Lawsuit Information CenterBelow are the older Depo Provera updates referenced on our main Depo Provera page. Go to the main page for the most recent news and updates.
Pfizer’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
April 16, 2026
Pfizer filed a motion on April 22 in the Depo Provera meningioma MDL in the Northern District of Florida, asking Judge M. Casey Rodgers to exclude key portions of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony before any cases go to trial.
The motion targets four specific opinions that plaintiffs’ experts plan to offer jurors that:
- The drug can create brand new tumors.
- Less than one year of use or even a single injection can cause meningioma.
- The risk persists more than two years after a woman stops taking the drug.
- The drug increases the risk of spinal or malignant tumors.
One thing is for sure. Pfizer does not even pretend the drug is entirely safe. The company concedes that current, prolonged use can cause pre-existing benign meningiomas to grow large enough to be diagnosed, which is itself a significant admission that will follow Pfizer into any courtroom. They cannot argue otherwise, and that is one of the factors that makes Depo Provera lawsuits so strong.
Why does this motion matter so much? Before individual cases go to trial, judges hold what are called Daubert hearings, named after a Supreme Court case that requires federal judges to act as scientific gatekeepers. The question is not whether the expert is qualified, but whether the methodology behind the opinion is reliable enough to be heard by a jury. In an MDL, the defense winning a Daubert motion on general causation can end thousands of cases at once without a single trial.
Pfizer’s strongest arguments involve the outer edges of plaintiffs’ claims. On short-term use, six of the nine studies published since 2024 either excluded users with less than a year of exposure or reported no results for them. The one study that did find a statistically significant risk at under a year arguably had a recognized flaw involving exposure misclassification, and a follow-up study by the same research group found no association at all for short-term users.
On the latency question, the available data actually points the other way: risk is highest in current or very recent users and declines as time since last use increases, and women who stop the drug regularly see their meningiomas shrink. Several of the plaintiffs’ own experts concede there is no evidence the drug mutates healthy cells, which gives Pfizer an unusually strong argument built in part on the plaintiffs’ own admissions.
Plaintiffs have real answers to all of this, and the motion is far from a sure win for Pfizer. The most powerful counter-argument starts with what Pfizer concedes. If the drug promotes tumor growth, as Pfizer admits, it provides exactly the kind of environment in which additional cellular mutations can occur. The line between promotion and initiation is not as clean as Pfizer draws it. On short-term use, the fact that most studies excluded brief users does not mean those users are safe. One study did find an elevated risk at under a year, and plaintiffs will argue that a single positive finding, combined with a biologically plausible mechanism, is enough to reach a jury. Courts are not supposed to resolve scientific disputes at the Daubert stage, only to assess whether the methodology is sound.
The deeper problem for Pfizer is that it is asking the court to hold plaintiffs to a high scientific standard while simultaneously benefiting from the fact that its own product has not been adequately studied. The Roland study, the first serious epidemiological research specific to Depo Provera, was only published in 2024.
The science is genuinely new, and courts have historically been cautious about excluding expert testimony in emerging areas where the full picture has not yet developed, particularly when a plausible biological mechanism already exists. Daubert is designed to keep junk science out of juries, not to shield drug companies from accountability when their products have not been studied sufficiently to answer every question plaintiffs raise. Hearings on the motion are scheduled for late June 2026, and the outcome will shape the fate of many of the thousands of pending Depo Provera lawsuits.
Causation Hearing in June
April 16, 2026
Judge Rodgers has rescheduled the general causation hearings from late May to June 24 through 26 due to a scheduling conflict. The hearings will determine whether plaintiffs’ expert testimony on the Depo-Provera meningioma link survives Daubert scrutiny and can be presented to juries when the first pilot trials begin in December.
Pfizer will contest causation. But the company is walking into these hearings with the FDA’s own December 2025 label change hanging over its defense. That warning, which flagged a more than fivefold increase in meningioma risk for long-term users, did not emerge from plaintiff lawyers or litigation science. It came from the agency Pfizer answers to.
Arguing that there is no reliable causal relationship between Depo-Provera and brain tumors, while the FDA has already told prescribers and patients that there is one, is not an enviable position. Pfizer will make the argument anyway, and it will be creative in doing so, but the label change has already done significant damage to any strategy built around attacking the science.
If Judge Rodgers is satisfied with the causation evidence in June, the December bellwether trials become the next major pressure point. Strong plaintiff verdicts there would accelerate settlement talks considerably.
