Delaware Supreme Court Order on Depo-Provera Litigation

Delaware Court Opinions

Filed February 25th, 2026

Detected February 26th, 2026

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court issued an order addressing the Depo-Provera product liability litigation. The court considered an interlocutory appeal concerning case management and data administration orders, which aim to coordinate proceedings and manage discovery for over three hundred plaintiffs alleging injuries from Depo-Provera use.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Delaware Supreme Court issued an order on February 25, 2026, addressing the ongoing Depo-Provera product liability litigation. The court considered an interlocutory appeal concerning case management and data administration orders entered by the Superior Court. These orders aim to facilitate a threshold ruling on general causation and coordinate proceedings with a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and other state actions. Specifically, the appeal challenged the Superior Court's authority to enter these orders and argued that the Data Administration Order violates HIPAA by requiring disclosure of confidential information to a third-party vendor.

This decision has significant implications for the ongoing litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs alleging injuries from Depo-Provera. While the Supreme Court's order itself does not detail specific compliance actions for regulated entities, it signifies a critical stage in the legal process. The court's decision on the interlocutory appeal will shape how discovery and case management proceed. Companies involved, particularly Pfizer, Pharmacia, and Pharmacia & Upjohn, should closely monitor further developments and ensure their legal counsel is fully apprised of the implications for discovery, data handling, and potential HIPAA compliance issues related to the data administrator vendor.

What to do next

Monitor further court rulings on the Depo-Provera litigation
Ensure legal counsel is aware of the implications of the Supreme Court's order on case management and data administration
Review data handling procedures in light of potential HIPAA concerns raised in the appeal

Source document (simplified)

IN THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWA RE IN RE: DEPO - PRO VE RA LITIGAT ION § No. 51 3, 2025 § § Court B elow – Super ior Co urt § of the S tate o f Del aware § § C.A. No. N25C - 10 - 202 Submit ted: December 3 0, 20 2 5 Decide d: Feb ru ary 25, 202 6 Before VAL IHUR A, TRAYNOR, and LE G R OW, Justi ces. ORD ER After con sider ation o f the notice and su pplement al n otice of appeal from an inter locu tory or der and the exh ibits a ttac hed t heret o, it appe ars t o the C ourt tha t: (1) Over thre e hund red plai ntiff s (“Pla intiff s”) have file d law suit s in the Super ior Co urt alle ging tha t their use of d epot m edrox yprogeste rone a cetate o r its gener ic eq uivale nts (togethe r, “ Depo - P rovera ”) cause d them t o devel op inter cra nial meningi omas. In their compla ints, P laint iffs, re prese nted by dif fere nt law firm s, allege t hat the def enda nts — Pfize r, Inc.; Pha rmac ia, LLC; a nd Pharma cia & Upjoh n Compa ny LLC (toge ther, “Defenda nts”) — wr ongful ly de velope d, desi gned, teste d, manuf act ured, la bele d, packa ged, prom oted, a dver tised, marke ted, distri bute d and/o r sold Depo - Pro vera and the refo re bear re spons ibili ty for their c anc er diag noses a nd rela ted inj uries (the “De po - Provera Ac tions”). Similar lawsu its ar e pend ing in a mul tidis trict pr oducts lia bil ity action in t he Unite d Sta tes Di stric t Cour t

2 for the Norther n Distr ict of Fl orida (t he “MDL ”) and other sta te cour ts. T he parti es expect t hat hundreds mo re De po - Pro vera Action s will be fil ed i n Dela ware. (2) On Novem ber 18, 2 025, t he Super ior C ourt en tere d a case ma nagem ent order intended to facili tate a thres hold ru ling on the issue of gene ral ca usat ion and to coor dina te the Su peri or Cour t’s general - ca usati on proce edin gs with t hose in the MDL and other state act ions. At the sa me time, the Super ior Co urt entered two addi tional or der s me ant to be r ead to geth er wi th the c ase ma nag ement o rder. One order appoint ed Br ownGr eer PLC to serv e as the data ad mini strat or ven dor for t he Depo - Prov era Actions and dir ecte d the par ties to use t he onli ne Bro wnGree r MDL Centr ality S ystem as a docu ment r epos itory a nd e - d isco very p latfor m (t he “Da ta Admi nistra tio n Orde r”). The ot her orde r direct ed eac h pla intif f to pr ovide init ial docum entar y proof of her Depo - Pro v era use an d meningio ma diagno sis (th e “Case Vett ing Orde r,” and, to geth er wit h the Dat a Admini strat ion Or der, t he “Or ders”). All thr ee or ders are simi lar to those e ntere d in the MDL and ot her state actions. (3) Plain tiffs r epre sente d by Coll ins Pr ice Wa rner W olos hin, Rh oades & Morrow LLC, a nd Keller P ostma n LLC (“Kelle r Plai ntiff s”) a sked the S uper ior Court to cer tify a n int erlocu tory a ppea l of the Orde rs un der S uprem e Cour t Rul e 42. Keller Pla intiff s argu ed th at the Or ders decided subs tant ial iss ues of mate rial impor tance — a thresh old inqui ry under Ru le 42 — because (i) the c ourt ha d no auth ority, under eith er i ts ru les or its i nhere nt aut hori ty, t o enter the Order s, and (ii)

