collegiate career at Yale, to his occupation as a salesman, to his advisory role in writing football's rules, and to his illustrious literary career. For writing as much as he did with thirty books and over 250 articles, he left few letters or journal entries discussing his inner feelings or daily activities. Des Jardins compensates for the lack of sources by piecing together his publications with others' descriptions of him. Camp's multifaceted life and commenters allow Des Jardins to intertwine the changing cultural tides as the nineteenth century turned to the twentieth. She argues, Flis story is the tale of a particular New England, Anglo-Saxon set of college-educated men. And yet, viewed more broadly, it reveals just how much the developments of football and American manhood have cut across races and classes and been indelibly intertwined with each other (xiii). To defend her thesis, she focuses on Camp's shaping American football and his defining American masculinity.Though Walter Camp worked for the New Haven Clock Company throughout his life, Des Jardins focuses almost exclusively on his relationship with football. It was the game, not watches, which made him one of the most influential culture shapers of the period. She recounts how, from his time as an undergraduate athlete, his football prowess brought him into contact with the era's most influential men. After recounting his playing career, she weaves together Camp's role in the yearly rewriting of football's rules and his bending to the cultural demands projected onto the sport. Camp, she insists, built malleability into the fabric of football. For example, the 1903 rules committee changed the lines on the field turning the familiar gridiron into a waffle iron to better track player movements (172). …

A Boom Interview with California’s Poet Laureate

Dana Gioia provides his accounting of his work as California’s tenth Poet Laureate. Originally delivered to the California Senate Rules Committee, this interview accounts for Gioia’s understanding of how poetry and the arts can connect with ordinary Californians in collaborative ways. Additionally, Gioia’s poem, “A California Requiem,” accompanies the interview.

Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

In its 2011 report Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (Law Com No. 325), the Law Commission recommended that the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings should be governed by a new statutory regime comprising a new statutory reliability test in combination with codification and refinement of existing common law principles relating to ‘assistance’, ‘expertise’ and ‘impartiality’. The government declined to enact the Law Commission’s draft Bill due to a lack of certainty as to whether the additional costs incurred would be offset by savings. Instead the government invited the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee (CrimPRC) to consider amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) to introduce, as far as possible, the spirit of the Law Commission’s recommendations. The consequent amendments to CrimPR Part 33 (now CrimPR Part 19) in combination with the making of the new Practice Direction CrimPD 33A (now CrimPD 19A) by the Lord Chief Justice resulted in what he described in his 2014 Criminal Bar Association Kalisher Lecture as ‘a novel way of implementing an excellent Report’. This paper considers the possible evolution of the common law in light of these amendments, the challenges associated with adopting such a novel approach to reform and the potential opportunities for the improvement of expert evidence in criminal proceedings that the changes were intended to create.

