The following recent developments at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation provide some practical pointers when facing litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
MDL Decision to Watch: A Simple Supplement?
Earlier this month, the Panel denied a motion to create an MDL for four actions arising from a dietary supplement marketed to improve memory and other cognitive functions. The factors that militated in favor of denying the MDL motion were:
- Relatively few actions.
- Differing procedural postures, including one
advanced action. - A lack of "sufficiently complex" issues "to warrant centralization." In particular, there was only a single clinical trial and a report that was "only 10 pages long."
- Relatively minimal expert discovery and Daubert motion practice expected."It is not apparent that expert discovery and Daubert motion practice in this litigation will be particularly extensive or time-consuming."
» In re Prevagen Products Mktg.& Sales
Practices Litig.
(MDL No. 2783)
MDL Practice Pointer
When considering an MDL motion, think about the complexity of the potential discovery and, in particular, the volume of regulatory history and studies. If that discovery does not lend itself to complex expert discovery or Daubert motions, the litigation may not be ripe for MDL treatment.
MDLs at a Glance
» See the pending MDL dockets by district.
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.
