The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is considering whether to form a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) to adjudicate the growing number of Depo-Provera tumor claims. These lawsuits, primarily filed against drug manufacturer Pfizer, allege a link between Depo-Provera and meningioma brain tumors.
Women diagnosed with meningioma claim the contraceptive’s active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), increased their risk of developing these hormone-sensitive brain tumors. Victims also argue Pfizer failed to warn patients and doctors about these elevated risks.
Click here to begin the claim process.
Why Centralize Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits?
MDL centralization streamlines pretrial proceedings, eliminates duplicative discovery, and ensures consistent rulings. Plaintiffs want centralization to efficiently manage shared evidence, such as scientific studies and Pfizer’s internal documents. Pfizer, on the other hand, may oppose the move, arguing that individual factors like medical history complicate coordination.
Plaintiff Arguments:
- Centralization is necessary due to the complex scientific and medical evidence required to establish causation
- Coordinated pretrial discovery, particularly on epidemiological studies and internal Pfizer documents, would save time and resources
- MDL centralization would prevent inconsistent rulings on key pretrial motions, such as challenges to expert testimony.
Pfizer’s Position:
- Pfizer may argue against centralization, citing that individual factors, such as the specific medical histories of plaintiffs, make coordination less practical
- The company may also assert that the number of cases is not yet large enough to justify an MDL.
Anticipated consolidation of the first batch of Depo-Provera lawsuits would be done pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Depo-Provera MDL Factors
Several key factors have prompted discussions about MDL centralization in the Depo-Provera litigation:
- Growing Number of Cases: Lawsuits alleging that Depo-Provera caused brain tumors, particularly meningiomas, have been filed in multiple federal courts. As more individuals come forward, the sheer volume of cases is increasing rapidly.
- Common Questions of Fact:
- Whether Pfizer was aware of the risk of meningiomas associated with Depo-Provera.
- Whether the drug’s labeling and warnings were adequate.
- The causal connection between Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and the development of hormone-sensitive brain tumors.
- Efficient Management: Consolidating these cases into an MDL would streamline the litigation process, reducing duplication of discovery and avoiding inconsistent rulings across jurisdictions.
Potential MDL Locations
If the JPML approves centralization, it must select a federal court to oversee the litigation. Likely venues for an MDL include courts with experience in handling pharmaceutical litigation or those near Pfizer’s headquarters or major research facilities. Potential candidates include:
- Southern District of New York: Given Pfizer’s corporate presence in New York.
- Central District of California: A common venue for large pharmaceutical MDLs due to its resources and expertise.
- District of New Jersey: Known for its experience with drug and medical device litigation.
- Northern District of Illinois: Central geographic location with experience in complex cases.
Awaiting JPML’s Decision on Depo-Provera MDL Formation
As of now, the Depo-Provera litigation has not yet been centralized into an MDL, but motions to centralize are under consideration. The decision lies with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).