Today’s post is for procedure geeks, especially those who litigate MDLs.
Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel prevents a defendant from relitigating an issue that it lost in earlier litigation against a different plaintiff.
The issue is when offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel applies to a case that was part of an MDL. More specifically, the issue is
One of the problems with so-called Lone Pine orders in MDLs is timing – they are usually entered way too late, more as vehicles to enforce settlements than as any genuine effort to weed out the large number of bogus cases that everyone, including plaintiffs, admits are present in MDLs.
We can’t say that the
We would have to dig deep to find a drug or device MDL that did not involve some form of plaintiff fact sheet or profile form. The idea behind such a discovery vehicle is that while case specific discovery lags behind general discovery, defendants are entitled to certain basic information about plaintiffs and their claims
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
From the first time that we discussed Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), and the related MDL concept of Lexecon waivers, we’ve been plenty leery of defendants in cases transferred into multidistrict litigation waiving their retransfer rights
MDL defendants in prescription medical product liability MDLs have been complaining for years about thousands of cases being brought without the slightest pre-filing vetting – “plaintiffs” who cannot establish that they ever actually used the products of the defendant(s) they have sued and/or who similarly have no proof that they suffered the injury(ies) as to
Here are some things you probably will not hear very often, if at all: 1) a fervent supporter of a defeated political candidate agreeing that the winning elected official has done a good job, regardless of economic growth, infrastructure projects, public health progress, or some other measure of good government; 2) a fervent supporter of
As a follow-on to our post last year about remote (Zoom) depositions), we received a suggestion that we examine MDL orders to see how they have been handling remote deposition procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. That made sense to us because in MDLs every procedural jot and tittle is gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
Multidistrict litigations are big piles of wrong. Wrong incentives invite the wrong cases, the wrong rulings, and the wrong results. Plaintiff lawyers park weak cases in MDLs, counting on ultimately collecting money for cases into which they invested virtually no work. Courts encourage that dysfunctional conduct by doing everything possible to force settlements, even if
We have long thought that “direct filing” procedures in multidistrict litigation were a solution in search of a problem. We also think direct filing procedures in MDLs pose significant waiver risks without a corresponding upside. Alas, our inclinations were confirmed recently when the Seventh Circuit ruled that a mass tort defendant’s acquiescence to complaints filed
Most of this blogpost is about inside MDL baseball. If that’s not your thing, please come back on Monday. Also, this post is solely from the non-Dechert side of the Blog.
When last we checked on the progress of the Zantac MDL, the plaintiffs’ claims for innovator liability and against pharmacies and other retailers had