Are Existing Civil Procedure Rules Limiting the Fair Adjudication of MDLs?
The scale of these MDLs makes many current rules—including discovery and dismissal procedures—difficult, if not impossible, to apply.
November 15, 2018 at 08:00 AM
6 minute read
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, essentially the rule book for civil cases in federal courts, are supposed to apply to all civil cases in the federal court system. The problem is that the framers of these rules did not anticipate today's litigation landscape, where one judge in one court may preside over a litigation that has more than 1,000 cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation.
By law, the cases in these MDLs have core facts in common, but they also involve large numbers of plaintiffs who have their own individual facts, including exposures, medical histories or harms, depending on the nature of the cases. The scale of these MDLs makes many current rules—including discovery and dismissal procedures—difficult, if not impossible, to apply. Not all of the solutions to these vexing issues are obvious. What does seem obvious, however, is that it is time for these questions to be taken up formally by the organization that was formed precisely to address such issues, the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee.
Years ago, such large consolidated proceedings were a rarity. Today, there are a record number: 24 current MDLs have more than 1,000 cases. As of the end of fiscal year 2017, the largest MDLs accounted for 40.2 percent of the entire civil docket. Thus, having practical rules for MDLs that provide consistency and predictability for this large swath of the civil docket is both important and urgent.
This was not always the case. The silicone breast implant litigation was a watershed event that marked the beginning of the modern era of mass tort litigation in 1992. Prior to this time, mass tort products liability cases made up less than 1 percent of all cases consolidated in MDLs, a process established by Congress in 1968 to facilitate the management of pretrial proceedings in cases that share common factual issues. Since the breast implant litigation and an asbestos MDL created around the same time, products liability cases have dominated MDLs, accounting for 90 percent of all MDL cases and more than 40 percent of the entire civil caseload in federal courts.
The numbers tell only part of the story, however. The fundamental change in the nature of the civil caseload that began with breast implant and asbestos litigation has created procedural challenges for judges who manage these cases, parties to the cases, and the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, on which I formerly served, which has rule-making responsibilities for cases in federal courts.
In a series of conferences held over the last year, some of the judges who have managed these MDLs say the current rules are sufficient to meet this rising tide, and members of the plaintiffs bar who have brought the cases insist there is no problem at all. But courts are improvising procedures in order to handle the unanticipated case volumes in these large MDLs, and as a result, many of the procedures are inconsistent and in conflict with the very goals of the FRCP to provide a uniform, clear and predictable set of rules.
These gaps in the application of the current rules for large MDLs have significant consequences. For instance:
- Experience in some large MDLs reveals that a very substantial portion of the cases are simply not being assessed for their merit before they are filed and then consume substantial resources of the court and parties. One example comes from the publicly available Vioxx MDL claims data. The data show that, after this MDL settled and claims were processed, more than 30 percent of those who had initially filed lawsuits failed to satisfy the basic claims requirements to collect funds. Plaintiffs' lawyers have acknowledged this problem of frivolous claims, yet our current rules do not solve it.
- While the statutory purpose of creating MDLs was to facilitate efficient pretrial proceedings, the challenges of case administration and the prospect of sending cases back to the courts of origin have created a powerful incentive for the MDL courts to achieve settlement. The tool of choice has been to try multiple “bellwether” cases. The problem is that the process is rife with opportunities for gamesmanship in selecting which cases go to trial. Moreover, lacking sufficient information about the cases, the MDL courts often rely upon the lawyers for much of the selection process. Current rules do not adequately address the consent of parties for bellwether trials and the process for case selection.
- None of the many crucial decisions made along the way that affect the MDL, in whole or in substantial part, are subject to appellate review until a case is tried and appealed in the ordinary course, and then only the issues framed by that case are reviewed. Interlocutory review of dispositive decisions in MDLs should be a right, as it would enhance judicial efficiency in these mass proceedings, many of which now drag on for many years.
To be clear, amending the FRCP is not about changing substantive law or grappling with the underlying causes or merits of litigation. Nor is it about judging the judges and the litigants. Instead, the pressing question is whether current MDL litigation procedures can be amended to improve the fair and efficient adjudication of so many cases. It is about whether procedures can be developed or amended to give the courts and the litigants better tools to meet today's challenges.
David M. Bernick is a national trial lawyer and strategist, having acted as lead trial counsel for major U.S. and international corporations in the chemical, technology and life sciences industries for 35 years. A partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, David is a past member of the Federal Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readLingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 2Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 3Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 4Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
- 5People in the News—Dec. 2, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Pollock Begg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250