Nearly a year ago, Judge Rowland ordered the parties to propose a pilot trial plan for the competing hair relaxer lawsuits, creating a group of representative cases to conduct case-specific discovery in preparation for an early trial date. Outlined the selection process. However, the parties are unable to agree on several key points regarding the selection of representative claims and when the pilot process should begin.
Ahead of the Hair Relaxer Litigation Status Conference scheduled for October 10, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint status report (PDF) to update the court on the progress and obstacles in the case.
Regarding the issue of the Torchbearer Plan, the Plaintiffs’ Guidance Committee has indicated that it seeks to meet and consult with the Defendants to discuss the implementation of the Torchbearer Plan. However, the manufacturer claims that it does not believe that the litigation has reached the appropriate stage to begin selecting individual cases for the pilot process.
“Defendants are eager to meet and discuss the future selection process for lead cases for discovery, but given the continuing issues with fact sheets and the timely completion of fact sheets.” Accordingly, we continue to believe that the time is not ripe to select a case at this time.” According to the manufacturer’s position statement filed on October 3, “Defendants also seek dismissal of non-cancer-related litigation.” “No lead selection will be made until a determination has been made regarding the plaintiffs’ claims and the scope of the injuries covered,” the petition states.Any sign pool can be reached. ”
Plaintiffs had previously sought to dismiss many of the uterine fibroid lawsuits filed against MDL, and sought a process that would allow women to re-file in the future if they could prove they had been diagnosed with cancer. . According to a joint status report filed last week, the plaintiffs claim that this pending motion to dismiss currently affects at least 411 people with claims that do not involve a diagnosis of ovarian, uterine, or endometrial cancer. It indicates that it may have an impact on the plaintiff.
The joint report also seeks a motion to enforce a discovery order against L’Oréal in connection with the production of documents and information to which the plaintiffs need access regarding the development and sale of Dark & Lovely and other products. It shows. Both parties met yesterday for a hearing on the matter before a special master appointed to assist in negotiations.
Once the court establishes a lead process, the parties will shift their focus to conducting case-specific discovery on smaller groups of representative claims, including those that recur throughout the litigation.
Although the results of the initial trial trials in these lead cases do not have a binding effect on MDL’s other claims, the average payout in a hair relaxer case awarded by a jury is Manufacturers are expected to have a significant impact on what may be required. They pay to avoid thousands of individual cases having to be tried by juries in the future.
After coordinated discovery and initial judge trial in MDL, parties fail to negotiate hair relaxer settlement for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other complications If so, Judge Rowland may later remand individual cases filed directly with MDL. It was returned to U.S. District Court, where another trial was supposed to begin.
