This chapter explores the potential for gamesmanship in technology-assisted discovery.1 Attorneys have long embraced gamesmanship strategies in analog discovery, producing reams of irrelevant documents, delaying depositions, or interpreting requests in a hyper-technical manner.2 The new question, however, is whether machine learning technologies can transform gaming strategies. By now it is well known that technologies have reinvented the practice of civil litigation and, specifically, the extensive search for relevant documents in complex cases. Many sophisticated litigants use machine learning algorithms – under the umbrella of “Technology Assisted Review” (TAR) – to simplify the identification and production of relevant documents in discovery.3 Litigants employ TAR in cases ranging from antitrust to environmental law, civil rights, and employment disputes. But as the field becomes increasingly influenced by engineers and technologists, a string of commentators has raised questions about TAR, including lawyers’ professional role, underlying incentive structures, and the dangers of new forms of gamesmanship and abuse.4

MDLs rely, for legitimacy, on the notion that the individual litigant calls the shots. That fact justifies a system that affords MDL litigants few, if any, safeguards, even while furnishing class members in class actions elaborate procedural protections. In this Chapter, we zero in on litigant autonomy in MDLs. We explain why autonomy matters, dissect its components, and evaluate how much autonomy MDL litigants seem to have in practice. We then turn to a necessary component of that autonomy: information. We review data from a recent survey indicating litigants felt confused and uninformed regarding their suits. In light of that evidence, we assess what transferee courts are doing to keep litigants up-to-date and well informed. We then furnish the results of our own empirical analysis of court-run MDL websites, which are often extolled, including by judges, as a key venue for client-court communication. Unfortunately, our analysis reveals deep and pervasive deficits with respect to usability and relevance. If this is where case-related communication is supposed to be happening, then litigant confusion is unsurprising. We close with recommendations for courts seeking to harness simple technology to promote better communication. Improved MDL websites aren’t a panacea. But they might promote the autonomy interests of litigants—and light a path for future reform.