Dorizas v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc

Filing 15

ORDER re 14 Stipulation to supplement the appellate record filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/17/2015. (dsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
______________________________________________________________________________
IN RE PRADAXA
)
MDL No. 2385
(DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) )
3:12-md-02385-DRH-SCW
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
)
Judge David R. Herndon
LITIGATION
)
This Document Relates to:

John and Laura Bishop v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:12-cv-50014

Khaleel Elahee and Sarah Elahee v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:12-cv-50015

Lynn Schofield v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:12-cv-50017

Roddy Howell v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-50007

Mary Dallman v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51221

Ivan Sander and Betty Sander, Husband and
Wife v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51222

Jack Hays v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51224

Irene Margis, Individually and as Personal
Representative of Estate of George Margis,
deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv- 51223

Page 1 of 5

Anthony Payne v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51234

Louise Vapnar, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Mary
Vapnar, deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51231

Winifred Byrd, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of George Byrd,
deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51233

Dion Dorizas v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv- 51232

Smith Wigley, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Mildred
Wigley, deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51306

Karen Wilder, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Jacqueline
Wilder, deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51312

Lois Ordway, Individually and on Behalf of
the Estate of Lily Ordway, deceased v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51842

ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:

Page 2 of 5

Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulation, filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) and Seventh Circuit Rule 10(b), asking
the Court to supplement the appellate record in Bishop et al. v. Boehringer

Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 15-1067 – 15-1081 (7th Cir.), Case Nos.
3:12-cv-50014, 3:12-cv-50015, 3:12-50017, 3:13-cv 50007, 3:13-cv-51221, 3:13cv-51222, 3:13-cv-51224, 3:13-cv-51223, 3:13-cv-51234, 3:13-cv-51231, 3:13-cv51233, 3:13-cv-51232, 3:13-cv-51306, 3:13-cv-51312, and 3:13-cv-51842 (S.D.
Ill.). The parties ask the Court to supplement the record with this Court’s Case
Management Order 88, 3:12-md-02385, Doc. 611 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2014). The
parties also ask the Court to supplement the record with Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Response to Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Report Submitted by Claims
Administrator and its attachments. 1 (Bishop, 3:12- cv-50014 Doc. 26 and 26-1
through 26-4) with plaintiffs’ supplemental response to motion to dismiss (and
associated exhibits) filed in each member action. The parties note that because
CMO 88 was filed in the master docket only, it was not included in the original
“short record” as transmitted to the Seventh Circuit.
The Court notes that the Seventh Circuit’s Practitioner’s Handbook for
Appeals states that the “short record” is transmitted to the Seventh Circuit for
screening purposes (assessing jurisdiction) and contains “the notice of appeal, the
Cir. R. 3(c) docketing statement (if filed), the judgment(s) or order(s) appealed,

1

Identical copies of this pleading were filed in each of the subject member actions. For example, in
the Bishop member action (3:12-cv-50014) Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response to Motion to
Dismiss with Prejudice and Report Submitted by Claims Administrator and its attachments are
found at Doc. 26 and 26-1 through 26-4.

Page 3 of 5

and the district court docket sheet.”

Thus, the “short record” is not typically

supplemented as requested by the parties.
With regard to supplementing the record on appeal, the Court notes as
follows. The record on appeal has been prepared in each subject member action.
The record prepared in each member action already includes the requested
supplemental response to motion to dismiss with prejudice and its attachments.
Thus, the request to supplement as to this pleading and its attachments is
unnecessary. Case Management Order Number 88, however, has not been
included in the record on appeal. Thus, the Court will supplement the record, in
each of the subject member actions, with Case Management Order Number 88.
The Court further notes that although the record has been prepared and will be
supplemented with Case Management Order Number 88, the record will not be

transmitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals until it is requested by the
Appellate Court. See Circuit Rule 11(a). 2
To the extent that the parties are filing a stipulation in accord with Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 11(g) 3 they should file a supplemental pleading with

2

Circuit Rule 11(a) provides as follows:

Record Transmission. When the appeal is ready for scheduling for oral argument

or submission, the clerk of the court of appeals will notify the district court clerk to
transmit the record to the court of appeals. The parties may agree or the court of
appeals may order that the record be sent to the clerk of the court of appeals at an
earlier time. But in no event shall the clerk of the district court transmit bulky
items, currency, securities, liquids, drugs, weapons, or similar items without a
specific order of this court.
3
Rule 11(g) provides as follows:
Record for a Preliminary Motion in the Court of Appeals. If, before the record is
forwarded, a party makes any of the following motions in the court of appeals:

Page 4 of 5

this Court so noting. Likewise, to the extent the parties are asking the Court to
transmit the record to the Court of appeals “at an earlier time” as described in
Circuit Rule 11(a) they should file a supplemental pleading so noting.
In conclusion, the request to supplement the record with the referenced
supplemental response and its exhibits is DENIED as unnecessary. The request to
supplement the record with CMO 88 is GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk to
supplement the record, in each member action, with Case Management Order
Number 88 (3:12-md-02385, Doc. 611). To the extent that the parties are seeking
additional action from the Court, they should file a supplemental pleading with

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.06.17
13:13:19 -05'00'

the Court as described herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of June, 2015.

United States District Court

appeals any parts of the record designated by any party.

Page 5 of 5