Insight into the Multidistrict Litigation process

  • March 26, 2024

Understanding the Basics of Multidistrict Litigation

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a type of legal proceeding that consolidates multiple civil cases with common issues before a single court. This process helps to streamline these types of cases, making them more efficient and minimizing the duplication of effort. MDL is typically used in product liability cases, such as those involving dangerous drugs or defective products. It is also used in class actions and other complex litigation where multiple parties are involved.

MDL allows for coordinated pretrial proceedings, including discovery and rulings on pretrial motions. The aim is to eliminate duplicative efforts and inconsistent rulings, ultimately saving time and resources. However, each case remains a separate individual lawsuit and may eventually go back to the original court for trial if settlement or dismissal is not reached.

It is important to note that MDL is different from class action lawsuits. While class actions involve a single plaintiff or a small group of plaintiffs representing the interests of a large group of people, MDL consists of many separate cases. Each plaintiff within an MDL retains their individual suit, although they are handled collectively for pre-trial purposes.

The Role of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is a group of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. They are charged with determining which cases should be transferred for consolidated pretrial proceedings and to which court they should be transferred. The creation of the JPML was a direct response to the rise in complex litigation involving common issues of fact.

The process begins when any party to a case or the JPML itself initiates the transfer of cases to MDL. The JPML then holds a hearing and decides whether the cases meet the requirements for consolidation, whether they involve common questions of fact, and whether transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the efficient conduct of the actions.

Once the JPML makes a decision to consolidate cases, it selects a presiding judge and a court where the cases will be transferred. This designated court will manage all cases lumped into the MDL and conduct all pretrial proceedings and discovery.

Criteria for Multidistrict Litigation: What’s Considered?

To decide whether cases should be consolidated into an MDL, the JPML considers several factors. These include the presence of one or more common questions of fact between the pending actions, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the promotion of the just and efficient conduct of the cases.

The common question of facts plays a significant role in determining if cases should be consolidated. This typically means that the cases involve the same product or action that has caused harm, such as a defectively designed product or a prescription drug with harmful side effects.

The convenience of parties and witnesses is also considered by the JPML when making their decision. This is especially important in cases where thousands of plaintiffs are spread across the country – it would be unreasonable to require all parties to attend hearings in every individual court where a case is filed.

Lastly, the promotion of just and efficient conduct of litigation is a strong factor. If the consolidation of cases can contribute to the more efficient handling of them, then the JPML is likely to go ahead with the MDL.

The Process of Consolidating Cases in Multidistrict Litigation

Once cases are grouped into an MDL, the pretrial proceedings begin. This includes discovery, in which parties exchange evidence, and any hearings or motions that may occur before trial. The purpose of this process is to eliminate duplicate efforts and streamline the litigation.

Each case goes through discovery together, which can involve document production, depositions, and interrogatories. The presiding judge will also rule on any motions brought by the parties, such as motions to dismiss the case, or motions for summary judgment.

If cases are not resolved during the pretrial process, they are then remanded back to their original courts for trial. However, many cases within an MDL end in a settlement before this stage.

Benefits of Multidistrict Litigation for Plaintiffs

One of the key benefits of MDL is the efficiency it brings by streamlining the litigation process. By condensing the multiple legal proceedings into one single court, MDL helps to save time and resources for all parties involved.

In addition to cost and time efficiency, MDL also promotes consistency in the legal proceedings as there’s only one judge ruling on pretrial motions and disputes. This eliminates the risk of conflicting rulings that can occur when multiple judges are involved.

There’s also a higher chance for plaintiffs to receive compensation through MDL. Cases within an MDL are often settled before trial, with companies preferring to agree on compensation rather than go to court.

Risks and Challenges in Multidistrict Litigation

There are also risks and challenges associated with MDL. One risk is the potential for unequal distribution of settlement proceeds. Since each case within an MDL retains its individual status and damages are often determined on an individual basis, there is a possibility that some plaintiffs may receive more or less compensation than others.

There are also challenges particularly when it comes to participation and control. In large MDLs with thousands of plaintiffs, it can be hard for individual parties to have an equal voice or ensure their interests are fully considered. This can sometimes create tension and conflict within the MDL.

Furthermore, the process may become very complex and overwhelming for some parties – particularly for those who have little experience with such legal proceedings.

Exploring Some Well-known Multidistrict Litigation Examples

There have been several prominent MDLs in recent history. For instance, the case against Volkswagen regarding the emission scandal was managed through an MDL. Another example was the litigation against several pharmaceutical companies for their role in the opioid crisis. Both cases resulted in substantial settlements for the plaintiffs.

These cases exemplify how MDL can make a significant difference, even when going up against large corporations. MDLs enable the consolidation of many smaller claims into one large case that can stand up against powerful defendants.

The Outcome: Post-Multidistrict Litigation Scenarios

After the cases in an MDL have gone through pretrial proceedings and any subsequent trials or settlements, they are closed. If cases are settled, plaintiffs receive compensation based on agreement terms. If cases go to trial and win, plaintiffs are also awarded compensation based on the judgment. If a case goes to trial and loses, the plaintiff may have options to appeal decision.

The ultimate goal of an MDL is to achieve a resolution for all involved parties in the most efficient and fair manner possible. Thus, closings of MDLs represent the accomplishment of this goal.

The Role of Lawyers in Multidistrict Litigation

The role of the attorney in an MDL is multi-faceted. They must provide adequate representation for their client’s interests throughout the process, whether that’s during pretrial proceedings, settlement negotiations or a trial.

The selection of a legal representative is crucial as it can directly influence the outcome of the case. Skills necessary for an attorney handling an MDL case include familiarity with the MDL process, negotiation skills, and knowledge in the particular field of the litigation, such as product liability or personal injury law.

Future of Multidistrict Litigation: Predictions and Trends

The use of MDL as a tool to manage complex litigation is expected to continue in the future. As businesses become more global and intertwined, the likelihood of multi-party, multi-district disputes will increase.

Trends also suggest an increased use of MDL in environmental and public health litigations, as these issues often affect a large number of people across multiple districts. The use of technology to manage these cases will become more and more prominent, particularly in terms of facilitating communication and cooperation between parties.

In summary, MDL is a vital tool in the quest for justice, and its role in the legal landscape is likely to grow even more significant in the future.


Press ESC to close