FOLLOW US

Rulemaking gatekeepers for the federal judiciary Tuesday capped off seven years of strife in the defense and plaintiffs bars by backing a milestone measure aimed at optimizing multidistrict litigation, and then promptly greenlighted an entirely different war of words over new efforts to ferret out amicus briefs from "paid mouthpieces" masquerading as independent experts.

The dual developments occurred at the Judicial Conference's main policy panel, which stamped its approval on the first rule governing MDLs — vast sets of comparable cases often alleging harm from products or practices — and separately endorsed publication of a proposal to require greater transparency and court permission for appellate amicus briefs.

With respect to MDLs, the panel — known as the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, or simply the Standing Committee — unanimously gave final approval to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, which started taking shape in 2017 and repeatedly evolved amid intense acrimony.

"A number of people have contributed to the long, hard work on 16.1," U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, who chairs the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and famously obliterated a major MDL involving the heartburn drug Zantac, said at Tuesday's meeting. "We heard from attorneys and others on both sides of the V, and from mass torts and class action attorneys, [and] each had their own positions and ideas."

Those positions and ideas ultimately came together into a largely optional guide for MDL management, and lawyers for both corporations and consumers characterized it Tuesday as a sensible compromise.

"I am impressed by the balance the committee tried to strike," Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, a panel member and one of the plaintiffs bar's top attorneys for MDLs, said at Tuesday's meeting. "I don't think it could ever be perfect … but I think it's sufficient in terms of trying to be flexible."

Sue Steinman, senior policy director at the American Association for Justice, which advocates for trial lawyers, echoed that comment, telling Law360 that the rule "prioritizes important MDL management issues," and that the AAJ "applauds the balance of flexibility and structure provided by Rule 16.1."

The rule's structure is essentially a template for how judges and lawyers can efficiently organize MDLs and steer them toward bellwether trials, settlements, or both, depending on the circumstances. It recommends an initial management plan, advises parties to consider appointing leadership counsel, and urges the early creation of a report describing "how and when the parties will exchange information about the factual bases for their claims and defenses."