## Facts

- Numerous federal actions by hemophiliacs (and estates) were centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings as MDL No. 986 in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Plaintiffs alleged they contracted HIV after using blood-derived Factor VIII or IX concentrates manufactured from pooled human plasma.
- The court entered a scheduling order requiring expert designations and completion of expert depositions by set deadlines.
- Defendant manufacturers designated 137 potential expert witnesses.
- Plaintiffs moved to require defendants to reduce the expert list, arguing that deposing 137 experts within the schedule was impractical and unfair.
- Defendants argued that limiting the number of experts was a “trial matter” outside the MDL transferee court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

## Issues

1. Whether an MDL transferee judge has authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to limit and manage the number of expert witnesses designated for coordinated pretrial proceedings, even though trials will occur in transferor courts after remand.
2. Whether, as a matter of case management and discovery fairness, the court may require reduction and organization of a 137-expert designation as unduly burdensome.

## Decision

- The court held it had authority in the MDL to regulate expert designations as part of coordinated pretrial proceedings under § 1407.
- The court found that management of expert disclosure and discovery is a pretrial function properly handled by the transferee court.
- The court granted plaintiffs’ request in substance, directing defendants to reduce and rationalize their expert designations through procedures imposed by the court.
- The ruling did not decide liability, causation, or damages; it addressed only pretrial case management.

## Legal Principles

- In multidistrict litigation, the transferee court’s § 1407 power over “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” includes control of expert discovery and expert-witness designation.
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, together with the court’s inherent authority, permit orders that structure expert disclosures and prevent discovery burdens inconsistent with efficient case management.
- Excessive expert designations may be limited when they create impractical deposition demands, increase costs, and hinder fair preparation for later trial proceedings.
- MDL case management may impose uniform expert-discovery limits to reduce duplicative work and support consistent pretrial treatment across the consolidated actions.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that an MDL transferee judge may limit and structure expert-witness designations as a pretrial matter and required defendants to pare back an excessive expert list to make expert discovery feasible and fair within the coordinated MDL schedule.


In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Prods. Litig., 169 F.R.D. 632 (N.D. Ill. 1996)