You’ve heard the saying – you can run, but you can’t hide. Well, in Multidistrict Litigation, we could have a saying – you can hide, but only until remand. It’s no secret that in most mass torts, only a handful of cases are in the spotlight. The bellwethers. The intention, usually by all parties
We’ve repeatedly advocated that defendants try turn the e-discovery tables on plaintiffs whenever possible – particularly in MDLs where discovery is flagrantly one-sided – by going after plaintiffs’ social media information. In just about every case involving allegations of personal injuries, social media will have admissions by plaintiffs concerning their conditions and activities that concern
Late last year, we published two posts (here and here) about the gutsy and laudable Daubert decision in the Mirena IIH (idiopathic intracranial hypertension) MDL, in which Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York excluded all seven of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. At that point, we assumed that it
As a young associate, we worked for a short time with then soon-to-be-Judge Harvey Bartle. We remember that, although kind and very funny, then-lawyer Bartle had a no-nonsense approach to law practice and a keen ability to discern the correct answer, sweeping aside fluff and obstacles en route to what made sense. We were excited
A jurisprudential milestone of sorts was recognized last month when the ever rising tide of federal MDL filings surpassed 50% − that’s right, over half – of all cases currently open in the federal judicial system now are contained in multi-district litigation. As reported, “the 248 MDL dockets accounted for 52 percent of all
MDLs are complicated. MDLs are chaotic, messy, and ugly unless they have structure and order. Bringing order to chaos. Something this blogger has championed for what’s starting to be more years than she wants to readily discuss. But without order, think of The Blob (the original 1958, Steve McQueen flick). It creeps. It crawls. It
Congress authorized multidistrict litigation “for the convenience of parties and witnesses” and to “promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” 28 U.S.C. §1407(a). As we’ve documented in many posts in our MDL topic, the reality – at least in product liability mass torts involving prescription medical products – is so far from
You can waive remand. That’s Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998). But, if you agree to remand, you’re going back whence you came. So said the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation earlier this month in In re: Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 2018
Late last month Bexis attended the annual ACI Drug and Medical Device Conference in New York. In between helping to lead the discussion in the pre-conference Defense Counsel War Room and speaking on 3D printing and product liability, Bexis picked up a couple of interesting ideas about dealing with problems concerning federal multi-district litigation (“MDL”)
J.P.M.L. Denies Request for New Gadolinium MDL
“Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the