Depo-Provera Lawsuit | April 2025 Update
The litigation over Depo-Provera and its alleged link to intracranial hypertension and other long-term complications is rapidly evolving. With over 300 federal cases already filed and more expected throughout 2025, this is no longer a fringe legal issue, it’s a major pharmaceutical MDL (multidistrict litigation) drawing national attention. At Foster James Law, we are not only tracking these developments in real-time—we are preparing cases for active litigation.
Our Birmingham product liability attorneys can help determine if you qualify, gather your proof-of-use and medical records, and file directly into the federal MDL, saving you months of delays. We work with medical experts, handle complex discovery requirements, and coordinate with court-appointed leadership to keep your case moving forward.
This lawsuit is active, growing, and time-sensitive. If you believe Depo-Provera harmed you, Foster James Law Firm is ready to take your case seriously and act quickly.
April 2025 – The docket doubles and the details emerge
28 April – Utah filing pushes the docket past 300
The month closed with a headline-grabbing complaint from West Jordan, Utah. The plaintiff said she got injections from 1996-2006, had two brain surgeries (2008 and 2018), and only connected the dots after reading 2024 science coverage. Her arrival lifted the federal case count to 311, according to the court’s clerk, i.e., a three-fold jump in under 30 days.
23 April – New injury angle: hearing loss
A Florida plaintiff filed suit alleging that her Depo-linked meningioma pressed on auditory nerves, leaving her with sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. Doctors first searched for ear problems. Only a 2019 MRI uncovered the brain tumor. The case widens the menu of damages before the court and may influence settlement modeling because permanent hearing loss often supports higher non-economic awards.
22 April – Pruning the defendant list
Rodgers clarified the status of the three generic outfits that sell depot medroxyprogesterone: Prasco, Greenstone, and Viatris. After reviewing sworn statements, she hinted that Prasco might soon be dismissed for lack of involvement, but she kept Greenstone and Viatris firmly in the case and ordered them to prepare for complete discovery. The ruling streamlines the litigation as well as confirms that at least two generic players, both linked to Pfizer, will stay in the hot seat.
21 April – A long-tail injury from Kentucky
A Bardstown, Kentucky, family alleged that the wife received Depo-Provera shots between 2001 and 2006, felt subtle neurological symptoms years later, and finally underwent brain surgery in 2023. The timeline shows a latency of almost two decades from the last injection to the definitive treatment. Plaintiffs say that kind of delay is common because meningiomas can grow slowly, and symptoms mimic migraines or vertigo until the tumor is large. Their complaint will test Pfizer’s ‘you sued too late’ defense.
11 April – A stern wake-up call for the generics
Rodgers issued what every defendant dreads: an Order to Show Cause. Greenstone and Viatris, Pfizer’s authorized generics had missed a simple affidavit deadline that she had set at the last case-management conference. The judge made it plain that schedules are not suggestions – If you fall behind, the court will haul you in to explain yourself. The two companies quickly filed the missing papers, but the public rebuke signaled a no-nonsense bench and reassured plaintiffs that discovery would not be allowed to drift.
1 April – Filings explode
Judge M. Casey Rodgers confirmed that 52 fresh complaints had been tagged to MDL 3140 in March, nearly doubling the docket from 68 to 130 active cases. She warned that the number would climb again as soon as a streamlined short-form complaint became available because the new form lets firms file with two clicks instead of a full handwritten pleading.
March 2025 – Judge Rodgers sets a brisk pace
31 March – Proof-of-use order
The month closed with Pre-Trial Order 17, sometimes called the show me your shots directive. Pharmacies, insurers, and even military clinics now face uniform subpoenas for Depo-Provera injection records. For women who used the shot at college health centers that no longer exist or who changed insurers three times over two decades, the order is a lifeline—documentation the court itself compels, not something plaintiffs must chase on their own.
25 March – People and paper
Two logistical pillars fell into place. First, claims administrator BrownGreer was appointed data custodian, tasked with building a secure portal to house medical records and census forms. Second, retired Judge David Herndon, a veteran of the Yaz and Syngenta MDLs, became a special master, ready to referee discovery fights. The same order locked discovery deadlines through late July, including a quick turn on privilege logs so plaintiffs could challenge redactions in real-time.
20 March – No master complaint required
Some MDLs force every plaintiff to wait for a single master complaint. Rodgers waived that step. Individual cases could proceed on their own short-form pleadings, cutting weeks of drafting and motion practice. The ruling also blocked a common defense move arguing that new plaintiffs aren’t on file until the master complaint is served.
19 March – Liaison counsel
With filings spiking in state courts, the judge named liaison lawyers for three busy jurisdictions—Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois. Their job was to share depositions, coordinate subpoenas, and keep rulings consistent so defendants could not play one court against another. For a Kentucky widow or a Texas college student, that behind-the-scenes teamwork means critical discovery gathered in one venue is immediately usable in another.
14 March – Pre-Trial Order 10 and a trio of follow-ups
Judge Rodgers signed Pre-Trial Order 10, allowing new plaintiffs to file directly into the MDL instead of suing in their home districts and waiting for a transfer. The order slashed filing fees and shaved months off the intake timeline. Moments later, she issued PTO 11 (confidentiality), PTO 12 (service through MDL Centrality), and PTO 13 (ESI production protocol), creating a turnkey infrastructure for handling the flood of records everyone knew was coming.
11 March – Ten-point discovery road map
A joint discovery plan hit the docket. It listed ten milestones, the headline being 11 May 2025, the day Pfizer must hand over all FDA correspondence on proposed label changes, a cornerstone of its coming pre-emption defense. The same filing bundled Common Benefit Order No. 1, which set the rules for tracking hours and costs that benefit the whole plaintiff pool. Lawyers who wanted fees later would have to log work now, keeping pressure on everyone to push the case forward.
3 March – Rule 26(f) kickoff
At the first Rule 26 conference, the parties hammered out how electronic discovery would run. They adopted a shared list of file types, a native-first production rule, and tight rolling deadlines so no one could sit on hot documents. Defense counsel asked for 120 days – the judge gave them 60, noting that the issues had been percolating for years. The transcript shows every lawyer agreeing to move faster than the MDL norm, which is a commitment the court would revisit often.
Prior to March: A Series of Developments
February 8, 2025 – MDL 3140 is born
In a surprise move, most observers expected New York or California – the JPML assigned Multidistrict Litigation 3140 to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida. The panel cited her efficient handling of the 3M earplug MDL and a desire for neutral turf. From that moment on, every new federal Depo-Provera brain tumor case would land on Judge Rodgers’s docket for coordinated discovery and bellwether scheduling.
January 2025 – The road to an MDL becomes clear
On January 10, the JPML scheduled its hearing for January 30 in Miami. Even Pfizer conceded centralization was coming; the only suspense was geography. Mid-month, plaintiff scientists circulated fresh laboratory data showing how progesterone receptors on meningioma cells can be supercharged by the injectable’s high dose. That mechanistic evidence would prove handy in beating future causation challenges.
December 2024 – Pfizer signals its defense
The defense team wasted no time striking back. On December 2, a Santa Clarita plaintiff broadened her California complaint to name six corporate entities, including Pfizer’s authorized-generic subsidiaries. By December 7, a similar claim hit the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Then came Pfizer’s opening gambit: a December 30 JPML brief that agreed an MDL was inevitable but argued the cases belonged in New York, not California. More telling than the venue fight was the substance Pfizer previewed a federal-pre-emption defense, asserting it had once asked the FDA for a tumor warning and been turned down. Plaintiffs called the claim creative fiction, but the stage was set for a discovery showdown over FDA correspondence.
November 2024 – Consolidation push begins
By Thanksgiving, more than twenty brain-tumor cases were scattered across federal courts from Massachusetts to Nevada. On November 30, 2024, plaintiffs’ leadership filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to place every federal action in a single courtroom, preferably the Northern District of California, home to eighteen of the pending suits. They pointed out California’s innovator-liability rules, which allow brand-name Pfizer to be sued even when a woman used a generic version.
Consolidation matters because it prevents duplicative discovery and conflicting pre-trial rulings. Just as important, it puts one judge in charge of setting a pace fast enough to push both sides toward settlement talks.
September–October 2024 – Europe adds a warning, U.S. debate heats up
If the spring study supplied the spark, Europe’s fall decision poured gasoline on the fire. On October 31, 2024, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) directed member nations to add a meningioma warning to all high-dose medroxyprogesterone products, including Depo-Provera. Plaintiffs immediately framed the move as proof that Pfizer could have updated its U.S. label at any time.
U.S. professional groups tried to cool tempers, but their statements often backfired. When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the absolute risk five in 10,000 during a November 25 press release, critics replied that framing minimized a 550% relative increase. Social media threads lit up with side-by-side screenshots of the new EU insert and the still-silent U.S. label. The question on every plaintiff’s lips became: Why are European women warned while we are not?
April 2024 – First brain-tumor filings land in federal court
Less than a month after the BMJ publication, two women—one in Indiana, one in California—filed the first federal complaints. Each lawsuit accused Pfizer and its generic partners of nine familiar product-liability counts: failure to warn, negligent design, strict liability, fraud, and more. They also alleged that internal company data had pointed to a tumor signal for decades, yet the U.S. label stayed silent while regulators overseas were already updating warnings.
Although the cases were small in number, they served an outsized role. First, they put the documents pipeline in motion, forcing Pfizer to preserve emails, regulatory correspondence, and pharmacovigilance reports. Second, they showed other firms exactly how to draft a viable complaint: lean on the BMJ hazard ratio, contrast U.S. and EU labeling, and highlight the availability of the lower-dose Depo-SubQ alternative.
March 29, 2024 – The study that lit the fuse
In March 2024, The BMJ released a French national cohort study that every Depo-Provera user needed to see. Tracking more than 108,000 women who underwent surgery for meningioma, the researchers found that a single year of injections with medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera’s active ingredient) increased the likelihood of a tumor by roughly five-to-six times compared with women who had never used the shot. The risk didn’t plateau – it climbed steadily with each additional dose, confirming a dose-response curve.
Until BMJ released the study, evidence of a tumor link had been scattered across small case reports and regional data sets. The BMJ paper wrapped everything in a single, peer-reviewed package and handed plaintiffs a statistic that jurors could grasp without a medical degree: five-to-six-fold risk after a year on the drug. Overnight, the conversation shifted from speculative to actionable.
Reach out to our Alabama Product Liability Attorneys
At Foster James Law, we know the challenges you’re up against. Many women don’t have complete records or remember exact dates. That’s where our team steps in: we issue subpoenas to pharmacies and clinics, trace insurance coverage, and even help reconstruct medical timelines from fragmented histories.
Our team is already working with clients affected by Depo-Provera and understands the details of the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL). We can help gather proof of use, build your case, and handle all the filings and deadlines that come with complex pharmaceutical litigation. We also coordinate with specialists and medical experts to strengthen your claim.
We’ll listen to your story, answer your questions, and handle the legal complexities so you can focus on your health. There’s no cost to get started, and you only pay us if we win for you.
Call us today at 855-211-8999 for a free case review, or share your case details online. Whether it’s been months or decades since your injections, your case may still be viable. We’re here to help you find out.
