IN RE: DEPO-PROVERA (DEPOT MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
IN RE: DEPO-PROVERA (DEPOT
MEDROXYPROGESTERONE
ACETATE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
Case No. 3:25-md-3140
This Document Relates to:
All Cases
Judge M. Casey Rodgers
Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 12
On July 27, 2026, the Court held the twelfth Case Management Conference
(“CMC”) in the Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3140. This was a Joint CMC held with the courts of
New York (Justice Sabrina Kraus) and Delaware (Judge Kathleen Vavala). 	MDL
Lead Counsel Chris Seeger along with Co-Lead Counsel Bryan Aylstock and Ellen
Relkin appeared for Plaintiffs.1 Defense counsel Joe Petrosinelli, Jessica Rydstrom,
and Jeremy Branning appeared on behalf of the Pfizer Defendants. Also present was
Special Master Judge David Herndon, Magistrate Judge Cannon, by phone, and
Orran Brown and Jake Woody for the Data Administrator, BrownGreer PLC, by
Zoom. This Order memorializes matters heard and decided during the CMC.
1 Additionally, the following attorneys were present and addressed the Court: Julia Merritt and
Katherine Cornell for Plaintiffs, Nicholas Mucerino for Plaintiff Vivian Davis, Stephen Edwards
for Plaintiff Christina Yeager, and Michael Hochman for Plaintiff Katherine Allison Ponder, by
Zoom.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:25-md-3140-MCR-HTC
Foremost on the agenda, the Court noted that on June 15, 2026, Leadership
Counsel announced a Settlement of a majority of the claims in the MDL and New
York state court.2 Since that date, cases have continued to be filed on the Court’s
docket, although at a greatly reduced rate. 	As of July 27, 2026, the member case
filings had increased to 6,289 total actions.
The Court reviewed the docket activity since the last CMC, which, in addition
to the Settlement, reflects that Leadership Counsel were reappointed on March 20,
2026; the Parties completed general causation discovery; and as of June 5, 2026, the
Parties had fully briefed their general causation summary judgment and related Rule
702 motions. The hearing on those motions is scheduled for September 18, 2026,
following the next CMC. With the announcement of the Settlement on June 15, the
Court vacated the scheduling order for the Pilot cases because those Plaintiffs are
eligible to participate in the Settlement and canceled the December trial. ECF No.
660. The Court also entered an amended procedure to accommodate any individual
who elected to separately brief or argue the upcoming general causation issues, see
PTO 30A, ECF No. 661.3
2 A Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) was signed by the Parties on July 21, 2026. The
eligibility terms of the MSA govern which Plaintiffs will be entitled to participate in the
Settlement, but the Parties estimate that roughly 80% of all MDL Plaintiffs will be eligible.
3 No litigant has timely indicated an intent to proceed on arguments independently of the briefing
filed by Leadership Counsel.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:25-md-3140-MCR-HTC
Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel, Mr. Seeger, and Defendants’ Counsel, Mr.
Petrosinelli, provided a brief overview of the MSA, the details of which will be
presented to Plaintiffs through a town hall meeting. 	Importantly, this is a private
agreement governed by a confidentiality agreement.4 They explained that eligibility
for participation is defined within the MSA and will not be impacted by any future
Court ruling on the legal issues that remain outstanding in the MDL.5 The Parties
request that BrownGreer be appointed as Settlement Administrator and will be filing
motions for the appointment. 	The Parties represent that Settlement registration
should be completed in November 2026, with the claims process beginning to be
completed and payments beginning to roll out by the first quarter of 2027.
Leadership requests that the Court establish a no-filing-fee administrative docket to
facilitate the claims review process, proposing that cases on the administrative
docket would be transferred to the Court’s active docket and required to pay a filing
fee only if a Plaintiff is ultimately deemed ineligible for the Settlement and decides
to proceed to litigation.
4 The Settlement is not subject to a fairness determination by the Court because this MDL is not a
class action. However, having been apprised of its terms, the undersigned did express the opinion
that the Settlement offers an excellent outcome to thousands of eligible litigants, who now will
have the opportunity to settle their claims without the need for protracted litigation or undue
expense.
