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
This Document Relates to:
All Cases
Case No. 3:25-md-3140
Judge M. Casey Rodgers
Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 30
(Application of Rulings on Preemption and
Rule 702 Motions to All Individual Actions)
The Court, by agreement of the Parties, adopted an initial Scheduling Order
that prioritized two threshold issues in the MDL: 	Defendants’ federal preemption
defense and Defendants’ position that Plaintiffs lack reliable expert evidence of
general causation. See ECF No. 179-1. That Scheduling Order reflected the Court’s
and the Parties’ shared goal of ensuring that this litigation proceeds fairly and
efficiently, and it set deadlines for discovery on these threshold issues. 	Under
Pretrial Order No. 18, the Court appointed leadership counsel for all Plaintiffs in the
MDL, and Plaintiffs’ leadership counsel has the responsibility on behalf of all
Plaintiffs to conduct discovery, engage and present experts, and file briefing in
connection with Defendants’ motions. ECF No. 180.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
The Court also selected five Pilot Cases, identified in Case Management
Order No. 1 (ECF No. 72), through which the Parties are litigating and presenting
these threshold issues. 	The Court has entered the Scheduling Order only in those
cases. 	However, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, the Court
intends its rulings on Defendants’ preemption and Rule 702 motions to apply to all
cases in the MDL, not just the five Pilot Cases, given that Defendants assert federal
preemption and general causation as defenses to the claims against them in all cases.
At the same time, the Court wants to ensure that all Plaintiffs in the MDL have the
opportunity to be heard on these matters. 	Accordingly, the Court now enters this
Order to set forth the process through which any rulings on these motions will be
applied beyond the five Pilot Cases. To that end, when the Court issues its rulings,
they will be entered in the master MDL docket and will be deemed to apply to all
cases.
The Court therefore implements the below procedures with respect to how its
rulings will be applied to all pending and future directly filed or transferred MDL
cases:
Currently pending cases, and cases filed in or transferred to this Court after
February 20, 2026, but before the Court has issued its decisions on the
preemption and/or Rule 702 motions.
Preemption. In accordance with the Scheduling Order, Defendants filed their
motion for summary judgment on preemption on August 22, 2025. The Court heard
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
initial oral argument on the motion on September 29, 2025. 	All counsel for all
Plaintiffs in the MDL had the opportunity to attend that oral argument (either in
person or remotely), and any individual lawyer for MDL Plaintiffs seeking access to
the unredacted transcript may contact Chambers. 	After the oral argument, on
December 12, 2025, the FDA approved Pfizer’s request to add a warning regarding
meningioma to the US label for Depo-Provera. 	Accordingly, the Court requested
that the Parties submit supplemental briefing on Defendants’ preemption motion to
address the impact of the FDA’s action. 	The supplemental briefing schedule is
reflected in the Court’s January 23, 2026 Order (ECF No. 526), with Defendants
submitting their supplemental brief on January 30, 2026, Plaintiffs’ leadership
submitting their supplemental opposition on February 20, 2026, and Defendants
submitting their reply on February 27, 2026. 	To the extent any Plaintiff with a
pending case in the MDL as of the date of this Order wishes to submit additional
briefing on the preemption issue, that Plaintiff must also submit her brief by
February 20, 2026.
There may be cases filed in or transferred to the MDL after February 20, 2026,
but before the Court has issued its decision on the preemption motion. 	Should a
Plaintiff in any such case, after consultation with Plaintiffs’ leadership counsel, seek
to submit arguments in opposition to the Defendants’ preemption motion that are
materially different from the arguments that Plaintiffs’ leadership counsel have
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
presented, that Plaintiff must file such a request by no later than three (3) days after
Plaintiff’s case is docketed in the MDL. 	A request must be no more than five (5)
pages and must include a proffer explaining why Plaintiff believes her argument
differs from the arguments that have been made by Plaintiffs’ leadership counsel in
a way that could impact the Court’s decision on the motion. 	Both Plaintiffs’
leadership counsel and Defendants must file a response to any such requests, which
likewise must be no more than five (5) pages, within three (3) days of the request.
Thereafter, the Court will promptly rule on any such requests.
General 	Causation. 	Regarding 	general 	causation, 	if 	the 	Court 	grants
Defendants’ summary judgment motion on preemption, there will be no need for
further motion practice in the MDL; however, if the Court denies, in whole or in
part, Defendants’ summary judgment motion on preemption, the Court will rule on
Defendants’ motions under Rule 702 to exclude Plaintiffs’ proposed general
causation experts. Under the Third Amended Scheduling Order in the Pilot Cases
(ECF No. 490), the briefing on those Rule 702 motions will commence on April 22,
2026. The Court has set a hearing on the motions for May 26–28, 2026.
To the extent any Plaintiff with a pending case in the MDL as of the date of
this Order wishes to submit additional briefing on the general causation challenge or
submit her own general causation experts, that Plaintiff must, after consulting with
Plaintiffs’ leadership counsel, file a motion requesting leave to do so. 	Any such
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
motion must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, given that
Plaintiffs’ leadership’s expert disclosures were made on January 1, 2026. 	The
motion is limited to five (5) pages and must include a proffer explaining why her
arguments are materially different from the arguments that Plaintiffs’ leadership
counsel have presented and/or why Plaintiffs’ leadership’s experts are inadequate or
insufficient to address the general causation question. 	Both Plaintiffs’ leadership
counsel and Defendants must file a response to any such motions, which are likewise
limited to five (5) pages, within three (3) days of the motions.
Similarly, if any Plaintiff with a case filed in or transferred to this MDL after
the date of this Order but before the Court rules on Defendants’ Rule 702 motions
wishes to submit additional briefing on the general causation challenge or submit
her own general causation experts, the same procedure outlined in the preceding
paragraph will apply, except that the Plaintiff must file her motion for leave within
three (3) days of Plaintiff’s case being docketed in the MDL.
Cases directly filed in or transferred to the MDL after the Court’s preemption
and/or Rule 702 decisions.
After the Court issues its decisions on Defendants’ preemption motion and/or
Defendants’ Rule 702 motions, the Court will issue further orders to address how
any rulings will apply to cases against Defendants that are filed in or transferred to
this MDL after any decisions are issued.
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2026.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-md-03140-MCR-HTC Document 534 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6