Sheppard et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER, GRANTING 12 MOTION for Order to Dismiss Without Prejudice - Failure to Comply with CMO 12 -- Plaintiff William Sheppard, Sr. Only filed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., William Sheppard, Sr. (as Personal Representative and Surviving Parent of the Estate of Lana Sheppard, Deceased) terminated.Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/23/2015. (dsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 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:
Miranda Ball, et al. v. Bayer Schering
Pharma AG, et al. 1

No. 3:14-cv-10219-DRH-PMF

Pandra Bozeman v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:14-cv-10364-DRH-PMF

Jodi Ritter v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:14-cv-10355-DRH-PMF

William Sheppard, Sr., et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 2

No. 3:11-cv-12589-DRH-PMF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Failure To Comply With PFS Obligations)
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s (Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.) motions, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO
12”) 3 for an order of dismissal, without prejudice, of the plaintiffs’ claims in the
above captioned cases for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”)
obligations.

1

This Order applies to Plaintiff Miranda Ball only.
This Order applies to Plaintiff William Sheppard, Sr. (Lana Sheppard) only.
3
The parties negotiated and agreed to CMO 12, which expressly provides that the discovery
required of plaintiffs is not objectionable. CMO 12 § A(2).
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, the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have
served completed PFSs between February 2015 and March 2015. Notice of
Overdue Discovery was sent on April 10, 2015. As of the filing of Bayer’s motion
to dismiss, Bayer still had not received completed PFS materials from the
plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters.
Under Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs were given 14 days from the
date of Bayer’s motion to file a response either certifying that they served upon
defendants and defendants received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate
documentation of receipt or an opposition to defendant’s motion.
To date, none of the plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions has
filed a response. Because the plaintiffs have failed to respond to Bayer’s
allegations, the Court finds that these plaintiffs have failed to comply with their
PFS obligations under CMO 12.

Accordingly, the claims of the subject

plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The dockets will be revised
accordingly.

2

FURTHER, the Court reminds plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section
E, unless plaintiffs serve the defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to
vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this
Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon
defendants’ motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of June, 2015.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.06.23
11:32:12 -05'00'
United States District Court

3