Mass Torts, Minimal Merit: Why MDL Reform Matters

ILR's recent research, A Step in the Right Direction for MDLs: New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, explores the origins of multi-district-litigation ("MDL") abuse and recent efforts to address it. In this paper, ILR also examines the newly adopted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 16.1-the first rule of civil procedure to expressly address MDL proceedings-as well as strategies and future reforms needed to keep frivolous mass tort claims out of the MDL system.

A Glut of Meritless Claims

It is no secret that the growth of MDLs in recent years has taxed both the federal court system as well as the defendants targeted in the litigation. In 2024, MDLs accounted for nearly two thirds of private civil cases in federal court. Buried in those claims are thousands, and potentially tens of thousands, of frivolous and marginal mass tort claims. Indeed, our research cites the conclusion drawn by the MDL Subcommittee for the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which estimated that 20 percent to 30 percent (and perhaps as high as 50 percent) of claims included in mass tort MDL proceedings may be marginal and/or frivolous.

This glut of meritless claims is a predictable consequence of plaintiffs' lawyers' favored tactic in MDL proceedings: cast as wide a net as possible to aggregate as many claims as possible as quickly as possible, without utilizing adequate resources to actually vet those claims. This deluge of claimants and claims in turn makes it nearly impossible for defendants to weed out meritless claims through familiar procedural avenues such as motions to dismiss, summary judgment, and basic tools of discovery, leaving them with a choice between the vast potential expense of litigating the MDL or accepting the settlement offer that plaintiffs' lawyers have placed in front of them. All too often, the result is MDL settlements based not on the merits of individual cases, but rather on the sheer volume of claims. Aside from adding artificial, coercive weight to defendants' burden, the inclusion of large percentages of frivolous claims in MDLs further impacts legitimate plaintiffs, who must share any settlement or recovery with illegitimate claimants.

MDL Relief for Defendants?

Against that backdrop, FRCP. 16.1 is set to come into effect on December 1, 2025. The Rule encourages transferee courts presiding over an MDL to conduct initial case management conferences and enter management orders early in proceedings. The Rule further requires that parties meet, confer and submit a report to the court concerning critical issues, including "how and when the parties will exchange information about the factual basis for their claims and defenses."

It is critical that MDL defendants insist that courts apply the Rule to require early disclosure of basic verifying information and the vetting of claims. Plaintiffs' attorneys who insist that an early exchange of such information would be onerous should be reminded that having a basic understanding of their clients' claims is part and parcel of their obligations under Rule 11. Moreover, where transferee courts limit information exchanges to only a sampling of cases, defendants should ensure that samples are taken at random rather than allow plaintiffs' lawyers to cherry pick their best cases for testing. Lastly, defendants should use information exchanges as a means of removing meritless claims from the docket-motions to dismiss and early summary judgment are appropriate mechanisms for eliminating claims that cannot withstand information exchanges.

In this vein, U.S. District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers' May 12, 2025 Order in the Depo-Provera MDL provides helpful guidance to MDL defendants seeking to weed out frivolous claims. Under Judge Rodgers' Order, every complaint filed in the MDL must plead, among other things, a "Requisite Physical Injury" and that the injury "resulted from and/or was exacerbated by . . . use of a Requisite Product." Moreover, the Order provides a formal process for addressing deficient complaints, including sanctions and potential dismissal of claims for non-compliant plaintiffs. In concert with FRCP. 16.1's new requirements, such orders can go far towards relieving the burden of frivolous claims in MDLs.

Further Reforms Are Needed

Although FRCP 16.1 is a step in the right direction, more can and should be done, including Rule amendments that:

• require express disclosure of basic verifying information at the outset of the MDL;
• tie the appointment of leadership counsel to the quality of claims such that the filing of unsupportable claims weighs strongly against appointment; and
• penalize firms that bring meritless claims.

In addition to rule changes, reform can be achieved through legislative solutions such as the recently reintroduced Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which would make sanctions mandatory for Rule 11 violations, and bills like the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which would have required MDL plaintiffs to submit basic factual evidence supporting their claims of injuries. Lastly, state bars and attorneys general have a role to play in investigating the unethical or deceptive practices used to gin up and then leverage large numbers of unvetted or barely vetted mass tort claimants, which furthers the abuse of the MDL system. While FRCP. 16.1 represents a critical first step in stamping out abuse in the MDL system, there is clearly more work to be done.