Multidistrict Litigation

Photo of Lisa Baird

We have spilled a good deal of ink on the Valsartan MDL.  The back-end of the blog says 18 posts (and counting) already reference Valsartan.  Why so many?  Because they usually are so bad.  Today’s post is more of the same.  Hence the deep sigh.

Today’s Valsartan opinion, In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products

Photo of Stephen McConnell

In the last couple of years we have gone to plenty of Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) court conferences.  We’ve also gone to plenty of bench-bar conferences about MDLs. From the defense point of view, the key issues are early vetting of cases, even-handed discovery, and avoidance of bellwether trials where the deck is stacked in favor

Photo of Eric Hudson

We’ve been posting about decisions from In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2775, since 2018.  Its preemption ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss made the list of ten worst decisions from 2018, and a subsequent preemption decision reflected more MDL madness.   Things improved when the court began addressing causation at summary judgment, and pretty soon cases were falling like dominoes.  Today’s decision from the MDL, Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2024 WL 99542 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2024), continues that positive trend.Continue Reading Another Dismissal in the Birmingham Hip MDL

Photo of Eric Hudson

This is my first post as a new member of the Drug & Device Law team.  Like many of you, I’ve been a consistent reader of the blog for years and I rely on it regularly.  I remember talking with Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann many years ago when the blog was just getting started (pretty sure it was 2006).  Now here we are.  I’m a partner with Butler Snow LLP’s Pharmaceutical, Medical Device and Healthcare practice, and I’ve focused my practice on mass torts for almost my entire career.  I’m excited about contributing to the blog and welcome any comments. Now on to business. 

MDL discovery is inevitably burdensome on defendants, and the challenges defendants face in attempting to limit the scope of MDL discovery are exponentially more difficult than in single plaintiff cases. Throw a few hundred cases together in an MDL, and courts seem much more willing to view the scope of permissible discovery through a vastly broader lens.  So we read with interest decisions that limit discovery, place some of the burden on the plaintiffs, or—even better—implement cost shifting and require the plaintiffs to pay for some or all of what they seek in discovery.Continue Reading Cost Shifting in the Tasigna MDL

Photo of Michelle Yeary

It has been almost exactly one year since we brought you Part 2 of this Lone Pine story; so, like the court in its most recent decision, we’ll give you a little refresher.  The Zostavax MDL in its fifth year.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ anti-shingles vaccine caused them various injuries including shingles, hearing loss, and