The Proportionality Principle after the 2015 Amendments

Rule 26(b)(1) was revised as part of the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1) to promote (2) by the incorporation of factors, then located in Rule 26(b)(2)(C), into the text of (b)(1), with the factors slightly re-adjusted and a new factor added. (3) Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) now requires a court to the frequency or extent of when [iii] the burden or expense of the proposed is outside the permitted bv Rule 26(b)(1). (4) The revised permits of non-privileged information only if it is both to the claims or defenses of a party and is also to the of the case. The renewed emphasis on enforced through active case management, reflects a desire to achieve the goals of Rule 1. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his 2015 Year-End Report, the amended crystalizes the concept of reasonable limits on through increased reliance on the common-sense concept of (5) I. Cases Interpreting the New Rules The flood of post-December 1 decisions on the and implementation of Rule 26(b)(1) and related changes is best summarized in the following categories, although the cases themselves need to be consulted as well. A. Relevancy The relevancy of sought to the claims or defenses continues to be the primary issue determining the scope of If the information sought is not relevant, courts need not focus on proportionality. For example, in LightSquared v. Deere & Co. the court acknowledged the amended but denied the based on a lack of relevance. (6) Courts refuse to ask a party to run down a rabbit hole chasing irrelevant information on collateral matters. (7) The threshold for relevancy under the amended remains relatively low, (8) in contrast to the enhanced showing of relevance required in some Circuits for purposes of securing an adverse inferences. (9) Some courts cite the terms of Federal Rules of Evidence 401, under which evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less probable. (10) Moreover, as Judge Francis and others have held, relevance is still defined broadly by pre-December 1 case law, including the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, (11) which is often cited for that proposition. (12) B. Proportionality A on the of designed to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery, has been part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since 1983. (13) After the 2010 Duke Litigation Conference, the Rules Committee acted on its conviction that discovery in civil litigation would more often achieve the goals of Rule 1 through an increased emphasis on proportionality, enforced through active case management. (14) Although the initial Draft Committee Note described this as a change designed to limit the of discovery, (15) the final version of the Committee Note more accurately states that it merely restores the factors to their original place in defining the of discovery. (16) A number of cases have explicitly denied of otherwise relevant information based on grounds, involving a variety of contexts. In Henry v. Morgan's Hotel Group, the court refused to enforce subpoenas against former employers as not proportional to the needs of the case where it was not even remotely apparent what relevance the information would have to the allegations in the case. (17) In another, requests were denied because they was precisely the kind of disproportionate that Rule 26--old or new--was intended to preclude. (18) In Wilmington Trust v. AEP Generating (19) the court concluded that the rule of proportionality would be violated if it ordered an additional search which might produce 200K documents that would have to be searched manually. …

The Cost of Majority‐Party Bias: Amending Activity under Structured Rules

All major legislation in the House necessitates a special rule from the Rules Committee before it can be brought to the chamber floor. These rules often strictly limit floor amendments to bills considered by the House. Scholars of political parties have argued that the House majority party can bias policy output away from the floor median through its usage of restrictive rules. In this article, we argue that in order to secure the passage of restrictive rules, the majority often makes concessions to centrist legislators through the amending process. We examine this theory using a newly collected data set that includes all amendments considered by the Rules Committee during the construction of structured rules in the 109th, 110th, and 111th Congresses (2005–2010). Our results are mixed, but they do suggest that moderate members of the majority party often receive concessions via amendments for their support of the majority party's agenda‐setting regime.

The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Guide to Proportionality in Discovery and Implementing a Safe Harbor for Preservation

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) will take effect on December 1, (the 2015 Amendments) unless Congress acts to modify or reject them, which is highly unlikely.1 Collectively, the changes are designed to lower the costs of litigation by 1) providing judicial tools to encourage and enforce proportional discovery limited to information relevant to claims and defenses, and 2) reducing costs associated with over-preservation and ancillary litigation by establishing a uniform national standard for preservation obligations and a safe harbor for parties that take reasonable steps in good faith to preserve electronically stored information (ESI).This article provides an overview of these and other key Amendments along with examples of analytical methodologies to help courts and lawyers apply the Amendments as envisioned and, where appropriate, providing context and support from existing cases and commentary.I. IntroductionThe Amendments embrace a number of measures stemming from the Conference of May 2010, which was convened by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Rules Committee) to address persistent complaints about the costs of discovery (especially e-discovery), preservation of ESI and standards for sanctions for the destruction of such material.2 After the Conference, the two subcommittees assigned to respond (the Duke Subcommittee, for all rules other than Rule 37(e), and the Discovery Subcommittee for issues relating to spoliation) considered a number of potential rules and amendments through a transparent process in which public participation was deep and effective.This process included two miniconferences held before the Rules Committee released initial proposals in August, 2013, followed by three public hearings involving 120 testifying witnesses and over 2,300 written comments. After careful consideration of competing arguments and, in some cases, substantial revisions, the Rules Committee, the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court unanimously approved the final package of amendments. Many of the surviving proposals can be traced to discussions at the Conference and the proposals and submissions relating to it, such as the LCJ White Paper.* * 3The Amendments can have a dramatic impact if judges and lawyers implement them in the manner intended by the Rules Committee. They reflect the realities of current discovery and address many of the core issues not adequately treated in the 2006 Amendments.4 * More data exists now than any time in our history, a problem that a revised Rule 26(b) addresses by embedding proportionality principles in both the scope of discovery and in cost allocation. Moreover, the replacement for Rule 37(e) provides a uniform culpability standard, which rejects the focus on the loss of a few emails to justify sanctions (e.g. Pension Committed).The amendments reflect agreement among a diverse spectrum of stakeholders that the high costs and burdens of discovery, especially e-discovery, are skewing the U.S. civil justice system. Unrestrained e-discovery is inordinately costly.6 Not only does this provide perverse incentives for requesting parties to make unlimited demands (at the cost of producing parties), but the costs routinely force unfair settlements for reasons other than a lack of merits.Large majorities of the plaintiffs' and defense bars share the view that e-discovery demands (and the threat of sanctions) are abused.7 The Committee concluded after the Conference that excessive discovery occurs in a worrisome number of cases.8 A survey of the Association of Corporate Counsel administered by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS)9 found that 80 percent of chief legal officers or general counsel disagree with the statement that outcomes are driven more by the merits of the case than by litigation costs. As the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) put it in advance of the Conference, [ajlthough the civil justice system is not broken, it is in serious need of repair. …

