Resolution of Common Questions in MDL Proceedings

Multidistrict litigation procedures have grown in significance as an important tool for resolving large-scale litigation. Indeed, in recent years, various reports have noted that from one third to one half of all cases in the federal courts are part of MDL proceedings.1 From the defendants’ perspective, consolidation in a federal MDL proceeding may make nationwide litigation more manageable. From a plaintiff’s perspective, consolidating the litigation in an MDL proceeding may increase the pressure on defendants to enter into a global settlement of the asserted claims. Thus, both defendants and plaintiffs may have reasons to support creation of an MDL proceeding. Nonetheless, in recent years as their use has grown, MDL proceedings have been the subject of increasing criticism. Defendants in certain MDL proceedings have felt pressured to settle claims of dubious merit. Moreover, as aggregate litigation of this sort increases, there is an incentive for plaintiffs’ counsel to include more and more claims that are not meritorious, in order to increase their own fees and influence in the