Rules4MDLs

"One MDL abuse has been the ability of trial lawyers to gather huge plaintiff groups without first having to establish a factual basis for the individual claims." Read today’s @WSJopinion editorial on how new FRCP 16.1 will help prevent meritless claims in MDLs:

"The tort bar may not love the new rule, but it is good news for everyone else." Read more from @WSJopinion on FRCP 16.1 here:

Requiring threshold disclosures of the factual basis for standing and claim sufficiency in MDL proceedings allows MDL judges to ensure that the constitutional minimum of standing is satisfied and offers several additional benefits to the MDL proceedings.

Proposed new FRCP Rule 16.1 should require threshold disclosures of the factual basis for standing and claim sufficiency in MDL proceedings. Standing is a constitutional requirement and providing that information is not unduly burdensome. bit.ly/48kIDkg

While FRCP Rules 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 26 establish uniform standards and procedures to ensure claim sufficiency, they are not providing sufficient guidance to address the problems that arise when claims are aggregated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.

Proposed new FRCP 16.1 should make clear that it complements, rather than displaces, the rules defining pleading standards. Amending the FRCP to accommodate MDLs should deal with rule problems that have led some to proclaim an “MDL exception” to FRCP. bit.ly/48kIDkg

Existing FRCP definitions of pleading standards are effective in ensuring claim sufficiency in individual litigation, but are failing to do so in MDL proceedings involving allegations of personal injury, which constitute more than 90 percent of cases consolidated into MDLs.

The FRCP provisions that function to enforce the basic elements of a legal claim in non-MDL cases have proven impractical in MDLs with hundreds or thousands of claimants. The FRCP should be amended to address the problem of non-meritorious claims. bit.ly/48kIDkg

LCJ urges adoption of rules that empower judges and parties to address claim insufficiency in MDLs, in a new Comment to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules as part of the public comment process on proposed FRCP Rule 16.1. bit.ly/3PiT4g6

Have you observed that courts often admit expert evidence despite serious concerns with the expert’s methodology, factual basis, and application—saying that those issues go to the weight not admissibility?

LCJ's most recent amicus brief urges the Sixth Circuit to reject the idea of an "MDL exception" to the #FRCP. Read it, and catch up on LCJ’s other amicus work here: bit.ly/2tOvFO3

Our partner in advocating for #TPLF transparency, @LegalReform just published a fascinating new paper about how the explosive growth in third-party #litigation funding is fueling abusive litigation and ethical issues. Read it here: bit.ly/2Usv7In

Last June, @nytimes realized the dangers presented by undisclosed #litigation funding, reporting on the profit motives driving some of the cases: nyti.ms/2tx8jc4

.@LegalReform’s Lisa A. Rickard’s article in @NYLawJournal shows just how urgent the need for disclosure in third-party #litigation funding is, and why funders want to remain in the dark: bit.ly/2oiSjaQ

Third-party #litigation funding can be a complex issue. Interested to learn more? @DRICommunity published a white paper last year exploring the issue further: bit.ly/2DD9rSd

ICYMI: @LegalReform’s newest report examines #MDLs and their recent growth, citing LCJ and @Rules4MDLs data. Check it out: bit.ly/2GUw6d7

Moving forward, one of the key issues facing #MDL reform is directly tied to third-party litigation funding. @dbreview reports on how federal judges are dealing with it, quoting LCJ’s Alex Dahl. #MayIsForMDLs bit.ly/2WycP6M