How Is the Litigation Going?
April 14, 2026
Depo Provera lawyers are as high on these cases as they have ever been. The growing conventional wisdom is that these lawsuits have a good chance of settling before we reach the first bellwether trial. Certainly, this is speculation, but this case has a lot in common with past cases that settled early, such as an unambiguously deep-pocketed defendant and an eventual change to the warning label.
Case Count
April 5, 2026
There are now 3,490 cases in the MDL, and over 4,000 in total when state court claims are included.
Delaware Depo Provera Docket Growing
February 21, 2026
Our attorneys are still seeing more lawsuits being filed outside of the MDL. In one new meningioma lawsuit filed in Delaware state court, a woman from Brownsville, Tennessee, alleges that she developed an intracranial meningioma after using the injectable contraceptive Depo Provera.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was prescribed and administered the Depo shot from approximately 2019 to 2021. On July 1, 2022, she was diagnosed with a meningioma.
She claims that as a result of the tumor and subsequent treatment, she has suffered significant bodily injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of earnings and earning capacity, and substantial past and future medical expenses.
Preemption Ruling Delayed with New Depo Provera Warning
January 30, 2026
On January 27, 2026, Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered Pretrial Order No. 30 in the Depo-Provera MDL. This is a procedural issue, but the implications extend beyond it. The court made clear that its upcoming rulings on federal preemption and expert causation will apply across the entire MDL, not just the five pilot cases. In other words, whatever happens next will not be a dress rehearsal. This is no good for plaintiffs, but with preemption being the issue, it really does not matter.
This is the court putting structure around the two defenses Pfizer cares about most: preemption and “you do not have viable causation experts.” The order confirms that if Pfizer wins on preemption, the MDL essentially ends. But if Pfizer loses, the case moves directly into Rule 702 hearings on general causation, already scheduled for late May 2026. There is no wandering detour here, which is what you get from Judge Rodgers. The track is laid, the switches are locked, and the train is moving.
What makes this order especially notable is the timing. After oral argument on preemption, the FDA approved Pfizer’s request to add a meningioma warning to Depo-Provera’s U.S. label in December 2025. That development blew a hole straight through Pfizer’s clean preemption narrative, and Judge Rodgers immediately ordered supplemental briefing to address it. Plaintiffs get until February 20 to respond, and individual plaintiffs are expressly allowed to file their own briefs if they have materially different arguments. That is not window dressing. That is a judge signaling she wants the best arguments on the table before she rules.
Cases Total 1,775
January 6, 2026
The Depo-Provera brain cancer MDL has 1,752 pending cases, with 1,775 total cases, as of January 2026.
We do not know how many state court cases there are. New York and Delaware have the most. But the core of this litigation is the MDL.
FDA Approves New Warning Label
December 18, 2025
The FDA has now formally approved adding new language to the Depo-Provera warning label regarding the risk of meningioma. The new label will now contain the following language: “Cases of meningiomas have been reported following repeated administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, primarily with long-term use. Monitor patients on Depo-Provera CI for signs and symptoms of meningioma. Discontinue Depo-Provera CI if a meningioma is diagnosed.” This new language was added and approved at Pfizer’s request, partly to cap future liability.
Preemption Hearing
September 30, 2025
Yesterday was the pivotal hearing in the Depo-Provera litigation. Judge Rodgers heard argument on Pfizer’s bid for summary judgment. The company pressed its case that federal preemption bars failure-to-warn claims, while plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Pfizer withheld critical evidence from the FDA, undermining any shield.
Judge Rodgers gave little indication of how she will ultimately rule. She asked pointed questions of both sides but offered no clear signals from the bench. Still, the hearing went well, and plaintiffs’ lawyers left the courtroom encouraged, believing that Pfizer’s preemption argument is unlikely to end the federal litigation.
There was also a 90-minute case management conference yesterday with no major developments.
The Big Hearing Is Monday
September 26, 2025
On Monday, Judge Rodgers will devote the afternoon to the most consequential question in the Depo-Provera litigation: whether the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims can proceed or whether they are blocked by federal preemption. The hearing comes before Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, which argues that the FDA’s rejection of proposed label changes shields the company from liability.
