Effective 1 December 2025, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 introduces the first formal procedural framework tailored to multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings, aiming to address longstanding challenges in the management of complex, high-volume federal litigation.

Key Takeaways

Rule 16.1’s Purpose

The new rule provides MDL transferee courts with an optional roadmap for early case management. After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidates actions into an MDL, the transferee court is encouraged (but not required) to take three actions aimed at effective MDL case management. First, the transferee court “should schedule an initial management conference to develop an initial plan for orderly pretrial activity in the MDL Proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(a). Second, prior to the initial management conference, the transferee court “should” order the parties to submit a pre-conference report that addresses critical issues such as consolidating pleadings, discovery, pretrial motions, and the appointment of leadership counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b). Third, after the initial conference, the transferee court “should” enter an initial case management order addressing the matters in the pre-conference report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(c). 

Early Vetting of Claims

Rule 16.1 sets the stage for early scrutiny of claims by requiring parties to outline how and when they will exchange information supporting their claims and defenses. This is designed to curb the widespread filing of unverified or unsupportable claims that have plagued MDL dockets in recent years. Indeed, as explained in the Committee Notes, “after taking account of whether the party whose claim or defense is involved has reasonable access to needed information—the court may find it appropriate to employ expedited methods to resolve claims or defenses not supported after the required information exchange.”

Perspective of the Parties

The rule specifically calls for the “parties’ initial views on various matters” in the pre-conference report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(3). This includes the parties’ views on “discovery, including any difficult issues that may arise,” pretrial motions, and “whether the court should consider any measures to facilitate resolving some or all actions before the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(3). By soliciting counsel’s input on matters during the initial stages of litigation, the rule ensures that considerations from both sides inform the transferee court’s initial case management order.

Judicial Discretion

While Rule 16.1 provides a helpful framework, it does not impose mandatory obligations on transferee courts. Indeed, the rule uses conditional phrases such as “should” and “in the court’s discretion” throughout, and the Committee Notes confirm the rule is intended as guidance rather than a mandate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(a), (c), and Committee Notes. Its effectiveness, then, will depend on judicial willingness to implement the rule’s recommendations.

Looking Ahead

As of December 2025, there were over 340,000 cases consolidated across 157 active federal MDLs.¹ For years, the absence of clear procedural rules in MDLs led to ad hoc management and inconsistent vetting of individual claims. Rule 16.1 changes that dynamic. By introducing a structured framework and equipping transferee courts with tools to enhance case oversight from the outset, Rule 16.1 is a positive step in bringing order and efficiency to MDL proceedings. However, because the rule is discretionary, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on whether the transferee court chooses to enforce its provisions and turn optional guidance into meaningful action.