Managing repetitive litigation: 5 tips to improve outcomes and reduce costs
These tips may assist in more effectively managing the companys repetitive litigation portfolio to reduce overall liability exposure, control costs, and free up time to focus on business goals and priorities.
February 27, 2014 at 03:00 AM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Companies in a variety of sectors may face repetitive litigation, which involves a number of cases, in multiple jurisdictions, arising out of a common factual core or common liability theories. These cases often feature common corporate documents, issues, and witnesses. Matters that are the subject of repetitive litigation may include product defect cases, general or premises liability matters, claims alleging negligent provision of services, claims for consumer fraud or violation of consumer protection statutes, or claims asserting other common law or statutory-based challenges to a company's business practices. This type of litigation differs from mass tort actions involving a single product or catastrophic occurrence in that the nature of the alleged product defect, manner of injury, or other factual circumstances giving rise to repetitive claims typically are case-specific and the cases are not aggregated.
While the damages in each individual case may be less than the potential damages associated with mass tort claims, the decentralized nature of repetitive litigation presents inherent challenges and risks that can be costly. Plaintiff's counsel will frequently bolster unfounded claims and increase the value of low-damage claims by exploiting inconsistencies in a company's discovery responses, positions, or testimony in other similar cases, and may publicize decisions adverse to the company. The proliferation of communication technology, the use of social media, and the increased communication and collaboration within the 21st century plaintiff's bar have magnified these risks.
The following tips may assist in-house counsel in more effectively managing their company's repetitive litigation portfolio to reduce overall liability exposure, control costs, and free up time to focus on their internal client's business goals and priorities.
1. Be alert and investigate patterns
In-house counsel should be attentive to potential repetitive litigation threats and be proactive in identifying and responding to the risk. Indicators that individual cases may be part of a larger pattern include: formulaic complaints; recurring plaintiffs' counsel or opposing experts; an increase in warranty claims, customer complaints or lawsuits attacking the safety or integrity of a particular product or business practice; case reports and articles in medical or technical literature and/or media reports raising concerns about a product, business practice, or industry; lawsuits or publicity of adverse events involving a direct competitor. Once a suspected pattern has been identified, in-house counsel should promptly investigate and take steps to reduce (or eliminate) the repetitive litigation threat through remedial measures that may involve minimal cost but, in the long-term, save the company significant defense and indemnity dollars.
2. Develop a global defense strategy
A clear and consistent defense strategy is the foundation of successful management of repetitive litigation. Without a global approach, local counsel in different jurisdictions may pursue defenses, adopt positions, and prepare company witnesses to testify in support of theories designed to prevail in an individual case but may be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the company's broader interests. To ensure consistency across multiple jurisdictions, it is important early in the process to identify and marshal the facts, documents and corporate witnesses knowledgeable about common issues. This information can be used to develop the strongest available defenses and an affirmative narrative supporting the company's position. Implementing a streamlined procedure for handling discovery also is an integral part of the defense strategy to ensure consistency, avoid duplication and reduce the costs associated with continually “reinventing the wheel.”
3. Consider retaining outside coordinating counsel
The day-to-day, hands on case management, review of pleadings and discovery responses, and routine communications with local counsel necessary to achieve consistency can divert in-house counsel's attention from other pressing business issues. Depending on the size and resources available to the company's legal department and the volume and nature of the cases, it may be advantageous to retain outside counsel to help coordinate the company's defense. Outside coordinating counsel can lead fact investigations, collect and consolidate relevant documents, manage discovery, prepare company witnesses, identify and manage experts, coordinate with local counsel, and serve as trial counsel in key cases. Outside coordinating counsel can also develop a deep knowledge of the company and its business that will allow them to assist in-house counsel in conducting risk assessments and make recommendations regarding settlement and trial strategies that are aligned with the company's business goals and objectives. By actively participating in key trials, outside coordinating counsel can effectively present the company's well-developed defenses and maintain the consistency necessary to avoid creating pitfalls for future cases.
4. Implement a clear and efficient communication process
The most carefully crafted defense strategy will not be successful unless it is clearly and effectively conveyed to all team members. Clear communication is also essential to avoid duplication of effort and keep in-house counsel timely informed of critical developments. An effective communication process should include regular reporting procedures and formats tailored to in-house counsel's needs and internal business reporting requirements. Outside coordinating counsel can serve as an information conduit, collecting critical case information and presenting it in an easily accessible format. Additionally, technology should be leveraged to achieve efficiency through use of document management systems, secure extranets or other web-based applications for up-to-date reporting and fingertip access to case materials, a master calendar of case deadlines, and development of brief banks, deposition repositories, expert materials, and other general information that can be utilized across all cases.
5. Choose your battles strategically
In repetitive litigation, as in mass tort litigation, trial outcomes or settlements can have a ripple effect. Counsel should engage in rigorous case assessment and risk analysis, including early case assessments, to identify cases that should be tried or positioned for settlement and to allocate resources accordingly. Decisions about which, when and where to try cases should be made as part of the global defense strategy taking into account the company's business objectives. Careful and strategic selection of cases for trial or settlement can position the company to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome with maximum impact across the board.