Each side will have 75 minutes to present its arguments. Pfizer will contend that federal law tied its hands on adding brain tumor warnings without FDA approval, while plaintiffs will argue that the company misrepresented or withheld critical evidence in its label submission, rendering the preemption defense hollow. Judge Rodgers has set aside 2.5 hours after the morning case management conference for these arguments, underscoring the pivotal nature of this ruling.
Monday’s hearing will set the course for the thousands of women awaiting their day in court. Although Judge Rodgers is unlikely to rule from the bench, the hearing may provide valuable tea leaves as to where she is leaning. Her questions and tone during the arguments could give both sides their first real indication of how she views Pfizer’s preemption defense.
Ultimately, if the motion is denied, as we both hope and expect, the litigation will proceed with five pilot bellwether cases; if it is granted, the plaintiffs’ stronger argument would never reach a jury in federal court (assuming an appeal is unsuccessful).
New Cleveland Clinic Study
September 3, 2025
The new Cleveland Clinic study in JAMA Neurology has changed the calculus in the Depo-Provera litigation. Looking at more than ten million women across sixty-eight health care systems, researchers found that long-term users of the birth control shot, especially those who started after age thirty-one or stayed on it more than four years, face a sharply higher risk of intracranial meningioma. The relative risk was 2.43 compared to women who never used the drug, while every other form of contraception studied showed no measurable danger. Not as strong as what we saw in the Roland study (but plenty strong enough for Daubert).
The numbers translate into real-world consequences. One additional tumor is expected for about every 1,100 women exposed. When a product has been injected into tens of millions of women over decades, that “small” risk becomes thousands of preventable tumors, often requiring surgery and lifelong monitoring. No one wants a brain tumor.
For litigation, the study strips away the defense fallback that there was no U.S. population data. That shield is gone. Plaintiffs now have peer-reviewed, large-scale evidence showing that the injectable form of medroxyprogesterone carries risks that no other contraceptive does, and the question becomes why Pfizer and others failed to warn when safer alternatives were readily available. This is the kind of study that shifts how judges and juries view the science, and it gives plaintiffs a firmer footing to press forward beyond the Roland study.
Preemption Motion
September 2, 2025
Pfizer is pushing hard for a preemption win in the Depo-Provera MDL. A new motion claims the FDA blocked it from adding a meningioma warning after a formal request in 2024. The company says it submitted a detailed application with data from recent epidemiological studies, adverse event reports, and proposed warning language. Nine months later, the FDA issued a complete response letter denying the request, saying the evidence did not support a label change. Now Pfizer argues that this federal rejection shuts the door on state-law failure-to-warn claims.
The move is aimed at ending the litigation before plaintiffs reach discovery. But it glosses over the deeper issue. Pfizer sat on data linking synthetic progestins to meningiomas for decades. Plaintiffs argue that the company could have acted much earlier than its belated 2024 submission. Pfizer’s tactic reframes the case as one of regulatory handcuffing, rather than long-term corporate inertia.
Moreover, we will respond that Pfizer still has tools available. The CBE process could have been used to strengthen the warning unilaterally, especially given that studies such as Roland showed a fivefold increase in risk. More importantly, the FDA never prohibited a risk-based warning with real clinical utility. Pfizer wants to frame its rejected request as the final word, but it was never more than a minimal effort made.
If the court accepts Pfizer’s theory, it could knock out both the warning and design defect claims in one stroke. But that would ignore the broader pattern of delay and downplaying that has defined the company’s handling of Depo-Provera’s risks. This case is not about one rejected label change. It is about years of missed chances to protect patients.
Waiting on the Sidelines in the MDL
August 22, 2025
Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued an order directing lead plaintiffs’ firms to disclose the number of unfiled cases they are sitting on. She made clear that if law firms later flood the docket with cases after a ruling on preemption, their leadership positions may be at risk.
Why does the MDL judge care? Rodgers’ worry is straightforward: warehousing cases makes it harder for the court to determine the true scope of the litigation, manage scheduling, and prepare for settlement or trial. This is exactly what happened in the AFFF litigation, where defendants panicked about the number of unfiled claims and the judge sided with them.
This tension is not new. In other mass torts, plaintiffs’ lawyers have learned the hard way that filing too many cases too early can backfire. Judges and defendants scrutinize inventories, demand science up front, and use procedural weapons like preemption to decimate claims. In Zantac, Plaintiffs’ firms dutifully loaded the MDL registry with thousands of claims, confident that the science and the courts would eventually vindicate them. Then the judge issued her sweeping Daubert and preemption rulings. In one fell swoop, the registry became a sinkhole for thousands of claims that had never been seen in a courtroom. Lawyers who thought they were acting responsibly by filing early watched as their cases, and their clients’ hopes, vanished.
