Opinion ID: 894595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Remaining Factors

Text: The remaining Maryland factors, which include the status of discovery and whether the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, also favor consolidation of these twenty plaintiffs. However, we have held that these factors are far less important than the other considerations identified by the Maryland criteria. [24] Although some factors favor consolidation of this group of plaintiffs, the most critical factors weigh against consolidation. Most importantly, because the plaintiffs worked at what were effectively different work sites, and thus were exposed to entirely different chemical mixtures, the other dissimilarities involving disease and occupations are magnified. Establishing a defendant's liability based on one plaintiff's exposure to a certain chemical combination will not aid in establishing a different defendant's liability for another plaintiff's exposure to an entirely different mixture of chemicals. Rather, it would only serve to prejudice and confuse a jury. Although some plaintiffs could appropriately share causation evidence by claiming exposure to the same chemical combinations and could therefore be consolidated for trial, not all twenty plaintiffs here could make such a claim. Because analysis of the evidence using the factors adopted in Ethyl and Bristol-Myers demonstrates that significant juror confusion and undue prejudice would result from a trial of this particular group of twenty plaintiffs, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating this group for trial. Having concluded the trial court abused its discretion, we now must determine whether the defendants nevertheless have an adequate remedy by appeal. Absent extraordinary circumstances, mandamus will not issue unless defendants lack an adequate appellate remedy. [25] An appeal is inadequate when parties are in danger of permanently losing substantial rights. [26] Such a danger arises when the appellate court would not be able to cure the error, when the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated, or when the error cannot be made part of the appellate record. [27] Because most consolidation orders do not threaten a defendant's substantial rights, mandamus typically does not lie from a trial court's consolidation order. [28] But if extraordinary circumstances are present that make an ordinary appeal inadequate, mandamus relief may be warranted. [29] Such extraordinary circumstances are present in this case because an appellate court could not remedy the likely juror confusion in a consolidated trial of these twenty plaintiffs' claims. Given the totally unrelated claims of plaintiffs exposed to entirely different chemicals produced by different defendants, consolidation risks the jury finding against a defendant based on sheer numbers, on evidence regarding a different plaintiff, or out of reluctance to find against a defendant with regard to one plaintiff and not another. The defensive theories as to many of these plaintiffs may also differ given the varying sources of exposure. The confusion created by multiple defensive theories is augmented in this case because there are fifty-five original defendants and at least nine remaining defendants. Similarly, confusion and prejudice could subsume the valid claim of a plaintiff based on an unrelated flaw or defense applicable to a different plaintiff's claim. Juror confusion and prejudice, under these facts, is almost certain, and it would be impossible for an appellate court to untangle the confusion or prejudice on appeal. [30] We conclude that the consolidation of these twenty plaintiffs' claims against the defendants was an abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Whatever advantage may be gained in judicial economy or avoidance of repetitive costs is overwhelmed by the greater danger an unfair trial would pose to the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, [31] we order the trial court to vacate its January 2, 2003 order consolidating the claims of the twenty plaintiffs. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.