New Year, New Rule: A Fresh Framework for Multidistrict Litigation

Rule 16.1 Highlights

• Absent early screening, MDLs can become dominated by meritless claims; this concern was addressed in the revisions to FRCP Rule 16.1.
• The Rule now requires parties to report early on in the case how and when they will exchange information about the factual bases for claims and defenses.
• To capitalize on the Rule, Defendants should proactively propose structured early vetting mechanisms.
• Even before the ink has dried on new Rule 16.1, MDL courts are already signaling receptiveness to structured early vetting.

After years of discussion, a new rule has finally made its debut. On December 1, 2025, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 (the Rule) took effect, marking the first federal rule designed specifically for the increasing rise in multidistrict litigation (MDLs). While Rule 16.1 does not rewrite the MDL playbook, its arrival on the scene is momentous. The Rule formalizes best practices for early case management and potentially beyond in MDL proceedings while preserving significant discretion for transferee courts. The Rule is poised to influence how judges and litigants approach the earliest and often most consequential stages of MDL proceedings, including an early exchange of information regarding the claims, among other matters.

Sidley expects the Rule’s impact to be felt most acutely in this new year, as MDLs get off the ground and existing MDLs increasingly rely on Rule 16.1 as a management framework. For in-house counsel and defense teams, the Rule creates a fresh opportunity to shape leadership structure, discovery schedules, and motion practice earlier and more strategically than ever before.

The Framework Going Forward

The hallmark of Rule 16.1 is flexibility. It outlines steps the MDL court “should” take but mandates very little. Though the Rule expresses a clear preference that the MDL court order a report for the initial management conference, the decision is ultimately left in the MDL judge’s hands. Indeed, the only set requirement is what the parties “must” include in a joint status report if the court decides to require one.

Specifically, Rule 16.1 recommends that the transferee court

• hold an initial management conference to develop a plan for orderly pretrial proceedings
• require a joint status report in advance of that conference addressing specified topics
• enter a subsequent initial management order addressing the topics addressed during the conference

Even before the Rule became effective, some MDL judges began invoking its framework.¹ Since December 1, 2025, courts have taken varied approaches. Some have required the report exactly as described in the Rule,² while others have asked for briefing on just some of the listed topics.³ This variation underscores the degree of discretion the Rule affords. But significantly because there is flexibility, it affords defense counsel a golden opportunity to engage in early advocacy to address issues of critical import in charting the course of the MDL proceeding.

How Companies and Counsel Can Get Ahead in 2026

Because Rule 16.1 shapes the conversation at the very start of an MDL, preparation well before the court requires any initial joint status report is critical. Companies and counsel should think proactively about their positions on the Rule’s key topics, including through the following steps.

• Shaping discovery from day one

Use the Rule 16.1 report to advocate for phased, issue-driven, or proportional discovery and to resist premature merits discovery before threshold issues, such as proof of use/exposure and proof of injury (particularly in product liability or mass tort MDLs), are resolved. This includes seeking such threshold information from plaintiffs at the outset (before engaging in formal discovery), filing early Rule 702 motions, advocating for certain causation standards, and limiting the scope of discovery.

• Framing pretrial motion practice early

Identify potential jurisdictional, preemption, or pleading-stage motions and raise them during initial Rule 16.1 discussions to influence sequencing and overall case management.

• Treating the initial conference as substantive, not procedural

Courts may use Rule 16.1 as a guidepost. Preparation for the initial management conference can meaningfully affect the MDL’s structure and pace, as judges may set informal expectations that carry throughout the litigation.

• Considering leadership structure

Although MDL leadership is typically more of an issue for plaintiffs’ counsel, be prepared to address leadership structure, authority, and compensation if needed. Early input can help defense counsel limit overbroad leadership roles, particularly if such roles could impede defense counsel’s ability to have a clear channel of communication with opposing counsel. It may also be of relevance to defense counsel in multidefendant MDL proceedings.

• Accounting for what Rule 16.1 leaves open

The Rule does not address bellwethers or remand timing, among other issues. Nevertheless, early positioning on these issues remains critical, particularly because courts may look back to the initial management conference when addressing these issues later. Moreover, the Rule 16.1 signposts can be used even at later points in existing MDL proceedings.

A Strong Start, Backed by Sidley

Sidley regularly advises clients on the earliest and most consequential stages of MDLs and can strategize for a possible MDL proceeding even before the MDL is created. We are well positioned to help companies assess how Rule 16.1 may apply to new matters and to develop practical, strategic approaches to initial management conferences and early case organization and, significantly, how to use the Rule’s framework in existing and more advanced MDL proceedings.

Sidley’s lawyers listed below are ready to help you at any stage of an MDL.

² E.g., In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., No. 2:25-md-03167 (D. Utah), Dkt. 11 (ordering a “Joint Case Management Report addressing the matters included in Rule 16.1(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other matters the parties wish to address”).

³ E.g., In re Trans Union LLC Cust. Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:25-cv-10320 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. 23 (omitting 16.1(b)(3)(e)’s requirement that the parties address “whether the court should consider any measures to facilitate resolving some or all actions before the court”).