The hair relaxer MDL continues to expand, with filings now above 11,000 plaintiffs. While most individual cases remain paused pending bellwether progression, the litigation’s pace is being shaped by discovery disputes that determine what testimony and evidence will be available as the first trial candidates take form.
A new fight in the Avlon track highlights that tension. Plaintiffs say confidentiality terms in a former employee’s separation agreement were used to shut down deposition questioning. The court is now weighing whether that agreement can properly limit testimony in federal litigation.
February 16 2026 Discovery Fight Focuses on Former Avlon Employee Testimony
The latest dispute centers primarily on former Avlon employee Tom Bingham and the circumstances surrounding his separation from the company. Judge Beth W. Jantz reviewed Bingham’s separation agreement in camera after plaintiffs argued defense counsel relied on confidentiality provisions to block questioning during his deposition.
The court directed plaintiffs to identify the exact transcript sections where questioning was cut off. Plaintiffs then filed a notice listing multiple page and line citations where they claim the defense curtailed inquiry into the reasons for Bingham’s departure.
This is not a ruling on whether hair relaxer products caused injury. It is a dispute about discovery boundaries and whether a private agreement can be used to limit witness testimony inside a federal MDL.
Why the Avlon Separation Agreement Dispute Matters
In MDL litigation, discovery fights often determine leverage long before a jury ever hears a case. If plaintiffs succeed, the ruling could clarify that confidentiality language in a separation agreement does not automatically shield a witness from answering relevant questions. If the defense position holds, it strengthens the ability of defendants to limit lines of inquiry tied to internal company matters.
More broadly, these disputes matter because bellwether preparation depends on building a trial-ready record. When testimony gets narrowed, it can affect what documents get requested, what corporate witnesses get designated, and what themes survive into motion practice.
February 10 2026 Plaintiff Count Remains Above 11,000
As of February 10, 2026, the hair relaxer MDL includes 11,105 plaintiffs. That number reflects continued nationwide filings and consolidation, even as most cases remain paused behind the bellwether track.
February 3 2026 Bellwether Discovery Continues While Most Cases Stay Paused
For most plaintiffs, the frustration is straightforward. Individual cases appear to be standing still. The reality is that movement is happening in the bellwether set, which shapes how the broader litigation will proceed.
Defendants have reportedly completed depositions for 29 of 32 bellwether plaintiffs, with the remaining depositions expected to wrap shortly. Defendants are also seeking additional time to depose third-party witnesses such as doctors, hairstylists, and family members, pointing to dozens of subpoenas with limited firm deposition dates.
Plaintiffs oppose extensions, arguing that defendants waited too long and that expanding third-party discovery across bellwether cases imposes significant burden for limited benefit. They also argue the bellwether structure exists to narrow and test core issues, not to create endless discovery loops.
A parallel dispute is also forming over Rule 30(b)(6) corporate testimony. Plaintiffs want focused corporate depositions tied to specific products, years, and geographic markets relevant to bellwether plaintiffs. Defendants argue it is an attempt to reopen general discovery.
Context for Readers Following the Hair Relaxer MDL
If you want a broader overview of the allegations, defendants, and injury theories involved in this litigation, start with key facts about the hair relaxer lawsuit, which breaks down the foundation of these cases without duplicating MDL procedural updates.
What Happens Next
The near-term focus primarily remains on bellwether completion, discovery boundaries, and whether the court sets a clearer trial timeline. Outside the MDL, several state court tracks are also moving toward structured trial groupings, including Illinois cohort trials and continued development in other jurisdictions.
For ongoing procedural coverage, see latest hair relaxer MDL bellwether updates.
Conclusion
The hair relaxer MDL is not “stuck” so much as concentrated. Most plaintiffs are paused while bellwether discovery and selection fights define what the first trial-ready cases will look like. The Avlon separation agreement dispute is a good example of how procedural battles can shape testimony access and influence leverage as the litigation matures.
If you are tracking whether your history may align with current litigation criteria, review hair relaxer lawsuit eligibility guidelines in one place.
Add Comment