So, yes, Judge Rodgers’ suspicion is correct, but the strategy makes sense. Plaintiffs’ Depo Provera attorneys are not “warehousing” claims for fun. Our job is to protect our clients.
The clean solution is a claims registry. Cases are logged so the court has full visibility, and if the judge were to grant preemption (an outcome highly unlikely on these facts), those claims would simply be dismissed without prejudice. That approach gives the court clarity, protects plaintiffs from unnecessary risk, and ensures no one is punished for filing responsibly.
Attorneys’ Fees Dispute
August 16, 2025
A firm has filed a motion objecting to the scope of the court’s Amended Common Benefit Order No. 1. The order defines any lawyer with a single case in the MDL as “Participating Counsel” and claims the power to withhold fees not only from cases in the MDL but also from unrelated cases in state court or not yet filed. The motion argues that this goes beyond the court’s authority because the plaintiffs in those other cases have not benefited from any MDL settlement and have not agreed to contribute.
At the center of the dispute is the concept of a common benefit fund. These funds are used to fairly compensate lawyers who perform work that helps all plaintiffs in mass tort litigation. When a settlement is reached, courts may allow a percentage of each recovery to be set aside for the lawyers who led the charge. But that kind of holdback is only allowed when a settlement creates a common fund or when the attorneys agree in advance to contribute. Without one of those two triggers, the court has no power to take a portion of fees from clients who have not participated.
Fights like this are common in large MDLs. We just saw one in the hair relaxer litigation. They reflect the constant tension between centralized efficiency and the individual autonomy of plaintiffs and their lawyers. Courts want to prevent free riding on leadership counsel’s work, but it gets tricky when they impose financial obligations on cases that are outside their jurisdiction or that have not consented.
More Depo Shot Lawsuits in Delaware
August 12, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, 100 plaintiffs joined the growing number of Depo-Provera cases being filed outside the federal MDL class action lawsuit that serves as the epicenter of coordinated nationwide proceedings.
While the MDL consolidates federal claims for efficiency, plaintiffs are increasingly turning to Delaware state court (where Pfizer and its subsidiaries are incorporated) and other states to pursue parallel actions that can move on a separate track and offer strategic advantages.
Projected Number of Depo-Provera Lawsuits
May 13, 2025
Each year, approximately 2 to 3 million Depo-Provera prescriptions are filled in the United States. The baseline incidence of meningioma in the general population is approximately 9.5 cases per 100,000 people annually, which translates to 190 to 285 cases of meningioma annually among Depo-Provera users, based solely on population averages.
But when applying a 5.5x increase in risk, the estimated number of annual meningioma cases among Depo-Provera users rises to 1,045-1,568.
Of course, not every patient who develops meningioma will pursue litigation. Factors such as the statute of limitations, awareness, evidence of causation, and the severity of the injury all affect whether a claim is filed. Historically, in mass torts, 5% to 20% of potentially injured claimants file lawsuits.
Evidence Required to Participate in Depo Shot MDL
May 12, 2025
Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued Pretrial Order No. 22 last week, outlining how deficiencies in plaintiffs’ Proof of Use and Injury submissions will be identified and addressed. All plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera MDL must complete a Use/Injury Questionnaire and submit supporting documentation through the BrownGreer MDL Centrality system.
The order reiterates that plaintiffs must provide clear evidence that they were administered a qualifying Depo-Provera product and that they were diagnosed with a qualifying meningioma.
What does this requirement mean and what it does not mean. No one truly knows the full range of potential injuries that may ultimately be linked to long-term Depo-Provera use. The science is still developing, and meningioma is simply the injury that currently has the strongest body of research – and the most serious injuries – connecting it to the drug. But the MDL is not attempting to resolve every possible injury theory at once. Instead, the court has made clear that the litigation will focus on meningioma claims, at least for purposes of the coordinated proceedings in federal court.
That does not necessarily mean that other potential injuries could never be pursued in separate litigation if stronger evidence emerges. It simply reflects the practical reality of how MDLs work. Courts typically narrow the scope of the case to the injury with the most developed scientific support so that discovery, expert testimony, and bellwether trials can proceed in an organized way. In this MDL, Judge Rodgers has determined that meningioma will be the central injury claim moving forward, and plaintiffs must be able to document both Depo-Provera use and a meningioma diagnosis to participate in the litigation.
