Hair Relaxer Lawyers To Meet With MDL Judge Amid “Contentious” Disputes Over Bellwether Discovery Plans

MDL status conference comes days before lawyers are expected to select a group of 40 hair relaxer lawsuits for a bellwether discovery process.

Frustrated with a lack of progress ironing out final details for defendant fact sheets that will be used in bellwether hair relaxer lawsuits, plaintiffs’ lawyers are calling for the judge overseeing the litigation to authorize a more traditional written discovery process, once a group of early test cases are identified in a few weeks.

The lawyers described a “contentious” dispute in a joint status report (PDF) submitted last week, in advance of a conference that will be held tomorrow before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois.

Judge Rowland is currently presiding over more than 12,000 product liability lawsuits filed against L’Oreal, SoftSheen Carson and other cosmetic companies, each raising similar allegations that chemicals contained in widely used hair relaxer products caused women to develop uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other adverse health effects.

The litigation first emerged in late 2022, after the publication of a study that linked hair relaxers to cancer risks, indicating women who regularly use the products face a 156% increased risk of uterine cancer. However, plaintiffs maintain that the manufacturers knew or should have known about these risks years earlier, but placed a desire for profits before the health and safety of African American women.

Since February 2023, the cases have been centralized as part of a hair relaxer MDL (multidistrict litigation) in the Northern District of Illinois, where Judge Rowland is overseeing coordinated discovery into common issues in the claims and planning a “bellwether” process, where a small group of representative claims will be prepared for early trial dates.

By the end of this month, the parties are expected to select a total of 40 hair relaxer lawsuits that will go through case-specific discovery and depositions, including the exchange of documents and written answers to questions about each case.

In MDL proceedings, Plaintiff and Defendant Fact Sheets are typically used instead of standard case-specific interrogatories, document demands and requests for admission of fact, to allow the parties to summarize their claims and stances in a unified manner. 

However, lawyers report that they have reached an impasse finalizing the Defendant Fact Sheets. As a result, plaintiffs indicate that each of the bellwether claimants selected should be allowed to serve individual interrogatories, and other written discovery requests. 

“The PSC (Plaintiffs Steering Committee) was and remains surprised by Defendants’ stance that the parties are at an impasse over these issues, as it is contrary to the PSC’s understanding that additional meet and confers on the proffered Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) would be beneficial and that the parties would meet again in the near future,” the lawyers wrote in the report. “However, given Defendants’ position that the parties are at an impasse and that they claim court intervention is needed before any further discussions can move forward, again, which the PSC did not believe to be the case following our single meeting, and considering the large scope of these disputed issues, the PSC submits that the most efficient course of action would be for each individual bellwether plaintiff to serve case-specific interrogatories, document demands, and requests for admission (as necessary) once selected, rather than for the parties to engage in a contentious DFS process any longer.”

According to a case management order (PDF) issued in March, each side will submit a list of 20 potential bellwether hair relaxer cancer lawsuits by April 30. Following a review of those 40 cases, each side will be able to strike four cases of its choice, leaving a total of 32 bellwether pool cases that must be identified in a report due to be filed by May 9.

By February 17, 2026, parties will submit 12 cases each for trial, and from that list the court will choose the first three hair relaxer lawsuits to go before a jury.

Defendants Call for Science Day

In the status report submitted on April 17, Defendants also included a request for Judge Rowland to host a “Science Day” in August 2025. 

In complex pharmaceutical litigation, where a large number of claims have been brought alleging that individuals suffered similar injuries or medical issues as a result of the side effects of the same products, it is not uncommon for the Court to schedule such science conferences, to allow both sides to make educational presentations, detailing the scientific underpinnings that will come up during the litigation. 

However, plaintiffs say the request for a Science Day came at the last minute, as the joint status report was being created and indicate that the Court should wait to address the topic next month, after the parties have had additional time to meet and confer over the issues that will be presented.

Following the selection of hair relaxer bellwether cases in the coming weeks, lawyers are expected to complete fact discovery by May 2026, with expert discovery concluded by October 2026. The court will then address final pretrial motions and challenges to the admissibility of testimony, before the first claims begin going before a jury.

While the outcome of these early trials will not be binding on other women presenting other claims, they will be closely watched by lawyers involved in the litigation and may have a substantial impact on the timing and average amounts of any hair relaxer settlements offered to women diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer in future years.

If no hair relaxer settlement is reached, it is likely that Judge Rowland will begin remanding the cases back to their various originating U.S. District Courts for individual trial dates.