Opinion ID: 1280575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lower Court's Consolidation of Twenty-Three Plaintiffs for Discovery

Text: The Petitioners contend that the nine original plaintiffs [5] are substantially prepared to defend against dispositive pretrial motions on the issues of damages and causation. [6] They further contend that because the fourteen more recent plaintiffs are not yet prepared to answer dispositive pretrial motions, the nine original plaintiffs will be prejudiced by the substantial delay which will be encountered while the fourteen new plaintiffs conduct further discovery and prepare for pretrial motions on damages and causation. The Petitioners assert that the inevitable delay, estimated by the Petitioners as approximately two years, will violate their constitutional rights to prompt trial. See W.Va. Const. Art. III, § 17 ([E]very person ... shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay). The Petitioners also emphasize that Rule 1 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. The Respondents assert that because all twenty-three cases arise from the same type of chemical exposure, consolidation for discovery purposes was appropriate under the discretionary policies of Rule 16 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [7] and State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. MacQueen, 198 W.Va. 1, 479 S.E.2d 300 (1996). Syllabus point one of Appalachian Power v. MacQueen provides as follows: The trial court, when exercising its discretion in deciding consolidation issues under West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a), should consider the following factors: (1) whether the risks of prejudice and possible confusion outweigh the considerations of judicial dispatch and economy; (2) what the burden would be on the parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits; (3) the length of time required to conclude multiple lawsuits as compared to the time required to conclude a single lawsuit; and (4) the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. When the trial court concludes in the exercise of its discretion whether to grant or deny consolidation, it should set forth in its order granting or denying consolidation sufficient grounds to establish for review why consolidation would or would not promote judicial economy and convenience of the parties, and avoid prejudice and confusion. Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Ranson, 190 W.Va. 429, 438 S.E.2d 609 (1993). Syllabus point two of Appalachian Power v. MacQueen provides: `Trial courts have the inherent power to manage their judicial affairs that arise during proceedings in their courts, which includes the right to manage their trial docket.' Syllabus Point 2, B.F. Specialty Co. v. Sledd, 197 W.Va. 463, 475 S.E.2d 555 (1996). Syllabus point three of Appalachian Power v. MacQueen provides: A creative, innovative trial management plan developed by a trial court which is designed to achieve an orderly, reasonably swift and efficient disposition of mass liability cases will be approved so long as the plan does not trespass upon the procedural due process rights of the parties. Consequently, the Respondents contend that the inherent power of the trial court was properly exercised in consolidation of the twenty-three cases and that the plan does not violate the procedural due process rights of the parties. Upon our review of the record, arguments of counsel, and the factors enumerated in Appalachian Power v. MacQueen, we conclude that the consolidation of the twenty-three cases constitutes an abuse of discretion for which issuance of a writ of prohibition is the only effective remedy. The delay in resolution of the original nine plaintiffs' cases, while awaiting the completion of causation and damages discovery for the second group of litigants, imposes a significant burden upon the parties and witnesses. Additionally, comparing the time required to conclude multiple lawsuits to that required to conclude a unitary trial of the first nine, [8] it appears that consolidation for discovery purposes is not an appropriate means to efficiently manage the lower court's docket and provide prompt resolution for the parties. [9]