On December 1, 2025, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 governing multi-district litigation (MDL) proceedings took effect. This is the first MDL-specific rule and is the culmination of a multiyear-long rulemaking process seeking to address the unique procedural and case management issues posed by MDLs. With about 200,000 to 450,000 cases pending in MDLs in 2024 and 2025, Rule 16.1 is an important development that guides courts and parties in MDL case management, promotes uniformity and opportunities for early evaluation of claims, and could impact mass actions and other non-MDL cases.
Rule 16.1 provides a framework for the initial management of MDL proceedings. Courts are encouraged to require the parties to submit a report in advance of the conference that provides their views on the appointment of leadership counsel, history of any prior scheduling orders, and coordination with any related actions, among other issues. The parties’ report—if required—must also include their initial views on consolidating pleadings, discovery, likely pre-trial motions, and whether the court should consider measures to facilitate the resolution of some or all actions. After the parties submit their report, Rule 16.1 suggests that the court hold a case management conference and enter an initial case management order.
While much of the language in the new rule is permissive and memorializes tools currently employed in MDL proceedings, the rule provides a useful framework that encourages consideration of these important issues early in the proceeding. Takeaways include:
- Early Opportunities for Case Assessment: Rule 16.1 memorializes tools to promote early assessment of claims and potentially dispose of those lacking merit. The parties’ report, if ordered by the Court, must include their initial views on the timing and manner of exchanging information on the factual bases of their claims and defenses, and whether the court should consider any measures to facilitate resolving some or all of the actions before the court. As the advisory committee notes recognize, “fact sheets” or “censuses” are a common device for surveying the parties’ claims and defenses and organizing proceedings.
- Recognition of the Need for Flexibility in Case Management: The rule’s permissive language and the advisory committee notes acknowledge that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to case management in MDL proceedings. For example, the rule recognizes that case management conferences may be needed throughout the proceedings to effectively manage the litigation. This recognition is important given the length of time MDL proceedings can be pending and the evolving need to ensure efficient case management.
- Impact on Judicial Workloads: While this framework has the potential to increase judicial workloads in already burdened courts, the permissive language of the rule and its requirement that the parties consider whether any matters can be referred to a magistrate judge or master can help to mitigate these management burdens.
- Interaction with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26: It is important to note that new Rule 16.1 complements, rather than supplants, the obligations for pre-trial conferences and disclosures under other federal rules. In some proceedings, these early exchanges and disclosures may have already occurred before a matter is transferred to the MDL.
- Implications for Non-MDL Proceedings: While the new rule is geared toward MDLs, Rule 16.1 also provides useful tools and guidance for handling complex non-MDL proceedings that require active case management and exhibit similar characteristics to MDL proceedings (e.g., where multiple related actions are filed within a single district and assigned to a single judge).
Given the large share of the federal civil docket composed of MDLs and the rule’s relevance to other complex proceedings, new Rule 16.1 provides an important framework for promoting consistent, proactive, and transparent case management. The adoption of the rule is a significant milestone, but the rule’s effectiveness will depend on how its non-mandatory provisions are applied in practice.
