Difference between motion to consolidate and joint trial and discovery
Yes. A motion to consolidate is legally different from a motion for a joint trial and discovery, even though courts sometimes treat the terms loosely. Consolidation merges separate actions into a single action, while a joint trial and discovery order keeps the actions separate but coordinated.
Governing Authority
Both procedural devices arise under CPLR 602, which authorizes a court, where actions involve common questions of law or fact, to order either consolidation or a joint trial.[1][2]
“CPLR 602 draws little distinction between consolidation and joint trial, and movants often use the terms interchangeably. The difference lies in whether the actions are merged into one or whether they maintain separate, but linked, identities.”[1]
Motion to Consolidate
Legal Effect
A consolidation results in one unified action:
- One index number and one caption
- One set of pleadings deemed consolidated
- One Note of Issue
- Parties are realigned into a single lawsuit
- A single verdict and judgment
The formerly separate actions lose their independent procedural identities.[1]
“For all future filings and motions, a consolidated action has one index number, one caption, and one Note of Issue.”[1]
Importantly, consolidation can expand party relationships, allowing new cross-claims and counterclaims that did not previously exist.[1]
Strategic Consequences
- May alter litigation strategy and party alignment
- Risk of jury confusion in multi-party cases
- Broader exposure for defendants who become co-defendants
Because of these consequences, consolidation is considered a more drastic procedural remedy than joint trial.[2]
Motion for Joint Trial and Discovery
Legal Effect
A joint trial and discovery order preserves the separate identity of each action:
- Each action retains its own index number
- Separate pleadings, verdicts, judgments, and bills of costs
- Separate Notes of Issue
- Discovery proceeds jointly under coordinated scheduling
“In a joint trial, the combined actions retain their original index numbers, separate decisions or verdicts, and separate costs.”[1]
The original alignment of parties—and corresponding trial rights such as opening and closing—remains unchanged.[2]
Strategic Consequences
- Achieves efficiency without merging actions
- Minimizes prejudice and jury confusion
- Preferred where plaintiffs sued different defendants intentionally
New York courts have frequently expressed a preference for joint trials over consolidation in complex or multi-party litigation.[2]
Court’s Discretion Under CPLR 602
Once common questions of law or fact are shown, the court has discretion to determine which remedy is appropriate.[1]
“Once the common-questions burden of CPLR 602 is met, it is in the court’s discretion to decide whether a consolidation or joint trial order is more appropriate.”[1]
Trial courts regularly deny consolidation while granting joint trial and discovery to avoid unfairness or procedural disruption.[1][2]
Practical Summary
| Feature | Consolidation | Joint Trial & Discovery |
|---|---|---|
| Number of actions | One merged action | Separate actions |
| Index numbers | One | Multiple |
| Pleadings | Consolidated | Separate |
| Verdicts/Judgments | Single | Separate |
| Discovery | Unified | Joint but distinct |
| Risk of prejudice | Higher | Lower |
Bottom Line
A motion to consolidate seeks to merge actions into one lawsuit, while a motion for joint trial and discovery seeks coordinated litigation without merger. The distinction is substantive, not semantic, and can materially affect party rights, trial structure, and exposure.
Courts expect precision: if joint treatment is desired, the motion should explicitly seek joint trial and discovery—not consolidation.[2]