Premium
Multidistrict Centralization: An Empirical Examination
Author(s) -
Lee Emery G.,
Borden Catherine R.,
Williams Margaret S.,
Scott Kevin M.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of empirical legal studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.529
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 1740-1461
pISSN - 1740-1453
DOI - 10.1111/jels.12070
Subject(s) - point (geometry) , process (computing) , order (exchange) , aggregate data , aggregate (composite) , business , law and economics , empirical research , political science , work (physics) , law , economics , computer science , finance , medicine , philosophy , materials science , geometry , mathematics , pathology , epistemology , composite material , operating system , mechanical engineering , engineering
Following the judiciary's experience with aggregate litigation in the 1960s, C ongress established a procedure for the transfer of related cases to a single district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Originally designed to achieve efficiencies associated with coordinated discovery, the multidistrict litigation ( MDL ) process evolved from a rather modest starting point to become a central part of aggregate litigation in the federal courts today. Despite its importance, however, there is little empirical research on the MDL process. This article seeks to fill this gap in the empirical literature by addressing a few central questions about the work of the J udicial P anel on M ultidistrict L itigation ( P anel). Using a unique database, we examine how that body decided motions to centralize multidistrict litigation. We find, most importantly, that the P anel became more likely to order centralization of proceedings over time, after controlling for other factors. That trend is not, however, apparent in the most recent years' data. We also find, all else equal, that the Panel is more likely to centralize a proceeding including class allegations, and more likely to centralize proceedings raising certain kinds of claims.