Meningioma Study Backs Up Roland Study
May 6, 2025
Researchers at the University of British Columbia have released a new safety study that is giving plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera brain tumor litigation additional momentum.
In a nested case-control study, researchers led by Connor Frey and Mahyar Etminan analyzed data from over 319,000 contraceptive users to compare the risk of intracranial meningioma in women who used Depo-Provera versus women who used a popular combination oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel, or EE-LNG).
The results were alarming. After controlling for disease latency, obesity, prior radiation, and previous contraceptive use, the study found that women who used Depo-Provera for more than one year had a 3.55-fold increased risk of developing a meningioma. The risk, as we have been saying all along, remained elevated after longer use. These findings translate into an estimated number needed to harm (NNH) of just 1,111, meaning one in every 1,111 women using Depo-Provera for three years could develop a brain tumor. The authors emphasized the biological plausibility of this link, citing the role of progesterone receptors in tumor cell proliferation, and criticized the FDA for failing to include meningioma risk on the U.S. label, unlike European regulators.
The Depo-Provera MDL was triggered by the Roland we discuss at length below. That study found a 5.6-fold increased risk of meningioma with MPA use. But that study had limitations. It was based on only eight exposed cases, lacked an active comparator, and did not adjust for the long latency period associated with tumor development, leaving it open to defense attacks claiming reverse causation.
The new Frey study corrects all of those flaws. It uses a much larger sample size (212 cases and 848 controls), compares Depo-Provera to another active hormonal contraceptive (EE-LNG), and introduces lag periods of up to four years to account for disease latency. That methodological upgrade makes Frey’s findings far more robust and harder for defendants to undermine at Daubert or in future bellwether trials. In short, this study confirms what Roland suggested—and makes the case for warning label failures even stronger.
March 31, 2025: Proof of Product Use
Proving Depo-Provera use will be a big deal in this litigation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have already pushed for a uniform, court-approved system to gather that evidence, because too many women got these injections years ago, and the paper trail is sometimes a mess (but far less so than our lawyers would have anticipated).
Under the MDL order, plaintiffs must complete a Plaintiff Proof of Use and Injury Questionnaire within 120 days of March 14, 2025, or within 120 days of filing for later cases.
To make that possible, the court authorized a process requiring pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, insurers, and military providers to turn over records showing whether a woman received Depo Provera or generic DMPA, even when the usual medical records are gone.
We need this in some cases because many providers no longer have complete charts, and older records often do not identify the manufacturer of the injection. But the evidence does not always stop there. Purchase orders, shipping logs, billing data, and insurance records can still indicate whether a facility was using Pfizer’s Depo-Provera or a generic product during the relevant period.
The order also gives plaintiffs a practical way to get those records. They can use a court-approved HIPAA and HITECH-compliant release and, if necessary, back it up with a subpoena using the same authorization. The court is trying to stop third parties from playing games with paperwork, delay tactics, or junk fees when plaintiffs’ lawyers are working overtime to figure out who got what shot and when.
December 7, 2024: New Lawsuit in Pennsylvania State Court
As we have been saying, we expect a substantial Depo Provera docket in Philadelphia. On Thursday, a new Depo shot lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. A Philadelphia resident alleges that prolonged use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera caused her to develop a debilitating meningioma. The plaintiff, who began these injections as a teenager, claims that the manufacturers, including Pfizer and several associated companies, failed to adequately warn of the risks linked to the synthetic hormone medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.
The plaintiff, who underwent multiple brain surgeries and suffers from ongoing physical and cognitive impairments, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries.
October 31, 2024: European Warning
As we have talked about, Pfizer has implemented label changes for Depo-Provera in the European Union and the United Kingdom, along with potential updates in other regions.
The added cautionary language under “Special warnings and precautions for use” in the EU label states:
“Meningioma: Meningiomas have been reported following long-term administration of progestogens, including medroxyprogesterone acetate. Depo-Provera should be discontinued if a meningioma is diagnosed. Caution is advised when recommending Depo-Provera to patients with a history of meningioma.”
