- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Chemicals and Environment & Waste Management industries
- within Finance and Banking, Consumer Protection and International Law topic(s)
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) has grown dramatically over the past decade, now accounting for more than half of all federal civil cases. Yet, until recently, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contained no provisions specifically addressing MDL proceedings.
That gap was filled on December 1, 2025, when Rule 16.1 took effect. The new rule provides courts with a framework for the initial management of MDL cases, aiming to promote efficiency and effectiveness.
The rule encourages courts to schedule an initial management conference to develop a plan for orderly pretrial activity. Before the conference, the rule suggests courts should require the parties to meet and submit a report addressing topics such as:
- The appointment of leadership counsel.
- A schedule for case management conferences.
- How to manage the direct filing of new actions.
- How and when the parties will exchange information about the factual bases for their claims and defenses.
- Discovery.
- Likely pre-trial motions.
Rule 16.1's procedures are not mandatory. Courts retain discretion to tailor the steps in each MDL and may choose not to implement them at all. As the Committee Notes explain, "it is important to maintain flexibility in managing MDL proceedings" given their variability.
Even without mandatory obligations, Rule 16.1 is an important step toward efficient MDL management. Parties can cite the Rule as support for tools that promote early claim evaluation. For example, the Committee Notes endorse the use of fact sheets to survey claims and acknowledge that courts may use expedited methods to resolve unsupported claims.
These early vetting tools are particularly significant in emerging contaminant cases, where scientific evidence of medical causation is often untested. In a 2016 opinion, Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia warned of "unintended consequences" of MDLs, including incentives to file cases "that otherwise would not be filed if they had to stand on their own merit as a stand-alone action." Judge Land further observed that many MDL cases are filed with "so little pre-filing preparation that counsel apparently has no idea whether or how she will prove causation."
Courts have already used Rule 16.1's strategies effectively. For example, in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam MDL, plaintiffs initially alleged more than 200 types of injuries. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued a case management order requiring plaintiffs to produce peer-reviewed articles supporting causation for any injuries they intended to pursue. Following that order, plaintiffs narrowed the list to just six injuries—a reduction that, according to the court, led to the dismissal of over 19,000 cases.
Under Rule 16.1, outcomes like these may become more common. By formally recognizing best practices for the initial management of MDL cases and encouraging early claim vetting, the Rule offers courts a framework to address many of the challenges long associated with MDLs. Its ultimate impact will depend on how courts apply these discretionary measures, but the Rule represents a positive step toward greater efficiency and reducing unfounded claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
