In multidistrict litigation, deposition programs rarely fail due to scale alone. They fail when discovery infrastructure is not designed early enough to support volume, complexity, and multi firm coordination.
MDL leadership teams that establish structure at the outset reduce risk, control costs, and preserve the integrity of the record as discovery accelerates. Those that do not, often spend the life of the MDL reacting to preventable issues.
Outlined below are the five most common deposition pitfalls encountered in early lifecycle MDLs, along with the operational principles required to avoid them.
1. Fragmented, Firm by Firm Deposition Logistics
When each firm independently manages deposition scheduling, technology, and staffing, inconsistency becomes unavoidable. Different platforms, service levels, and workflows introduce friction for witnesses, counsel, and the court.
Fragmentation also limits MDL leadership visibility into deposition volume, scheduling conflicts, and operational readiness. Overtime, this leads to duplicated costs, uneven execution, and avoidable disputes.
MDLs that scale effectively establish centralized governance with distributed execution, ensuring consistency regardless of geography or firm involvement.
2. Absence of a National Deposition Framework
MDLs that delay infrastructure decisions until deposition calendars are active often lockin inefficiencies that are difficult to unwind.
A national deposition framework should be established early and define standardized protocols for court reporting, video, remote participation, exhibit handling, and escalation paths. Early alignment allows discovery to scale without changing workflows midstream.
Without this framework, MDLs experience growing pains precisely when volume and scrutiny increase.
3. Ad Hoc Exhibit Management
Exhibit handling is one of the most common sources of confusion during MDL depositions. Firm specific naming conventions, version control gaps, and inconsistent presentation methods disrupt testimony and complicate trial preparation.
Centralized exhibit management, including a secure repository, uniform numbering, and defined pre and post deposition controls, is essential. Exhibits should be preserved in a trial ready format along side transcripts and video.
This is not anadministrative concern. It is a trial risk issue.
4. Treating Remote and Hybrid Depositions as Tactical
Remote and hybrid depositions are now standard in MDLs, yet many are still treated as one-off logistical solutions rather than part of a governed system.
Without MDL wide standards for platform configuration, security, testing, and defined operational roles, execution quality varies deposition to deposition. This inconsistency increases risk and disrupts proceedings.
Remote depositions require the same level of planning, rehearsal, and oversight as inperson testimony, particularly in bellwether and high stakes matters.
5. Failing to Plan for Trial During Discovery
Depositions captured without trial use in mind often require costly rework later. Video synchronization, exhibit integration, and transcript usability should be considered at the discovery stage.
MDLs that plan for trial readiness early preserve optionality and efficiency as cases progress toward bellwether selection and trial.
Depositions are not standalone events. They are building blocks of the trial record.
Conclusion
MDLs that scale cleanly treat depositions as shared discovery infrastructure governed centrally and executed consistently. Early structure is not overhead. It is risk management.
If you are involved in MDL discovery planning and want to reduce operational risk before deposition volume accelerates, we welcome a conversation. BlueBear partners with MDL leadership teams to design and execute centralized, trial ready deposition infrastructure early in the lifecycle of complex litigation.
