Federal Rules Changes Run the Gamut. Practitioners Must Take Note

The Bottom Line

• A new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on multidistrict litigation and changes to the handling of privilege assertions took effect on Dec. 1, among other rules changes.
• Other proposed changes to the Federal Rules aim to streamline complex litigation, provide greater transparency, and clarify ambiguous language.
• Some of the proposed changes require parties to meet and confer on case-related issues earlier in a litigation.

December 2025 Changes

A series of amendments to federal rules on multidistrict litigation and assertions of privilege taking effect on Dec. 1, as part of the judiciary’s efforts to improve federal court system operations.

Multidistrict Litigation: MDL represents a significant portion of the federal civil docket, but there is no uniformity for how they are overseen by transferee courts. The new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 aims to change that by providing a framework for managing MDL proceedings.

Rule 16.1 requires MDL transferee courts to schedule conferences early to “develop an initial plan for orderly pretrial activity.” Parties must submit a report in advance of the conference conveying their views on appointing leadership counsel, managing direct filings of new actions in the MDL, and coordinating any related proceedings, among other topics.

The report also should contain the parties’ initial views on other issues, including preparing consolidated proceedings, exchanging information early to establish the parties’ factual bases for claims and defenses, efficiently supervising discovery, and adjudicating principal legal issues in a timely manner.

Properly applied, Rule 16.1 should facilitate the early management of MDL cases before discovery and more substantial litigation proceedings.

Privilege Assertions: An amendment to Rule 26(f)(3)(D) requires the parties’ discovery plan to address the “timing and method for complying” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A)’s mandate that parties describe materials withheld on grounds of privilege or attorney work-product in a way that “allows other parties to assess the claim.”

A companion amendment to Rule 16(b) prompts courts to address the timing and method for such compliance in scheduling or case management orders.

These changes are designed to enable early identification of an agreed-on method for privilege logs. According to the committee notes, the goal is to allow flexibility for addressing privilege designations through the litigation process, while requiring early discussions to minimize disputes at a later stage.

Pointing out the “serious problems” that can arise from production of a privilege log on the eve of the discovery deadline, the committee notes also suggest, but don’t require, using rolling productions of both documents and accompanying privilege logs.

December 2026 Changes

The Judicial Conference approved several rule changes at its September meeting. If adopted by the US Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress by May 1, absent congressional action, the following proposed amendments will take effect Dec. 1, 2026.

Amicus Filings: Several amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which governs amicus filings, would add additional obligations for disclosing relationships with parties, including whether a party or its counsel has a majority ownership interest in, or majority control of, an amicus.

The changes carry forward existing requirements for disclosing when an amicus brief is written by a party or its counsel or when that party or its counsel contributes money to pay for preparing or submitting an amicus brief (clarifying that this also includes money to fund the drafting of the brief).

Disclosure must be made if a nonparty—other than an amicus, its members, or its counsel—contributes money to pay for brief preparation, but only if the contributed amount is greater than $100. This is a change from the current rule that requires disclosure of any amount.

There are also now broader disclosure requirements about the identity of amici, including their “history, experience, and interests.”

These disclosure requirements will provide the court and the public with more information concerning the identity of amici and the nature of their relationships with the parties to a case.

In addition, new language sets forth the purpose of an amicus brief, noting that briefs may help the court if they bring relevant matters to its attention, whereas briefs that don’t serve this purpose may “burden” the court and are “disfavored.” The amendment thus adds to the text an admonishment that had long been in the committee notes.

The proposed rule changes also impose an express word limit of 6,500 words on amicus briefs submitted during the court’s initial consideration on the merits, rather than the current rule’s word limit where an amicus is entitled to half as many words as the parties.

Prior Inconsistent Statements: Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) currently provides that a prior inconsistent statement isn’t hearsay if the statement was given under penalty of perjury at trial or other similar proceedings. The proposed amendment removes the requirement that the prior inconsistent statement be made in a formal proceeding.

If the amendment to Rule 801 takes effect, all prior inconsistent statements by a testifying witness will be considered non-hearsay. This will enable parties to introduce prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence at trial rather than just for purposes of impeachment.

Rules for Comment

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Standing Committee) approved several potential rules for public comment. The current public comment period runs through Feb. 16, 2026.

In January and February 2026, the advisory committees will hold hearings during which members of the public may appear and present testimony regarding the proposed Rule changes.

