Retired Talcum Powder Judge May Be Appointed To Address Renewed Expert Motions

Rulings may impact the admissibility of expert witness testimony in more than 90,000 talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits currently being pursued against Johnson & Johnson in the federal court system.

The U.S. District Judge now presiding over all federal talcum powder lawsuits, involving allegations that women developed ovarian cancer and other injuries after applying the products around their genitals, may ask his predecessor to address new motions challenging the admissibility of certain expert witness testimony, as the court prepares for the first bellwether trials.

Johnson & Johnson faces more than 90,000 Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits brought over the past decade, each raising similar allegations that the company marketed talc-based products for feminine hygiene purposes, despite knowledge that the raw ingredients may be contaminated with asbestos. Plaintiffs claim that routine exposure to the contaminated talc caused them to develop ovarian cancer and other reproductive system cancers.

The litigation began more than a decade ago, with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidating the claims as part of a federal talcum powder lawsuit multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey, originally under U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson. However, Johnson & Johnson launched three successive attempts to force the litigation into the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, which ultimately were rejected, but delayed the claims for years.

After the third talcum powder bankruptcy attempt was rejected in March 2025, the litigation is now set to move forward again in the District of New Jersey, where U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp will preside over the claims, since Judge Wolfson retired in February 2022.

Prior to the first bankruptcy filing, Judge Wolfson ruled on Johnson & Johnson’s attempts to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying at trial in 2020, under the federal Daubert standard. However, given new studies and changes in the federal law over the past five years, Judge Shipp agreed to revisit those motions before the first cases go before a jury in the MDL.

Following a recent status conference held on June 17, Judge Shipp issued a court order (PDF) requesting that both sides submit their positions on whether the Court should appoint Judge Wolfson to address what are now referred to as Rule 702 motions. The parties have been directed to file their responses by June 24.

Talcum Powder Bellwether Trial Selection

Judge Shipp has also set a June 24 deadline for the Plaintiffs Steering Committee to identify a single case to serve as the first talcum powder cancer bellwether trial in federal court.

While no federal trial has yet been held, several state-level juries have already weighed in on claims that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder caused cancer. 

Most recently, in June 2025, a Massachusetts jury awarded $8 million to Janice Paluzzi, a woman diagnosed with mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder. The jury rejected J&J’s argument that her asbestos exposure came primarily from family members’ workplace contact and instead found the company negligent in its product’s design.

State court trials like Paluzzi’s have resulted in a number of major losses for Johnson & Johnson, with juries awarding tens of millions, and in some cases, hundreds of millions, in compensatory and punitive damages. The largest verdict to date came in August 2018, when a Missouri jury awarded $4.7 billion to a group of 22 women. That award was later reduced to $2.1 billion, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear J&J’s appeal.

The first federal bellwether trial will be closely watched as a barometer for how juries in the multidistrict litigation respond to expert testimony and the strength of each side’s evidence. Its outcome could shape future settlement negotiations. If no agreement is reached, thousands of individual cases may be remanded back to their original federal districts for trial, a burdensome and costly outcome for the court system.