3 the Data Admini strat ion Orde r requir es discl osur e of confi dentia l inform ation to a thir d - party vendor in vio lation of the Hea lth Insur ance Port ability and Accou nta bilit y Act of 1996 (“ HIP A A”). K eller Pla int iffs als o main tai ned tha t four of the R ule 42(b)(iii) f actors weighe d in fa vor of ce rtific ati on: (i) the Or der s resolv ed a questi on of la w for the fir st tim e; (ii) the Or der s conf lict wi th oth er tr ial co urt decisio ns; (i ii) the Or ders re late to t he cons truct ion of a sta tute t hat sho uld be set tled before the e ntry of a fina l jud gmen t; a nd (iv) inter locu tory re view of the Orde r s would se rve con side rations o f justic e. The remaining plaint iffs a nd Defen dants oppose d the ap plica tion. (4) The Super ior Co urt decli ned t o certif y an i nterl ocutor y appe al. T he court de term ine d that the Or ders di d not decid e a substa ntia l issue of mater ial impor tance that mer its ap pella te re view before a fi nal or der beca use th ey do not rela te to the merit s of the ca se and do not esta blis h any lega l right s. Rather, t he cou rt found that t he pur pose of the Case Vetting Or der is me rely to confi rm the ex iste nce of infor mat ion that ha s been alleged in each co mplaint. T he cour t observe d that the Case V ettin g Order d oes no t, as Ke ller Pl aintif fs clai med, pot entially d ispos e of any of Pla intiff s’ cla ims — if a c ompla int is f ound to be lac king doc ume ntary pro of, it will be di smisse d without prejud ice to re - file with t he requ ired docum enta tion. Th e court a lso fo und it evide nt that it cou ld use its inh erent a uth ority t o mana ge a comple x liti gation docket by way of the O rde rs. Finally, the S uper ior Co urt f ound

4 that — assum ing that P laintif fs ar e “cov ere d entit ies” under HIP A A and that HI P A A appli es to a perso nal inju ry plai ntiff who puts her phy sical condition at issue in a laws uit — t he Order s did n ot deci de a subs tant ial issue of mater ial im porta nce because the informa tion t hat the y r equi re Plaintif fs to disc los e is alleged in ea ch plai ntiff’ s public ly fil ed com plai nt. And the Su perio r Court concl uded that, even if Keller Pla intiff s had iden tified a subs tanti al iss ue just ifyi ng the cert ificat ion of a n inte rlocutor y appe al, none of the R ule 42(b)(i ii) factor s weig hed in fa vor of certi ficatio n. (5) We agree with the Superior Court that inter locut ory re view is no t warra nte d in th is case. App licat ions fo r inte rloc utory r evie w are ad dress ed to the sound d iscre tion of t he Cour t. 1 In the exerci se of our disc reti on and givi ng due weig ht to the Superior Co urt’s a naly sis, th e Cou rt has conc lude d that the ap plica tion for inte rloc utory re view do es not me et the str ict sta ndar ds for cert ifica tion und er Rule 4 2(b). Exce ptio nal cir cums tance s tha t woul d meri t inte rloc utor y revi ew of the Order s do not e xist i n this cas e, 2 and the pote nti al benefi ts of inter locu tory re view do not out wei gh the ine fficie ncy, disrup tion, and pro bable c osts ca used by a n inter locu tory a ppeal. 3 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).

5 NOW, THER EFOR E, IT IS OR DER ED that the in terlo cutor y appe al be RE FUSE D. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gar y F. Tr aynor Justic e