Plaintiffs’ attorneys will, with good reason, continue to pound Pfizer over the head with this. The optics of warning there and not warning here are just awful. But the reality is that this wording is vague and falls short of addressing the severity of the risk. The label merely suggests “caution” in prescribing Depo-Provera to patients with a history of meningioma without any strong warnings about the drug’s potential to cause these tumors, even in those without such a history. It advises discontinuation only after diagnosis, disregarding the likelihood of irreversible harm by that stage.
Pfizer needs a stronger, more explicit warning on this product everywhere that provides a real warning of the risk of meningioma. If it chooses to give this watered-down warning in the U.S.—and there will be a warning, eventually—plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers will correctly view it as no warning at all.
October 8, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuit Statute of Limitations
Many women contacting us are worried about the deadline for filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Lawyers are always concerned about the statute of limitations. But there should not be many statute of limitations issues in this case for women acting now. There are two primary reasons why the statute of limitations should not be a significant concern.
The first reason is the discovery rule, which every state has, in varying forms. The discovery rule is a legal principle that delays the start of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, about both the injury and its connection to the defendant’s conduct.
In the context of Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits, women who developed brain tumors could not have reasonably suspected the link between their condition and Depo-Provera until recent scientific studies were published. Before these studies, neither the public nor the medical community widely recognized that Depo-Provera could be associated with brain tumors, making it unreasonable for plaintiffs to connect their diagnosis to the drug years earlier.
The second reason is the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. We can convincingly argue that the defendants—manufacturers and marketers of the Depo shot—willfully, intentionally, and deliberately concealed the known risks associated with the long-term use of Depo-Provera.
October 6, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuits in Philadelphia
You are likely to see a large number of Depo lawsuits from all over the country filed in state court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Why would a Texas, New York, or California case be filed in a Pennsylvania state court?
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is known for its experienced judiciary’s handling of complex mass tort and product liability cases, making it an attractive venue for plaintiffs’ attorneys. The court’s Complex Litigation Center (CLC) is widely regarded for its efficient management of large caseloads and has historically rendered significant verdicts and settlements in favor of plaintiffs.
Why are plaintiffs from other jurisdictions allowed to file in Pennsylvania? One of the defendants in the litigation, Viatris Inc., has its headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, which allows plaintiffs to sue all defendants in state court in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has procedural laws that provide some flexibility in consolidating cases, which can streamline litigation and make it more cost-effective for plaintiffs. Additionally, the state’s rules on expert testimony are often considered more favorable to plaintiffs, making it easier to present scientific evidence that might be challenged under stricter standards in federal court (although that does not appear to be a concern in this litigation).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Philadelphia juries are often regarded as being particularly empathetic and fair to individuals who have suffered harm due to corporate negligence. Known for their willingness to hold large companies accountable, these juries tend to take a hard look at the impact on victims, making the city an attractive venue for plaintiffs seeking justice against powerful corporate defendants.
Our lawyers have repeatedly seen how this reputation can significantly impact the dynamics of litigation and settlement discussions. Pfizer and the other defendants may see the risk of facing a jury trial in Philadelphia as a compelling reason to make fair Depo Provera settlement offers.
So, ultimately, what our attorneys think you will see is a Depo Provera federal class action-type lawsuit (an MDL) and mini-class actions in various state courts around the country.
September 25, 2024: Will There Be a Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit?
Most likely, this litigation will be consolidated in an MDL. Why not a Depo Provera class action lawsuit? Because that would not be the best path to get women compensated.
A Depo-Provera class action lawsuit would combine all plaintiffs into a single, unified case, with one trial or settlement covering everyone. Any compensation would be divided equally among participants, regardless of individual circumstances. That does not work because the injuries women have suffered are so different.
An MDL works differently, allowing each plaintiff to retain their individual case, meaning their injuries and damages are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In an MDL, pretrial proceedings are consolidated to make the process more efficient, but the cases remain separate. Individual cases still proceed to trial if a global settlement is not reached. This structure just makes more sense in a case like this.
In addition to federal multidistrict litigation, state MDLs can also be created when sufficient cases are filed within a single state court system. State MDLs follow a similar process by grouping related cases under one judge for pretrial proceedings, but they remain within the jurisdiction of state courts rather than federal ones. This can happen in the Depo Provera litigation in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, where some Depo Provera corporate defendants reside and can be sued. In large pharmaceutical litigations like Depo-Provera, it is common to see parallel MDLs at both the state and federal levels, each working toward a global resolution or individual trial outcomes.