Parties in a multidistrict litigation hosting several Johnson’s Baby Powder cases are now negotiating how pretrial procedures will be conducted.

This multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a consolidation of dozens of Johnson’s Baby Powder casesalleging that defendants Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America knew about a risk of ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder, yet failed to warn consumers about that risk.

Plaintiffs in this litigation are generally women who developed ovarian cancer after allegedly using talc-based products like Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, both products of defendant Johnson & Johnson.

These women argue that, given an adequate warning from the defendants, they could have avoided developing ovarian cancer by refraining from using the defendants’ talc-based powders.

The talcum powder MDL was created in October 2016 by an order of the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In that order, the panel consolidated more than four dozen Johnson’s Baby Powder cases into a single action, to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey.

Where large numbers of cases raise similar issues, combining them into an MDL can lead to more efficient conduct of pretrial procedures like discovery and motion practice.

The MDL court may also host a few of the first trials in these Johnson’s Baby Powder cases, known as “bellwether” trials. The outcomes of bellwether trials give the parties an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions.

Since the October 2016 consolidation, the number of talcum powder lawsuits in the MDL has grown to over 140, including two talcum powder class action lawsuits.

Judge Plans Discovery in Johnson’s Baby Powder Cases

Judge Wolfson met with attorneys from both sides of the litigation toward the end of February 2016 to work out matters pertaining to discovery, or the exchange of evidence between parties.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys say they should be allowed to make broad discovery requests on any matter reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. They intend to seek internal documents and communications that would speak to what Johnson & Johnson and Imerys knew about the risk of ovarian cancer associated with talc, and when they knew it.

The defendants, on the other hand, are trying to limit discovery to scientific evidence that addresses whether there is a causal link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson maintains the relevant scientific evidence does not support such a link.

Johnson & Johnson is also pushing for a faster schedule for bellwether trials, narrowing down a list of 10 prospective bellwether cases to two by June of this year. Plaintiffs’ counsel argues against setting a bellwether schedule this early, anticipating the parties will need more time to complete discovery.

Outside the federal MDL, over 1,200 talcum powder lawsuits are proceeding in state court. Some of these cases that have gone to trial have yielded substantial jury awards for the plaintiffs. Awards issued as part of a mass tort program in St. Louis have ranged as high as $72 million.

The Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer MDL is In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.