If deemed beneficial, parties should discuss these opportunities early and proactively use MDL case examples when advocating under Rule 16.1 for an early technology-enabled MDL census and/or plaintiff fact sheet program, pleading/census/plaintiff fact sheet deficiency analysis, and other AI-enabled management strategies.
If plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted, then the avenues to avoid preemption of FDA-approved drugs will be expanded well beyond that countenanced by U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.
New opportunities exist to better confront the significant data challenges presented by multidistrict litigation for product liability claims now that FRCP 16.1 is in effect and the sophistication of artificial intelligence is continuing to advance.
The new FRCP 16.1 establishes a process by which courts and parties can (and should) engage on key MDL case management issues from the outset of litigation.
Issues, including, notably, the prominent roles causation and product identification are expected to play as microplastics-based products liability claims emerge as an area of litigation.
An overview of the science of PFAS testing, by firm partners Gary Feldon and Carter Thurman
The product of a nearly eight-year rulemaking process, FRCP 16.1 formalizes MDL case management tools, endorses early judicial engagement with the merits of the case, and establishes a process for picking leadership counsel.
The article also considers plaintiffs’ evolving strategies to counter the learned intermediary doctrine and potential defense responses.
The article, by Firm partner Joseph Altieri, focuses on FRCP Rule 30(b)(6), which governs the deposition of the company itself, and offers a four-point strategy for in-house counsel.
By Grant W. Hollingsworth and Brett S. Covington for Bloomberg Law
Panelists discussed the factors that constitute a judicial hellhole, how to successfully defend a company going to trial in these venues, and strategies for successful voir dire in the current climate.