Financial Disclosure Requirements: The proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 seek to refine and expand on financial disclosure requirements for parties and those seeking to intervene in a case in several ways.

First, the amendments change the terminology used in Rule 7.1 from “corporation” to “business organization” to cover entities not organized as corporations.

Second, the amendments require disclosing direct or indirect interests of 10% or more of a party, despite whether that ownership is formerly denominated as stock. This would remove any ambiguity that “grandparent” organizations also must be disclosed.

These proposed changes respond to concerns that current disclosure requirements don’t adequately alert judges to possible grounds for recusal when a pending case may affect their financial interests. Recusal from cases in which a judge or their family member is financially interested is an essential means of preserving the appearance of neutrality of the federal judiciary.

Voluntary Dismissals: The Standing Committee approved for public comment two amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The first change clarifies that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss “one or more of its claims” in a multi-claim case without dismissing the entire action.

The second change clarifies that a stipulation of dismissal need only be signed by parties that “have appeared and remain in the action.” This is meant to address case law in which courts have interpreted Rule 41(a) to require signatures from all parties, even if they’ve been dismissed or settled their claims.

Such a requirement can be overly burdensome and risks derailing settlements if those parties can’t be found or if they oppose the settlement.

Serving Subpoenas: The proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) provides that the methods for serving summons and complaints under Rule 4(e)(2)(A) and (B)—personal service or leaving a copy at an individual’s dwelling with a suitable adult—also constitute effective service of a subpoena.

The amendment also adds an acceptable method of service: by mail or commercial carrier to the last known address along with confirmation of receipt. Two other changes require that the person served be given 14 days’ notice if the subpoena commands appearance at a trial, hearing, or deposition; and relax requirements for tendering witness fees.

The changes provide clarity over a subject on which some courts have disagreed, thereby avoiding the cost and delay of discovery disputes.

Remote Testimony: The Standing Committee proposed a new subsection to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), allowing federal courts to issue subpoenas nationwide as long as they don’t command the witness to appear more than 100 miles from where they reside, work, or regularly transact business.

This amendment responds to decisions holding that courts are without power to command witnesses to provide remote testimony if they’re located outside of the current radius of subpoena power of the court.

The proposed changes will provide greater flexibility with fewer costs on parties seeking testimony from witnesses residing at greater distances from the jurisdiction in which their case is pending.

Machine-Generated Evidence: The Standing Committee approved for public comment a new evidentiary rule to regulate admissibility of machine-generated evidence. The new rule starts from the premise that concerns regarding the reliability of machine-generated evidence are akin to the reliability concerns presented by expert witnesses.

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 provides that if machine-generated evidence is introduced without an expert witness, and it would be considered expert testimony if presented by such a witness, the relevancy and reliability standards of Rule 702(a)-(d) apply.

The draft committee notes specify a Rule 707 analysis of machine-generated outputs likely would require a court to review whether the data used to train the machine “is sufficiently representative to render an accurate output for the population involved,” as well as whether the process had been validated in similar circumstances.

Although the proper parameters of an evidentiary rule about AI have been hotly debated in the press, the Committee on Evidence Rules hasn’t yet received any comments on proposed Rule 707, even though the public comment period has been open since mid-August.

While the committee resolved to make no further changes until the comment period ends in mid-February, several aspects of the proposed rule remain in flux, including whether the rule should apply as drafted to “machine-generated evidence” or to a narrower category of evidence such as “the output of a process of machine-learning.”

Defining the precise scope of the proposed rule is important so that it covers machine data that approximate or replicates human thinking while not unnecessarily sweeping in other types of machine data such as spreadsheets or radar.

Looking Ahead

Over the next year, the federal rules advisory committees are expected to continue to grapple with important issues affecting the integrity and efficiency of the federal court system.

The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules has tentatively drafted a rule of evidence governing suspected AI deepfakes, while the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules is considering whether to allow contemporaneous remote testimony in open court.

Clients and practitioners should continue to monitor these efforts to amend the Federal Rules and anticipate how the changes might materialize in pending cases.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Adam Levin is the head of the Americas litigation practice at Hogan Lovells.

Jennifer Murray is a senior knowledge lawyer in Hogan Lovells’ Americas litigation practice.

Victoria Biondolillo is a former Hogan Lovells summer associate who will join the firm next fall.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines