Attorneys Seek Reconsideration of Talc MDL Daubert Ruling

Attorneys Seek Reconsideration of Talc MDL Daubert Ruling

Introduction

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are urging the U.S. District Judge overseeing the talcum powder lawsuit MDL to reconsider a recent decision for a second round of hearings on the admissibility of expert testimony.

This decision was made before Johnson & Johnson's failed bankruptcy attempt, which significantly delayed progress in the litigation. Johnson & Johnson faces approximately 54,000 lawsuits related to Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products. These lawsuits claim that users were not adequately warned about the risk of developing ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and other injuries.

The litigation began in 2016, but significant jury awards prompted the manufacturer to initiate a controversial bankruptcy scheme in 2021. This attempt aimed to force any settlements through the U.S. bankruptcy system. Despite the rejection of the bankruptcy plan due to Johnson & Johnson's financial stability, the move caused over two years of delay. Just as the plaintiffs were pushing for bellwether trials, Johnson & Johnson further delayed proceedings by seeking a rehearing of expert witness testimony.

Coordinated pretrial proceedings for the talcum powder litigation were established in 2016, and centralized before a U.S. District Judge in New Jersey. In July 2019, the Judge conducted Daubert hearings to evaluate the reliability of proposed expert testimony under federal law standards. After the release of additional studies and a Baby Powder recall in 2019, the judge ruled the plaintiffs' expert testimony admissible.'

Following the bankruptcy attempt, management of the litigation shifted to another U.S. District Judge. Johnson & Johnson challenged the expert witness testimony again in August 2023, despite previous rulings. The judge granted the request, allowing the manufacturer to challenge the testimony once more.

In response, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) filed a motion to reconsider the decision, arguing that relitigating previously decided issues is unnecessary. The motion stated that no party appealed the Judge's April 27, 2020, Daubert Opinion, which correctly applied evidentiary standards.

Defendants opposed the motion, citing changes in evidentiary rules and new scientific evidence as justifications for new hearings. The PSC requested permission to file a rebuttal to the defendant’s response, which was granted.

The dispute arises as plaintiffs’ lawyers and Johnson & Johnson prepare ovarian cancer lawsuits for potential jury trials. However, reconsidering prior Daubert rulings could cause significant additional delays in getting claims before juries.'

While individual bellwether trial results won't directly bind other claims, jury awards are expected to influence potential settlement values Johnson & Johnson may need to pay to avoid trials in the future.