Selecting Cases for Trial in Mass Torts

Hiring a lawyer is the first step towards recovering a better quality of life. At Osborne & Francis, we devote our undivided attention to each client, and all communications are held in the strictest privacy. Contact us by filling out the form or calling us directly at (561) 293-2600.

By Pierce | Skrabanek
Published on:
August 6, 2014
Updated on:
April 7, 2024
Best Law Firm logo
Best Law Firm logo

Our mass tort clients frequently ask us about the trial selection process. The sheer volume of mass tort cases requires case management procedures to ensure efficiency with discovery and pre-trial matters. Case Management Orders or “CMOs” are orders that the court utilizes to guarantee that certain tasks are completed on a timetable to prepare cases for trial. '

CMOs often vary and can include issues ranging from status conference topics, discovery plans, selection of lead, liaison and coordinating counsel, preservations orders and many other subject matters.CMOs will frequently call for “waves” or “phases” of discovery. Certain cases may be selected for discovery or pre-trial work-up in different phases. For example, a Judge may issue an order requiring 100 cases to be worked up to phase I, which could be initial discovery, such as an exchange of Plaintiff Fact Sheets or Profile Forms and may issue and order that an additional 50 cases be worked up to phase II, which could be an initial discovery exchange and depositions of all parties and fact witnesses.

The Court may select the cases to be worked up for these phases in a variety of ways. Some litigations have shown judges giving preference to elderly, very ill and living plaintiffs, as was the case in the fen-phen litigation. Other judges may select cases that they believe are representative of the vast majority of cases. The Judge may consider injury types, damages and causation. These cases are typically referred to as “bellwether” cases.

Although the selection of “bellwether” cases may vary, it generally involves Plaintiffs’ counsel selecting cases and Defendants’ counsel selecting cases. As you can imagine, Plaintiffs’ counsel will typically choose their best cases and Defendants’ counsel will choose Plaintiffs’ worst cases. Once those cases have been selected, the Judge will then narrow the cases and choose several Plaintiff pick bellwether cases and several Defendant pick bellwether cases. This is the most common scenario in Multi-District Litigations or “MDLs” (you can see our previous post on what is an MDL here).

In many litigations, there are “MDLs” and state court consolidations. This has been a much more frequent occurrence in recent years, as seen in the DePuy ASR Litigation, Zoloft Birth Defect Litigation, Actos Bladder Cancer Litigation, Yaz Birth Control Litigation and Transvaginal Mesh Litigation. In these cases, Judges will frequently select cases in “FIFO” order, otherwise known as “first in, first out.” Through this process, earliest filed actions proceed first through discovery and trial.

Bellwether cases can have a significant impact on mass tort litigation. They have the power to resolve the entire litigation or they can result in postponement of resolution. For this reason, both sides attempt to put their best foot forward when it comes to trial selection.

Ready For Your Free Consultation?

What Our Clients Are Saying About Us

“If you're looking for a great firm, then look no further!”

“Everyone at Pierce Skrabanek was so helpful to our case. They worked fast and efficiently and kept us notified of the status of our case. They helped us a lot and made sure we understood what was happening and why. If you're looking for a great firm, then look no further! I can't recommend them enough. They truly changed our lives. Five Stars on all accounts!”

Samantha S.

“I greatly appreciate all of their help!”

Mr. Skrabanek and his team are all very diligent, thorough, and hard-working. For my first time ever needing a lawyer, I had a great experience. They walked me through the process and answered all of my questions along the way and in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate all of their help!”

Tori P.

“I’m very pleased with my results.”

“They took care of me from start to finish! I’m very pleased with my results. I will 100% recommend it to my friend's family or just another person who needs good help in a bad situation. Thank you to Paul and the whole team!”

Jon J.

“Pierce Skrabanek represented me in a very high-profile wrongful death case.”

“Pierce Skrabanek represented me in a very high-profile wrongful death case. Whenever I felt uninformed or just needed reassurance, Paul had no problems getting on the phone with me to clear up any questions I had.

This firm was very professional through the entire process.”

Jeremy S.

“Pierce Skrabanek was polite, professional, and direct at all times.”

“When I needed help, they were there. I reached out to over 5 other firms, but all declined to assist. Pierce Skrabanek was polite, professional, and direct at all times. Just awesome”

Al B.

“This law firm treats you as family.”

“Every person I came in communication with was a great person. This law firm treats you as family and will do anything to get the best for you.”

Andres T.