Do We Need Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Designed for MDLs?
Multi-District Litigation
Multi-District Litigation
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.
We are now at the point where half of the cases on the federal civil docket are consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings (MDLs). In these proceedings, a single federal district court judge conducts all pretrial proceedings—including dispositive motions. In theory, the cases return to their original courts for trial, but, in reality, very few do because, like every other type of litigation, the vast majority of cases settle before trial.
MDLs make global peace easier to obtain for defendants, but they also put a lot of power in the hands of the judges selected to oversee them. Many of the rules of civil procedure are hard to apply when there are thousands of cases consolidated in one proceeding, and judges have had to be creative. Moreover, because these are all pretrial proceedings, it is very difficult to appeal decisions by the MDL judge that might be a bit too creative.
Is it time to write rules of procedure specifically designed for MDLs? Many defendants think so. The advisory committee on the civil rules has created a subcommittee to examine whether MDL rules are needed. The subcommittee, headed by the esteemed Judge Robert Dow (N.D.Ill.), is considering many proposals (starting at page 207), including whether to allow interlocutory appeals, to require early merits screening, and to mandate disclosure of third-party financing. I suspect the subcommittee will decide at its next meeting in October whether new rules are worth pursuing or whether to terminate the project. Thus, now is the time to speak up if you have an opinion on the matter. Letters can be submitted to this address:
Rebecca Womeldorf
Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
1 Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, DC 20002
Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Brian Fitzpatrick is the Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, where his research focuses on class action litigation, federal courts, judicial selection, and constitutional law. He is best known for his empirical studies of class action settlements as well as his book The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Professor Fitzpatrick joined Vanderbilt's law faculty in 2007 after serving as the John M. Olin Fellow at New York University School of Law. He graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School and went on to clerk for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. After his clerkships, Professor Fitzpatrick practiced commercial and appellate litigation for several years at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., and served as Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations to U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Before earning his law degree, Fitzpatrick graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's of science in chemical engineering from the University of Notre Dame. He has received the Hall-Hartman Outstanding Professor Award, which recognizes excellence in classroom teaching, for his Civil Procedure and Federal Courts courses.