Newly Proposed Rule Amendments Open for Public Comment Soon
Six new proposals to amend federal procedural rules are set to be published in August and open for public comment through February 2026. The proposed amendments could change key provisions of the civil, evidence, and criminal rules and affect how courts and parties handle issues including remote testimony, service of subpoenas, corporate disclosures, and the admissibility of machine-generated evidence. Lawyers for Civil Justice is evaluating the proposals, preparing comment letters, and helping LCJ members and allies understand the issues and opportunities for meaningful engagement in the process. If you have thoughts on these, or are interested in learning how to participate in the public comment process, please let us know. Here are brief descriptions of the six proposals:
Remote testimony: The proposal would clarify that a court’s subpoena power extends nationwide by amending Rule 45 to define the “place of attendance for remote testimony” as “the location where the person is commanded to appear in person” rather than the court where the trial or hearing is conducted. This amendment package would also amend Rule 26 to require notice of whether each witness is expected to testify in person or remotely.
Methods of service of subpoenas: A proposed amendment to Rule 45(b)(1) would clarify what “delivering” a subpoena means by providing more methods of service, including by US mail or commercial carrier and, when good cause is shown, additional methods “reasonably calculated to give notice.” The proposal would also establish 14-day notice and remove the requirement to tender witness fees at the time of service.
Machine-Generated Evidence: A proposed new rule of evidence, FRE 707, addresses the admissibility of evidence created or significantly modified by computer systems, particularly those involving artificial intelligence. The purpose is to address concerns about the reliability of such evidence. Currently, machine-generated outputs can be admitted as business records without scrutiny of the underlying technology—unless introduced through expert testimony under Rule 702. The proposed rule would require that, if such evidence is presented without an expert and would otherwise qualify as expert testimony if offered by a human, it must meet the admissibility standards of Rule 702(a)–(d).
Corporate disclosures: The proposal would amend FRCP 7.1 by substituting “business organizations” instead of “corporations” and requiring disclosure of business organizations that own 10 percent or more of a party directly or indirectly, whether or not that ownership interest in in the form of stock. The purpose is to help judges understand their recusal responsibilities by providing more information including about “grandparent or great-grandparent” businesses.
Voluntary dismissal: The proposal would replace the word “actions” in Rule 41(a) with “one or more claims” to clarify that plaintiffs can dismiss claims without a court order without dismissing the entire action. This would resolve a split among courts. The amendments would also clarify that a stipulation of dismissal need be signed only by the parties remaining in the action rather than all parties who have appeared in the action.
Criminal case subpoenas: A comprehensive proposal to revise Rule 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure would clarify that criminal defendants may issue subpoenas without court approval for both testimony and document production. Currently, criminal defendants in federal court seek leave of the trial court to permit discovery. This change could increase the burden on corporations and other third parties to produce documents, testimony, and other evidence for criminal proceedings.
These proposals were approved for publication and public comment by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Standing Committee) at its June 2025 meeting. The public comment period will begin in mid-August and conclude in mid-February 2026. During this time, the Advisory Committees on Civil, Evidence, and Criminal rules will accept written comments on the proposals and hold public hearings to hear thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. Please contact LCJ if you would like further information on the proposals or the rulemaking process.