Companies in a variety of sectors may face repetitive litigation, which involves a number of cases, in multiple jurisdictions, arising out of a common factual core or common liability theories. These cases often feature common corporate documents, issues, and witnesses. Matters that are the subject of repetitive litigation may include product defect cases, general or premises liability matters, claims alleging negligent provision of services, claims for consumer fraud or violation of consumer protection statutes, or claims asserting other common law or statutory-based challenges to a company's business practices. This type of litigation differs from mass tort actions involving a single product or catastrophic occurrence in that the nature of the alleged product defect, manner of injury, or other factual circumstances giving rise to repetitive claims typically are case-specific and the cases are not aggregated.
While the damages in each individual case may be less than the potential damages associated with mass tort claims, the decentralized nature of repetitive litigation presents inherent challenges and risks that can be costly. Plaintiff's counsel will frequently bolster unfounded claims and increase the value of low-damage claims by exploiting inconsistencies in a company's discovery responses, positions, or testimony in other similar cases, and may publicize decisions adverse to the company. The proliferation of communication technology, the use of social media, and the increased communication and collaboration within the 21st century plaintiff's bar have magnified these risks.
The following tips may assist in-house counsel in more effectively managing their company's repetitive litigation portfolio to reduce overall liability exposure, control costs, and free up time to focus on their internal client's business goals and priorities.
1. Be alert and investigate patterns
In-house counsel should be attentive to potential repetitive litigation threats and be proactive in identifying and responding to the risk. Indicators that individual cases may be part of a larger pattern include: formulaic complaints; recurring plaintiffs' counsel or opposing experts; an increase in warranty claims, customer complaints or lawsuits attacking the safety or integrity of a particular product or business practice; case reports and articles in medical or technical literature and/or media reports raising concerns about a product, business practice, or industry; lawsuits or publicity of adverse events involving a direct competitor. Once a suspected pattern has been identified, in-house counsel should promptly investigate and take steps to reduce (or eliminate) the repetitive litigation threat through remedial measures that may involve minimal cost but, in the long-term, save the company significant defense and indemnity dollars.
2. Develop a global defense strategy
A clear and consistent defense strategy is the foundation of successful management of repetitive litigation. Without a global approach, local counsel in different jurisdictions may pursue defenses, adopt positions, and prepare company witnesses to testify in support of theories designed to prevail in an individual case but may be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the company's broader interests. To ensure consistency across multiple jurisdictions, it is important early in the process to identify and marshal the facts, documents and corporate witnesses knowledgeable about common issues. This information can be used to develop the strongest available defenses and an affirmative narrative supporting the company's position. Implementing a streamlined procedure for handling discovery also is an integral part of the defense strategy to ensure consistency, avoid duplication and reduce the costs associated with continually “reinventing the wheel.”
3. Consider retaining outside coordinating counsel
The day-to-day, hands on case management, review of pleadings and discovery responses, and routine communications with local counsel necessary to achieve consistency can divert in-house counsel's attention from other pressing business issues. Depending on the size and resources available to the company's legal department and the volume and nature of the cases, it may be advantageous to retain outside counsel to help coordinate the company's defense. Outside coordinating counsel can lead fact investigations, collect and consolidate relevant documents, manage discovery, prepare company witnesses, identify and manage experts, coordinate with local counsel, and serve as trial counsel in key cases. Outside coordinating counsel can also develop a deep knowledge of the company and its business that will allow them to assist in-house counsel in conducting risk assessments and make recommendations regarding settlement and trial strategies that are aligned with the company's business goals and objectives. By actively participating in key trials, outside coordinating counsel can effectively present the company's well-developed defenses and maintain the consistency necessary to avoid creating pitfalls for future cases.
4. Implement a clear and efficient communication process
The most carefully crafted defense strategy will not be successful unless it is clearly and effectively conveyed to all team members. Clear communication is also essential to avoid duplication of effort and keep in-house counsel timely informed of critical developments. An effective communication process should include regular reporting procedures and formats tailored to in-house counsel's needs and internal business reporting requirements. Outside coordinating counsel can serve as an information conduit, collecting critical case information and presenting it in an easily accessible format. Additionally, technology should be leveraged to achieve efficiency through use of document management systems, secure extranets or other web-based applications for up-to-date reporting and fingertip access to case materials, a master calendar of case deadlines, and development of brief banks, deposition repositories, expert materials, and other general information that can be utilized across all cases.
5. Choose your battles strategically
In repetitive litigation, as in mass tort litigation, trial outcomes or settlements can have a ripple effect. Counsel should engage in rigorous case assessment and risk analysis, including early case assessments, to identify cases that should be tried or positioned for settlement and to allocate resources accordingly. Decisions about which, when and where to try cases should be made as part of the global defense strategy taking into account the company's business objectives. Careful and strategic selection of cases for trial or settlement can position the company to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome with maximum impact across the board.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Don't Rush to Change That Noncompete Just Yet, Employment Lawyers Advise
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
- 5Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250