To assist individuals in garnering a better understanding of how mass tort litigation actually works, the following provides a brief outline of the overall process. This process varies for individual situations and is provided for information only.

Having a Case(s) Classified

To have a case(s) classified as a mass tort and assigned to a designated judge for centralized management, there are numerous procedures that must be followed and documents to be prepared. The attorney making the application must give notice to all parties then involved in the case(s), advising that the application has been made and that a Notice to the Bar will appear in the legal newspapers and in the Mass Tort. Also, notice on the Information Center on the Judiciary's Internet website providing information on where and within what time period comments on and objections to the application may be made.

The Courts then present the application, along with a compilation of any comments and objections received, for review and determination. If the Court determines that the case(s) should be classified as a mass tort and assigned to a designated judge for centralized management and, in that judge's discretion, trial, an appropriate Order will be entered. The Order is then sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, is published in the legal newspapers, and posted in the Mass Tort Information Center on the Judiciary's Internet website.

Determining if Mass Tort Designation is Warranted

Guidelines state that in determining whether designation as a mass tort is warranted, the following factors, among others, are considered:

• Whether the case(s) possess(es) the following characteristics:
  
  1. It involves large numbers of parties;
  2. It involves many claims with common, recurrent issues of law and fact that are associated with a single product, mass disaster, or complex environmental or toxic tort;
  3. There is geographical dispersement of parties;
  4. There is a high degree of commonality of injury or damages among plaintiffs;
  5. There is a value interdependence between different claims, that is, the perceived strength or weakness of the causation and liability aspects of the case(s) are often dependent upon the success or failure of similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions; and
  6. There is a degree of remoteness between the court and actual decision-makers in the litigation, that is, even the simplest of decisions may be required to pass through layers of local, regional, national, general and house counsel.


• Whether there is a risk that centralization may unreasonably delay the progress, increase the expense, or complicate the processing of any action, or otherwise prejudice a party;
• Whether centralized management is fair and convenient to the parties, witnesses and counsel;
• Whether there is a risk of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments if the cases are not managed in a coordinated fashion;
• Whether coordinated discovery would be advantageous;
• Whether the cases require specialized expertise and case processing as provided by the dedicated mass tort judge and staff;
• Whether centralization would result in the efficient utilization of judicial resources and the facilities and personnel of the court;
• Whether issues of insurance, limits on assets and potential bankruptcy can be best addressed in coordinated proceedings; and
• Whether there are related matters pending in Federal court or in other state courts that require coordination with a single judge.

Choice of Location for Centralized Management

Issues of fairness, geographical location of parties and attorneys, and the existing civil and mass tort caseload in the vicinage are considered in determining where a particular mass tort will be assigned for centralized management.

Subsequent Related Actions

The initial Court Order denominating a particular category of cases as a mass tort and referring those cases to a particular location for centralized management may specify that subsequent related actions be transferred from the locations in which they are filed to the designated mass tort location and judge without further application. The mass tort judge may thereafter review the cases designated as a mass tort and assigned for centralized management, and may sever and return to the original venues that no longer warrant centralization.