Guerin et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss as to plaintiff Shaunda Cantrell Only. The claims of plaintiff Shaunda Cantrell are dismissed WITHOUT prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet Requirements. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/20/2012. (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:
Kara Abbott v. Bayer Pharma AG, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13122-DRH-PMF

Rebecca Adams, et al. v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 1

No. 3:11-cv-13025-DRH-PMF

Melissa Aiger v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13294-DRH-PMF

Jennifer Alforejy, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 2

No. 3:11-cv-12970-DRH-PMF

Emily Blevins v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13011-DRH-PMF

Kandace Chambers v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12639-DRH-PMF

Shaina Collins v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13108-DRH-PMF

Alicia Guerin, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 3

No. 3:11-cv-13233-DRH-PMF

Samantha Hamrick, et al. v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 4

No. 3:11-cv-12806-DRH-PMF

Stefanie Harrison, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 5

No. 3:11-cv-12507-DRH-PMF

1

This order applies only to plaintiffs Shaelee Garrison, Valerie Myers and Joymarie
Verdisco.

2

This order applies only to plaintiffs Jennifer Alforejy, Rhonda Linam and Wendi
Westbrook.
3

This order applies only to plaintiff Shaunda Cantrell.

4

This order applies only to plaintiff Katie King.

Andrea Hollowell v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13229-DRH-PMF

Melissa Johnson v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11996-DRH-PMF

Elizabeth Law v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13240-DRH-PMF

Dawn Lindley, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 6

No. 3:11-cv-12574-DRH-PMF

Karan and Ruy Lozano v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13205-DRH-PMF

Marissa Lytle v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12586-DRH-PMF

Marilou Mewborn v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13274-DRH-PMF

Amy and Brian Monroe v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13238-DRH-PMF

Sharon Morrison v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12706-DRH-PMF

Heather Norris v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13241-DRH-PMF

Amanda and Robert Perkins v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13230-DRH-PMF

Leah Pfeiffer v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12000-DRH-PMF

Yvonne Richardson Campbell, et al. v.
Bayer Corp., et al. 7

No. 3:11-cv-12333-DRH-PMF

Melanie and John Rogers v.
Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12663-DRH-PMF

5

This order applies only to plaintiffs Chelsea Thomas and Rebecca Watson.

6

This order applies only to plaintiffs Travonna Asberry, Dawn Lindley and Christina
Smith.
7

This order applies only to plaintiff Billie Jo Goodfellow.

2

Sloan Seaborn-Sebati v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12276-DRH-PMF

Rhanda Smith v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12090-DRH-PMF

Laura Tenorio v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:12-cv-20002-DRH-PMF

Lauren Terry, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 8

No. 3:11-cv-12280-DRH-PMF

Karen Wafa v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13203-DRH-PMF

Heather Ward, et al. v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 9

No. 3:11-cv-12404-DRH-PMF

Tina Westmoreland v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13239-DRH-PMF

Rukaiyah Williams v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13287-DRH-PMF

Sheila Woodard, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 10

No. 3:11-cv-13232-DRH-PMF

Heshima Worthington, et al. v.
Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. 11

No. 3:11-cv-12959-DRH-PMF

8

This order applies only to plaintiff Courtney Hernandez.

9

This order applies only to plaintiff Stephanie Wood.

10

This order applies only to plaintiff Gina Vona.

11

This order applies only to plaintiff Heshima Worthington and her spouse,
Christopher Atkinson.

3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Failure To Comply With PFS Obligations)
Herndon, Chief Judge,
This matter is before the Court on the Bayer defendants’ motion, pursuant to
Case Management Order 12 (“CMO 12”) 12 for an order of dismissal, without prejudice,
of the plaintiffs’ claims in the above captioned cases for failure to comply with their
Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations. 13
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 on or before March 17, 2012. (See e.g., Abbott No. 3:11-cv-1312212

The Parties negotiated and agreed to CMO 12, which expressly provides that the
discovery required of plaintiffs is not objectionable. CMO 12 § A(2).
13

Bayer’s motion to dismiss also sought dismissal of the following member actions:
Lindsey Bush v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12415-DRH-PMF; Tami Kerr v. Bayer
Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12942-DRH-PMF; Carrie Logan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11cv-12652-DRH-PMF; Frances Walker Long and Mark Long v. Bayer Corp., et al. No.
3:11-cv-12420-DRH-PMF; Mitzi Myers v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. No. 3:11-cv-13292-DRH-PMF; Elizabeth Oesterle v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv12941-DRH-PMF. As to these actions, however, Bayer has withdrawn its motion to
dismiss.

4

DRH-PMF Doc. 8-1). 14 Per Section E of CMO 12, Notice of Overdue Discovery was sent
on April 12, 2012. (See e.g., Abbott No. 3:11-cv-13122-DRH-PMF Doc. 8-2).15 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 (making the above-captioned
plaintiffs’ PFSs more than three months overdue).
Under Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of
Bayer’s motion, in this case 14 days from June 29, 2012, 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. 16
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

14

Identical motions were filed in each of the above captioned cases. For ease of
reference the Court refers to the motion and exhibits filed in Abbott No. 3:11-cv-13122DRH-PMF Docs. 8, 8.1, 8.2).
15
A similar case specific notice of over-due discovery was sent to each of the subject
plaintiffs and is attached as an exhibit to Bayer’s motion to dismiss in each of the above
captioned member actions.
16
Responses to Bayer’s motion to dismiss were due 14 days from June 29, 2012
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).
5

finds that these plaintiffs have failed to comply with their PFS obligations under
CMO 12.

Accordingly, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are hereby

dismissed without prejudice.
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 Order, the Order will
be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.
So Ordered:
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2012.08.20
15:59:58 -05'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: August 20, 2012

6