5 Currently, the issues of preemption and general causation have been worked up for rulings. The
Court will rule on these issues for purposes of cases that are ineligible for the Settlement or
individuals who opt out. But those rulings will not impact those Plaintiffs who are eligible for and
elect to participate in the Settlement.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:25-md-3140-MCR-HTC
The Court approved of these proposals. The Court will enforce the Parties’
confidentiality agreement and establish a no-fee administrative docket, as requested.
The Parties also may file motions for the appointment of BrownGreer as Settlement
Administrator and any other administrative appointments necessary to facilitate the
settlement process. 	And, the Court will enter a separate Order to govern ongoing
litigation in cases that opt out of the Settlement or are not eligible to participate. The
undersigned commends Leadership Counsel for their hard work on reaching this
Settlement.
The Court also heard arguments on Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Pilot
Cases and to Address Threshold Statute of Limitations Defenses in New Pilot Cases,
ECF No. 678. Defendants selected three cases to be substituted as new Pilot cases,
in light of the fact that the original Pilot Plaintiffs are eligible to participate in the
settlement, namely, Christina Yeager v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-3733-
MCR/HTC, Vivian Davis v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-3826-MCR/HTC, and
Katherine Allison Ponder v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-3896-MCR/HTC.
Defense counsel also explained the benefits of proceeding with these cases on an
expedited schedule focused on the statute of limitations issue, which could be
broadly applicable. 	At the CMC, Plaintiffs’ attorneys each consented to the
substitution, indicated counsel’s intent to adopt the previously filed briefing, and
acknowledged that they are prepared to go forward with the hearing on September
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:25-md-3140-MCR-HTC
18, 2026. Plaintiffs also agreed to the proposal to work up the statute of limitations
issue on an expedited schedule, with the exception that counsel for Ms. Davis
requested a slight delay to accommodate her recovery period from recent medical
treatments. Ms. Davis’s attorney proposed proceeding first with written discovery,
with Ms. Davis’s deposition not to begin before September 12, 2026, which is
reasonable. The Court agrees that substitution is appropriate and that teeing up the
statute of limitations issue first is the most efficient way to proceed. The Court also
appreciates counsels’ willingness to be prepared to go forward with the general
causation and Rule 702 motions as scheduled. The Court will enter a separate order
granting the motion.
The Court also heard updates from the Data Administration Subcommittee
and BrownGreer on the Parties’ compliance, deficiency, and cure procedures
regarding 	the 	filing 	of 	complaints 	and 	threshold 	proof 	of 	use 	and 	injury
requirements. 	This process continues to work smoothly with little input from the
Court. The undersigned greatly appreciates the hard work of the Subcommittee and
BrownGreer. As explained by Leadership Counsel, this process was integral to their
ability to move forward with early and successful settlement discussions.
The State-Federal Liaison Counsel Committee reported on the progress of
Depo-Provera litigation in state courts. Counsel reported that there are currently 129
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:25-md-3140-MCR-HTC
cases in New York and 410 in Delaware.6 In California (118 cases) preemption has
been briefed and bellwether cases selected, and additional state court litigation is in
the early stages in Connecticut (13 cases; 76 plaintiffs), Minnesota (72 cases; 6,899
plaintiffs), Illinois (12 cases), New Mexico (2 cases), New Hampshire (1 case),
Washington (1 case), and Wisconsin (1 case).
Looking ahead, it was agreed that there is no need for a CMC in August, so
the previously scheduled CMC on August 21, 2026, is CANCELED. 	The next
CMC will be held on Friday, September 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. (CT), with the
general causation/Rule 702 hearing to follow. 	The Parties’ Joint Agenda Letter is
due by 12:00 p.m. (CT) on Monday, September 14, 2026, to the MDL court, the
New York court, the Delaware court, and the California court.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of July 2026.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 Judge Vavala heard arguments on Rule 702 motions on June 25, 2026, and the motions are under
review.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 701 Filed 07/27/26 Page 6 of 6