Search

The article focuses on the concept of "plaintiffs process" within the field of civil procedure. It discusses how civil procedure doctrine has traditionally been defendant-centric, focusing on the rights and protections of defendants in legal cases. It examines the role of multidistrict litigation (MDL) in this context and how it impacts plaintiffs rights and access to the courts.

Over the past 50 years, multidistrict litigation (MDL) has quietly revolutionized civil procedure. MDLs include the largest tort cases in U.S. history, but without the authority of the class-action rule, MDL judges--who formally have only pretrial jurisdiction over individual cases--have resorted to extraordinary procedural exceptionalism to settle cases on a national scale. Substantive state laws, personal jurisdiction, transparency, impartiality, reviewability, federalism, and adequate representation must all yield if doing so fulfills that one goal. Somehow, until now, this has remained below the surface to everyone but MDL insiders. Thanks to the sprawling MDL over the opioid crisis--and unprecedented opposition to it--MDL is finally in public view. State attorneys general have resisted the opioid MDL's intense nationalism, its relentless drive to global settlement, its wild procedural innovation, its blurring of differences across state law, and its dramatic assertions of jurisdictional authority. Opiates is the most extraordinary MDL yet, but most big MDLs share many of its features, and Opiates is already the roadmap for the next mega-cases. Moreover, even as resistance to Opiates has dispersed some of the MDL's early power, that resistance itself has come in the form of unusual procedural mechanisms. MDL is designed for individual cases--giving similar suits filed in different districts an efficient pretrial process before sending them home for trial. In reality, that is pure fiction. Few cases ever return. And the MDL's mode of coordination--from its anti-federalism stance to its insistence that each proceeding is too unique to be confined by the Federal Rules--chafes at almost every aspect of procedure's traditional rules and values. MDL is not-so-secretly changing the face of civil procedure. This Article weaves together for the first time these exceptional features of MDL and their disruption of procedure's core assumptions. Is MDL a revolution? Or simply a symptom of a larger set of modern procedural tensions manifesting in many forms? Either way, it begs the question: What do we expect of litigation on this scale? We recognize that MDL fills important gaps by providing access to courts but argue for some return to regular order to safeguard due process, federalism, and sovereignty. We suggest specific shifts--from more pretrial motions to new paths for appellate review, attorney selection, and jurisdictional redundancy--where the normative balance seems particularly out of whack; shifts we believe are in line with the spirit of Federal Rule 1's own inherent paradox--the ideal of "just, speedy and inexpensive procedure.". We also offer the first comprehensive analysis of the historic suits over the opioid crisis. Opiates is the first MDL that pits localities against their own state attorneys general in a struggle for litigation control. Its judge has publicly stated that solving a national health crisis that Congress dumped in his lap is different from ordinary litigation. Opiates has even invented a new form of class action. It is hyperdialectical, jurisdictionally competitive, outcome-oriented, repeat-player-rich, fiercely creative procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is unorthodox, modern civil procedure. It is an old-but-new procedural tool that significantly disrupts decades of worked-out doctrinal equilibria--and, now comprising a shocking 39% of the cases on the civil docket, MDLs warrant more attention than they have received. The MDL puts a thumb on the scale of nationalism over federalism, consent over adversity, procedural exceptionalism over transsubstantivity, and common law over the Federal Rules. In other words, the MDL takes what has generally been the losing side of procedure's big theoretical and doctrinal debates; it is a symptom of deeper pressures on the system to recalibrate procedure's traditional baselines. MDLs are modern because they see the need for a national, not state-centered, approach to questions of procedure. They disrupt traditional legal relationships, turning judges and lawyers into collaborative partners in practical problem solving and creating a new judicial elite among the federal judges chosen to lead them. MDLs exemplify procedural exceptionalism--a type of litigation that judges insist is too different from case to case to be managed by the transsubstantive values that form the very soul of the Federal Rules. Instead, judges develop their own special MDL procedures--yet this new kind of procedural law is rarely treated as precedential or even subject to customary appellate review. These deviations from the "textbook" have caused academic anxiety. Scholars worry about lack of transparency, loss of the individual claim, and the dearth of uniform procedural law. Many judges who try MDLs, on the other hand, view them favorably--often as the only way to ensure access to court for massive claims on a national scale--and also as highly enjoyable judicial work. This Article relies on interviews with MDL judges to offer a new set of counterpoints to the academic criticism. The Article also sets MDLs in the broader context of "unorthodox lawmaking"--a phenomenon documented in the legislative context but not yet in procedure. MDLs, like omnibus legislation and other forms of nontraditional lawmaking, are responses to pressure on the system, some way in which legal rules have not kept up with the obstacles of modern times when the consensus is that Congress and the courts must nevertheless take action. All of these unorthodox vehicles thus tend to operate outside the relevant rules, raising questions about the value of the rules themselves. They raise the question: What do we care about most? Is it access to court (or, analagously, the production of legislation)? Or is procedure for procedure's own sake the more important value--even if upholding that value means fewer cases get resolved? MDLs highlight this tension. They are likely more symptom than cause of procedure's modern challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]