The Federal Rules Advisory Committee is considering a new rule of civil procedure to govern multidistrict litigation (MDLs), and recent rulings in an herbicide MDL are spotlighting a key issue before the committee: the urgent need to address the widespread filing of unsupported claims. These are claims where people responded to lawsuit advertisements, but never provided evidence to anyone that they used the product or sustained the injury at issue in the litigation. Their mass presence is undermining many MDLs.
As a general premise, MDLs can serve an important purpose. Congress enacted the MDL statute in the 1960s so that federal courts can consolidate for pretrial proceedings multiple claims involving common issues. This early coordination can create efficiencies and facilitate uniformity and justice across the federal courts. However, some lawyers have found that they can gain an advantage in an MDL by stockpiling claims, regardless of their individual merits. In recent years, this gamesmanship has become a huge problem.
