When product liability actions involving one or more common issues of fact (e.g., an allegedly harmful product or chemical) are filed in multiple jurisdictions, they are typically consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL). 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In an MDL, the lawsuits are transferred from their filing courts to a single “transferee” Court (the MDL Court) chosen by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The purposes of this centralization are to avoid duplication of discovery, to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. For example, overarching issues of law, such as preemption admissibility of common-issue expert opinions, are often resolved by the MDL Court instead of needing to be re-litigated in several different courts. Additionally, MDL Courts can hold bellwether trials to help the parties structure a global settlement process to resolve many or all of the filed cases.

Christina Maria Assi
Christina Maria Assi is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department and a member of the Mass Torts & Product Liability and Trials Groups. Her practice focuses on high-stakes and complex civil litigation, including product liability, antitrust, and commercial matters.
Christina has represented leading agrochemical, biopharmaceutical, and medical device manufacturers in connection with complex and multi-plaintiff product liability actions in all phases of litigation, from discovery through trial. She advises domestic and international clients in a range of commercial controversies, including securities litigation and partnership disputes. Christina also counsels clients in connection with requests for information and subpoenas from regulatory authorities.
Christina has been a key member of trial teams in multiple high-profile cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. Recently, Christina was part of the trial team representing Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Holdings, LLC, and Gilead Sciences, LLC in a $3.6 billion antitrust case on allegations that the pharmaceutical company struck an anticompetitive "pay-for-delay" patent settlement related to two HIV medications. A California federal jury deliberated for two days and delivered a full defense verdict. She was also part of several trial teams representing Monsanto in cases related to the herbicide, Roundup, whereby achieving full defense verdicts on all claims. In late 2022, Christina served as a pro bono prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, prosecuting jury trials as sole or co-lead trial counsel.
Christina maintains an active pro bono practice, including advising civil liberties and anti-hate organizations. She also previously co-chaired the Young Lawyer’s Division of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers in Los Angeles.
Christina graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center. While at Georgetown, she served as symposium editor for the Georgetown Environmental Law Review.
Five Key Takeaways from the New Emergency Judicial Procedures in the Eastern District of California
Federal court judges in California are facing a crisis caused by expanding caseloads coupled with increasing vacancies in judicial seats that remain unfilled. United States District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd of the Eastern District of California recently took matters into his own hands. After three other judges in the Eastern District assumed Senior status or inactive Senior status in the course of two months, Judge Drozd took over Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill’s criminal docket and a portion of Judge O’Neill’s civil docket in addition to his own. The combined docket amounts to roughly 1,050 civil actions and 625 criminal defendants. To address the ongoing “judicial emergency,” Judge Drozd issued a civil Standing Order implementing new “temporary procedures” in early February. (Judge Drozd also issued a criminal standing order, which is not the subject of this post.) In the Standing Order, Judge Drozd prefaced the changes by explaining the track record of the Eastern District as one of the top 10 districts in the country in cases terminated per judgeship for over 20 years. He also noted that the population in the Eastern District has more than tripled since 1978, but the number of judicial seats remains the same. For now, the Standing Order only applies to the cases over which Judge Drozd presides, though the problems it seeks to address are suffered by all judges in the District (and beyond).