The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Transmitted to Congress

THIS article provides an overview of the of amendments to the Federal of Civil Procedure, which were collectively forwarded to Congress for evaluation this spring. A copy of the text of each of the proposals is included in the Appendix to this article. The amendments will become effective on December 1, 2015 if Congress does not adopt legislation to reject, modify, or defer them. (1) I. History of the Amendments A. Background The amendments to the Federal of Civil Procedure, which were collectively forwarded to Congress by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2015, (2) culminated a four-year effort by the Civil Advisory Committee (the Rules Committee) operating under the supervision of the Committee on of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference (the Committee). The process began with the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation held by the Committee at the Law School (the Conference). The Conference was held in response to concerns about the costs of litigation, especially discovery and e-discovery. (3) A number of studies, surveys and empirical studies were submitted in advance, and panels discussed the relevant issues. (4) Key takeaways from the Conference included the need for improved case management, application of the long-ignored principle of and cooperation among parties in discovery. (5) In addition, an e-discovery panel reached a consensus that a rule addressing preservation (spoliation) would be a valuable addition to the Federal of Civil Procedure. (6) The Committee divided the task of developing individual rule proposals between the Duke Subcommittee, chaired by the Hon. John Koeltl, and the Discovery Subcommittee, subsequently chaired by the Hon. Paul Grimm. The Discovery Subcommittee focused on a replacement for Rule 37(e). (7) Both subcommittees vetted alternative draft rule proposals at mini-conferences. An initial of the proposals resulting from these efforts was released for public comment in August 2013. (8) After a robust public comment period, the subcommittees recommended revisions, which were adopted by the Committee at its April 2014 meeting in Portland, Oregon. The Standing Committee unanimously approved the revised proposals at its May 29, 2014 meeting. The revised proposals were then submitted with recommendations for approval to the Judicial Conference, (9) which approved the rules on their consent calendar and forwarded them to the Supreme Court for its review. (10) The Supreme Court adopted the proposed amendments without change and forwarded the full package to Congress after having suggested certain minor changes in several Committee Notes. (11) B. Hearings and Public Comments The Committee conducted Public Hearings on the initial proposals in late 2013 and early 2014 that involved 120 testifying witnesses. (12) The first hearing was held by the Committee in Washington, D.C. on November 7, 2013 and was followed by a second hearing on January 9, 2014 in Phoenix, and a third and final hearing on February 7, 2014 at the Dallas (DFW) airport. In addition, the Committee received over 2,300 written comments. (13) Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) (14) and the American Association for Justice (AAJ, formerly ATLA) provided expansive comments. (15) The AAJ urged rejection of rules that added proportionality factors to the scope of discovery, imposed reduced presumptive limits and made sanctions less likely in instances of spoliation, whereas LCJ supported limiting sanctions, adding proportionality to the scope of discovery, acknowledging cost-allocation and making reductions in presumptive numerical limits on use of discovery devices. Individual comments were submitted by representatives of corporate entities and affiliated advocacy groups and law firms as well as attorneys and representatives of plaintiff advocacy groups for individual claimants. …