Judge Marston opens Rule 702 hearing in Ozempic and GLP-1 stomach injury lawsuits

Judge Karen S. Marston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania opened a Rule 702 evidentiary hearing on September 14, 2026, in the consolidated federal litigation over allegations that GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs cause gastrointestinal injuries ^[1]. The court's MDL 3094 page states the hearing runs through September 18, 2026, and covers "Cross Cutting Issues 2 and 3" ^[1]. A Rule 702 hearing, often called a Daubert hearing, is where a judge decides whether an expert's opinion is reliable enough for a jury to hear ^[2].

The hearing is the central event in the litigation so far. Defense lawyers are asking the court to exclude eight of the plaintiffs' general causation experts, and they have also filed a motion for summary judgment on multiple injury categories ^[2]. General causation is the question of whether these drugs are capable of causing the injuries alleged, particularly gastroparesis, a condition often described as stomach paralysis ^[3]. If the plaintiffs' general causation experts are excluded, the affected claims cannot proceed to a jury ^[2].

The size of the docket is disputed in the public numbers. One litigation tracker states that 3,928 cases are affected ^[2]. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's statistics report lists 3,848 actions pending as of July 1, 2026, up from 3,763 on June 1 ^[3]. The MDL began with 37 actions when the panel centralized the cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 2, 2024 ^[3]. Those figures are counts of pending lawsuits, not docket entry numbers ^[3].

The alleged injuries at issue include gastroparesis, ileus, intestinal obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, ischemic bowel, pancreatitis, gallbladder injury, aspiration, micronutrient deficiency, and in some cases death ^[3]. Plaintiffs also allege the manufacturers did not adequately warn patients and physicians about those risks ^[3]. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly deny the allegations ^[1]. No court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury, no settlement has been announced, and no class has been certified ^[2][3].

Defense arguments are expected to emphasize that delayed gastric emptying is the medications' known, labeled mechanism and that diabetes itself causes gastroparesis, while plaintiffs' experts point to the volume and pattern of injury reports and the drugs' pharmacology ^[2]. One attorney page covering the hearing states it will not predict the outcome and notes that similar drug cases have gone both ways at this stage ^[2].

One scheduling detail is not consistent across accounts. The court's own MDL page and one law firm page say the hearing runs September 14 through 18, 2026 ^[1][2]. A separate litigation update said the court had reserved September 10 through 18, 2026 ^[3]. No order excluding or admitting the experts had been issued when the hearing opened ^[2].

Why it matters for patients

The hearing does not change the regulatory status of these medicines. Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus (semaglutide), Trulicity (dulaglutide), and Mounjaro and Zepbound (tirzepatide) are FDA-approved, and their labels have long warned of some gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting ^[3].

For people who believe they were injured, the practical effect is on timing and access, not on medical care. Because these are individual injury lawsuits rather than a class action, there is no claim form to file and no settlement to collect; people who want to pursue a claim retain a lawyer to file an individual case in the MDL ^[3].

Claims alleging NAION and other vision loss are not part of this case. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a separate proceeding, MDL 3163, in December 2025, with 110 pending actions as of June 1, 2026, also before Judge Marston, and the September hearing does not govern it ^[3].

A prior August 15, 2025 order in this MDL tightened the diagnostic standard for gastroparesis claims by requiring an objective gastric emptying study, according to a law firm account, and excluded two of the plaintiffs' diagnostic experts ^[2]. That date is also described as when the court ruled in part on the motion to dismiss the master complaint ^[3].

What happens next

The hearing is scheduled to run through September 18, 2026 ^[1]. There is no deadline for a ruling, and decisions after multi-day Rule 702 hearings commonly take weeks to months ^[2]. No bellwether trial date has been set; one litigation update states that the first trial would realistically come in 2027 at the earliest, if the claims survive the pending rulings ^[3]. The court holds monthly status conferences, with remote public viewing, through the end of 2026 ^[1][3].