JPML Jan. 29 Hearing: What Plaintiff Firms Should Prep

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will hold its next hearing session on January 29, 2026 in San Diego, where the Panel will consider motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 that determine whether related federal cases should be centralized into MDLs and where those MDLs will land. The decisions matter because MDL proceedings already account for 326,539 pending actions across 47 transferee districts, according to the U.S. Courts’ FY 2024 Judicial Business statistics. Centralization can turn screening and coordinated discovery into a weeks-long sprint.

The timing is notable in a broader civil-docket context: U.S. district courts recorded 271,802 civil cases filed in the 12-month period ending March 31, 2025, per the Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics. For plaintiff firms, the takeaway is practical: MDL volume remains massive, and evidence readiness is often the first differentiator when filings surge.

What’s scheduled for January 29 (and what the Panel expects)

JPML’s hearing notice confirms the basics—date, location, and timing—and also signals what counsel will be pressed on. For matters designated for oral argument, counsel requesting argument must be present at 8:00 a.m. for time allocation, and oral argument begins at 9:30 a.m., according to the JPML hearing session notice.

More importantly for firms watching from the plaintiff side, the Panel explicitly expects attorneys to be prepared to discuss alternatives to centralization (including informal coordination and § 1404 transfer steps), not only the “why MDL” pitch.

Why a JPML hearing creates operational urgency for plaintiff teams

MDL centralization is often described in legal terms—convenience, efficiency, coordinated discovery—but plaintiff firms feel it operationally: intake spikes, common-fact discovery accelerates, and leadership structures begin to standardize what “complete” evidence looks like.

That scaling effect is visible in statistics. In FY 2024, the Panel “acted on” 75,570 civil actions under § 1407, and 23 motions led to the creation of new MDL dockets, per the U.S. Courts’ JPML summary. At the same time, the JPML’s own reporting shows 157 active transferred MDLs as of December 2, 2025 in its pending MDL report.

For a plaintiff practice, those numbers translate into a simple operational reality: if a docket is on the cusp of centralization (or expansion), firms that can quickly prove exposure, prove injury, and organize causation-relevant medical facts are better positioned to move cases into leadership-approved inventory rather than letting them languish in “needs records” limbo.

Impact: how MDL centralization changes evidence work

Centralization doesn’t just change where cases get coordinated—it changes how teams must package medical evidence so it can survive repeat review: intake → audit → leadership criteria → settlement-ready documentation. For examples, see the Depo-Provera litigation update and the 2026 legal tech spending analysis.

1) Intake triage becomes a race against the calendar

Once a litigation consolidates, firms often face compressed deadlines for plaintiff fact sheets, standard discovery responses, and medical documentation readiness. Before centralization, the weeks leading into a JPML hearing are when firms can do the “quiet work”: obtaining clean authorizations, building provider inventories, and confirming that the chart contains the necessary anchors (diagnosis confirmation, exposure history, key treatment dates).

2) “Common questions” create common evidence expectations

JPML transfer orders repeatedly emphasize “common questions of fact” as the basis for centralization. When a court begins coordinating those common facts, plaintiff teams are effectively building to a shared standard—whether it’s proof of use/exposure, medical causation signals, or adverse event documentation. Firms that standardize evidence packages early reduce friction when common discovery begins.

3) The bottleneck shifts from getting leads to proving claims

As filing volume increases, many plaintiff operations find that the limit is no longer marketing or intake—it is verification: confirming that the right plaintiff exists, with the right exposure, the right injury, and the right documentation. Evidence readiness is where operational maturity shows up fastest.

A practical “30-day prep” checklist before the hearing

The JPML hearing creates a predictable window to get evidence operations in order before a docket centralizes or expands.

What this means for 2026

JPML’s 2026 hearing calendar is already posted, and MDL activity remains substantial. The practical trendline for plaintiff firms is clear: centralized litigation demands repeatable evidence operations, not one-off heroics.

The bottom line

JPML’s January 29, 2026 hearing session is a near-term inflection point for dockets seeking centralization and for already-centralized MDLs seeking additional coordination decisions. The news hook for plaintiff firms isn’t only what the Panel decides—it’s what those decisions trigger operationally: faster coordination, faster screening, and faster pressure to produce complete medical evidence.

Plaintiff teams that use the pre-hearing window to standardize authorizations, build provider lists, and produce consistent chronologies can move faster when MDL expectations harden—without relying on last-minute record chasing.

Sources: JPML Hearing Session Notice (Jan. 29, 2026), JPML Hearing Information, JPML Pending MDL Report (12/2/2025), U.S. Courts — Judicial Business 2024 (JPML), U.S. Courts — Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics 2025 (Indicators).

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for advice specific to your situation.