The Takeaway
Attorneys defending asbestos cases in Cook County should consider key ways in which litigation in this jurisdiction differs from other asbestos jurisdictions:
- Trials will likely be held in person rather than remotely.
- Judge Maura Slattery-Boyle is now presiding over the County’s asbestos docket.
- Recent verdicts confirm that Cook County juries remain plaintiff friendly.
- Asbestos filings aren’t expected to decrease anytime soon.
- Talcum-powder-related claims are expected to remain a significant share of the asbestos docket.
You can count on HeplerBroom to continue to provide updates regarding the Cook County asbestos docket.
The State of Asbestos Litigation in Cook County, Illinois
Numerous law firms currently file asbestos cases in Cook County, Illinois—some with a long history of being based there and others based outside Illinois.
In recent years, the County experienced an increase in asbestos injury cases.[1] (Asbestos filings increased by 33.8% from 2023 to 2024, with 95 filings between July 2023 and July 2024.[2]) This trend is expected to continue in the years ahead.
This jurisdiction has also experienced a high number of high-dollar personal-injury verdicts, a trend that directly affects how parties defend asbestos cases there. (The most recent plaintiffs’ verdicts in Cook County asbestos trials were returned in 2024—totaling $24.4 million and $45 million.[3] Both cases involved alleged asbestos exposure from contaminated talcum powder.[4])
While some cases pose stronger trial threats than others, defense counsel should bear in mind several concepts unique to Cook County when defending an asbestos case in Chicago.
- Talcum-powder litigation now represents a significant portion of asbestos claims filed in Cook County and nearby jurisdictions, a trend that’s expected to continue.
- Litigating an asbestos case in Cook County is unique compared to other high-volume Illinois jurisdictions. For example, Madison County has a standing order that governs most asbestos-related procedural considerations and deadlines. St. Clair County, on the other hand, uses case-specific case management orders. In contrast, Cook County uses both: a Standing Order that governs all asbestos cases filed there and a case-specific order for most of its asbestos cases that provides critical procedural deadlines.
- Additionally, in Cook County asbestos cases, courts hear dispositive motions (including summary judgment motions) during the trial docket.
Anticipated Developments
The Honorable Patrick Sherlock retired during the summer of 2025, and Judge Maura Slattery-Boyle is now presiding over the Cook County asbestos docket.
Judge Slattery-Boyle has indicated that many hearings and trial dockets are now expected to go forward in person rather than remotely. This shift may be an important consideration for attorneys from non-Midwest cities who represent asbestos defendants in Cook County.
The Standing Order
For several years, Cook County has had a Standing Order for all asbestos cases. The Order, known as Case Management Order Number 19 (CMO 19), was revised within the last decade to include all previous asbestos case orders. Every new asbestos defendant— whether a product or premises defendant—must respond to non-malignant, deferred registry standard discovery. Likewise, each plaintiff must respond to standard discovery.
Although most Cook County asbestos cases have individual case management orders, CMO19 also sets discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. In our experience, most individual orders adhere to the deadlines in CMO 19. The table below summarizes the most significant of these deadlines.
CMO 19 Deadlines |
||
|
Party |
Obligation |
Deadline |
|
Plaintiff |
Provide responses to standard interrogatories and requests to produce |
270 days before trial or 90 days after complaint, whichever comes first |
|
Plaintiff |
Provide HIPAA & other record authorizations |
300 days before trial or 60 days after complaint, whichever is earlier |
|
Plaintiff |
Conduct discovery deposition |
240 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce pathology/radiology materials |
180 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce plaintiff-represented product, premises, and lay witnesses for deposition |
165 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce subpoenaed non-represented witnesses |
165 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Disclose independent and controlled experts (Rule 213(f)(2)–(3)) |
150 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce prior testimony with page/line designations |
90 days before trial (Objections/counter-designations due 14 days before trial) |
|
Defendant(s) |
Disclose Rule 213(f)(1) lay witnesses and identify control |
120 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce controlled experts for deposition (if requested) |
105 days before trial |
|
Defendant(s) |
Produce lay witnesses under their control (if requested); plaintiff subpoenas others |
90 days before trial |
|
Defendant(s) |
Provide transcript of corporate witness’s prior testimony (if requested) |
90 days before trial |
|
Defendant(s) |
Produce prior testimony with page/line designations |
45 days before trial (Objections/counter-designations due 14 days before trial) |
|
Defendant(s) |
Disclose independent and controlled experts (Rule 213(f)(2)–(3)) |
90 days before trial |
|
Defendant(s) |
Make experts available for deposition (if requested) |
60 days before trial |
|
Plaintiff |
File motion to add punitive-damages count |
60 days before trial (Response due 30 days before trial) |
|
All Parties |
File MSJs |
60 days before trial (Responses due 14 days later; replies due 7 days after) |
|
Plaintiff |
Produce non-PID family-member witnesses (if requested) |
14 days before trial (Request by 60 days before trial) |
|
Plaintiff |
Provide intended trial order |
10 days before trial |
[1]KCIC: Madison, St. Clair Counties were top asbestos jurisdictions in 2023, Cook County saw greatest increase; Judicial Hellholes: Cook County, Illinois.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.; Chicago Jury Returns $24.4M Plaintiff Verdict in Talc Trial.
[4] Id.
AssociatePeyton A. Hagerman defends corporate clients and insurers in product and premises liability cases, as well as other toxic tort matters. He relies upon his outstanding writing and analytical skills to examine key witnesses, prepare ...
PartnerGeorge A. Kiser represents clients who have been sued for toxic tort exposures—including asbestos—in high-profile, high-volume jurisdictions. He has represented hundreds of clients with asbestos cases pending in Madison ...
