Campbell v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 7/12/2011. (dsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ
(DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)

3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF
MDL No. 2100

This Document Relates to:
Jamie Brown v.
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10696-DRH-PMF

Amanda Campbell v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13554-DRH-PMF

Lindsey Craighead v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10632-DRH-PMF

Katherine Driscoll v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13560-DRH-PMF

Linnia Lemmon v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12691-DRH-PMF

Colleen Olkowski v.
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12041-DRH-PMF

Pauline Reed v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12704-DRH-PMF

Ritishia Tilley v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12714-DRH-PMF

Lauren Wilson and Clarence Wilson v.
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13715-DRH-PMF

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO 12”), 1 for an Order

1

The Parties negotiated and agreed to CMO 12, which expressly provides that the
discovery required of plaintiffs is not objectionable. CMO 12 § A(2).

dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, in the above-captioned matters, without prejudice for
failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations. 2
Under Section C of CMO 12, each plaintiff is required to serve
defendants with a completed PFS, including a signed declaration, executed record
release authorizations, and copies of all documents subject to the requests for
production contained in the PFS which are in the possession of plaintiff. Section
B of CMO 12 further provides that a completed PFS is due “45 days from the date
of service of the first answer to her complaint or the docketing of her case in this
MDL, or 45 days from the date of this Order, whichever is later.”
Accordingly, plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have
served completed PFSs on or before April 29, 2011 (See Brown, 3:10-cv-10696
Doc. 13 Exhibit A). Per Section E of CMO 12, notice of overdue discovery was
sent on May 23, 2011 (See Brown, 3:10-cv-10696 Doc. 13 Exhibit B). As of
today’s date, plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters still have not served
completed PFSs. Plaintiffs’ completed PFSs are thus more than one month
overdue.
Under Section E of CMO 12, plaintiffs were given 14 days from the
date of Bayer’s motion, in this case 14 days from June 24, 2011, to file a
response either certifying that they served upon defendants and defendants

2

Defendant filed identical motions and exhibits in each of the above captioned
member actions. For ease of reference, the Court references the document
number and exhibits in the first member action listed on the caption. Jamie
Brown v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10696DRH-PMF Doc. 13).

2

received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate documentation of receipt or
an opposition to defendant’s motion. 3
To date, none of the plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions
has filed a response. Because the Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases have
failed to respond to Bayer’s allegations, the Court finds that these plaintiffs have
failed to comply with the PFS obligations under CMO 12. Accordingly, the Court
hereby ORDERS as follows:
x

The above captioned member actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 12.

x

Further, the Court reminds plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E,
unless plaintiffs serve defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to
vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this

3

Responses to Bayer’s motion to dismiss were due 14 days from June 24, 2011
regardless of any response date automatically generated by CM/ECF. The Court
has previously noted in orders in this MDL and during a status conference in this
MDL that when deadlines provided by CM/ECF conflict with orders of this
Court, the Court ordered deadline will always control. See United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Electronic Filing Rules,
Rule 3 (The “filer is responsible for calculating the response time under the
federal and/or local rules. The date generated by CM/ECF is a guideline only,
and, if the Court has ordered the response to be filed on a date certain, the
Court's order governs the response deadline.”). The deadlines provided by
CM/ECF are generated automatically based on the generic responsive pleading
times allowed under the rules and do not consider special circumstances (such as
court orders specific to a particular case or issue).
3

Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon
defendants’ motion.

SO ORDERED

David R. Herndon
2011.07.12
11:39:59 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: July 12, 2011

4