Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 3390

Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS #3276 for #3176 Motion to Compel filed by Warner-Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer, Inc. Action on motion: "Except as outlined here, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. #3276 ) and ALLOWS the Motion to Compel (Docket No. #3176 ). The Court orders that cases brought by all those plaintiffs listed in Appendices A-E are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. With respect to plaintiffs listed in Appendix G, plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their discovery responses, according to the guidelines herein, within THIRTY days of this order. Failure to comply will result in dismissal. Plaintiffs' counsel is also ORDERED to pay defendants' attorney's fees. The remaining plaintiffs shall comply with the Revised Scheduling Order of December 6, 2010, which requires Mr. Boone (along with defendants' counsel) to conduct fifteen days of depositions per month. (Docket No. #3141 .)" (Anderson, Jennifer) Docket text modified on 4/5/2011 (Anderson, Jennifer).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) IN RE NEURONTIN PRODUCTS ) LIABILITY LITIGATION ) _______________________________) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Allen et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-10981-PBS No. 07-cv-11795-PBS ) ) Cooper et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. ) No. 05-cv-10834-PBS ) ) Anderson et al. v. Pfizer, Inc.) No. 05-cv-10835-PBS ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER April 5, 2011 Saris, U.S.D.J. In these products liability cases, plaintiffs1 allege that they, or their decedents, suffered various injuries when their doctors prescribed the drug Neurontin, manufactured by defendants Pfizer and Warner-Lambert Company. All plaintiffs named in the

above-listed complaints reside in Mississippi and are represented by Attorney Levi Boone, of the Boone Law Firm. Defendants have

1

The parties seem to disagree on the number of plaintiffs remaining in these cases. Mr. Boone claims that only 200 plaintiffs remain. (See Pl.'s Objections to Report at 2.) However, other assertions in his memorandum suggest the number may be 210. With the exception of Grace Scott, who is not considered here, the docket does not reflect any stipulations of dismissal filed by plaintiffs since the Report was issued. Accordingly, the Court will proceed as though there are 216 plaintiffs remaining. -1-

moved to compel all of these plaintiffs to provide full and complete responses to template discovery requests, and they seek relief for plaintiffs' failure to comply under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Sorokin, who

issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") on February 4, 2011, allowing the motion and ordering dismissal of all cases in which Attorney Boone is the attorney of record. Plaintiffs have

filed objections to the Report, and defendants have responded to those objections. Except as outlined in this opinion, I agree with and adopt the Report, including the statement of facts. After a detailed As to the

review of the record, I ALLOW the motion to compel.

plaintiffs listed in Appendices A-E to this opinion, these cases are DISMISSED with prejudice for egregious failure to prosecute and to comply with this Court's orders. As to the plaintiffs

listed in Appendix F, I ORDER plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs for the second day of depositions, as outlined herein. Finally, as to the plaintiffs listed in Appendix G, I ORDER these plaintiffs to supplement their interrogatories with complete and accurate responses, and to provide defendants with all medical records currently in their possession, within thirty days. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal. I. BACKGROUND This motion deals primarily with plaintiffs' insufficient

-2-

responses to template discovery.

In 2005, the Court referred the

Neurontin multi-district litigation for full pretrial case management to Magistrate Judge Sorokin. (See Docket No. 182.)

Magistrate Judge Sorokin has presided over the development of a discovery schedule, along with discovery disputes, in this litigation for more than five years. Accordingly, most of the

discovery orders referred to in this memorandum were issued by Magistrate Judge Sorokin. The parameters of "template" discovery in this large multidistrict litigation were litigated by the parties and decided upon by the Magistrate Judge in 2006. [Docket No. 372].) (See Discovery Order No. 2

"Template" discovery was developed by the

Magistrate Judge, with input from the parties, as a means of managing discovery for the hundreds of products liability cases filed in this MDL. Template discovery, in the context of this

case, includes production of documents and responses to interrogatories by both parties. As an example, defendants'

Request for Production of Documents (see Docket No. 333) sought documents such as medical records, lists of medical providers, and medical release forms. depositions. Template discovery also encompasses

The Magistrate Judge ordered that at least three

depositions would be taken in each case - the plaintiff, prescribing physician, and sales representative - prior to the case being transferred back to its home court. The template

discovery at issue here involves only the production of documents -3-

and responses to interrogatories. The deadline for plaintiffs to complete template discovery was January 15, 2007 for plaintiffs named in Cooper v. Pfizer and Anderson v. Pfizer, and July 8, 2007 for plaintiffs named in Allen v. Pfizer. Defendants allege that template discovery is

incomplete for all 216 plaintiffs remaining in these cases. When Mr. Boone's cases were originally transferred to this Court for pre-trial management as part of the multi-district litigation, he had three cases with 394 individual plaintiffs. Over time, many of those cases have been dismissed, whether by stipulation or court order. While he originally pursued damages

based on a panoply of injuries, including injuries unrelated to suicide, Mr. Boone has represented to the Court that he is "only pursuing the suicidality issues, suicide, attempted suicide, suicide ideation." (See Hr'g Tr. 36, Dec. 1, 2010.) Since 2008, defendants have filed three motions to dismiss the Boone plaintiffs' cases for failure to comply with discovery orders and one motion to compel compliance with a discovery order. Docket Nos. 1260, 1445, 2984, 3080.) (See

The first two motions to

dismiss were denied, and Mr. Boone was permitted more time to file complete discovery responses. The last motion to dismiss

was allowed as to 47 Boone plaintiffs who had failed, in 2010, to file releases allowing defendants to access their medical records. The motion to compel was later withdrawn.

The Magistrate Judge has held multiple status conferences to -4-

determine the status of discovery in the Boone plaintiffs' cases. Although the Magistrate Judge repeatedly expressed concern that Mr. Boone had not complied with the discovery schedule, rather than impose immediate sanctions, the Magistrate Judge set new deadlines to give Mr. Boone a reasonable amount of time to cure deficiencies in discovery. deadlines were met. It appears that none of these new

Attorney Boone was warned of the possibility

of sanctions if he failed to cure the deficiencies in his clients' discovery responses. 2010.) (See, e.g., Hr'g Tr. 32, Dec. 1,

Indeed, in August 2010, Mr. Boone was fined $500 as a

sanction for failing to comply with the Magistrate Judge's discovery orders, namely the requirement that Mr. Boone file monthly status reports with the Court. (See Docket No. 3031.)

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss forty-seven plaintiffs represented by Mr. Boone for failure to produce medical authorizations. (Docket No. 3025.)

The Court adopted that recommendation, without objection, on August 30, 2010.2 Discovery misconduct has continued. As an example of

particularly extreme conduct, in 2010 Mr. Boone filed 125
2

Although Mr. Boone argues that the dismissal of those fortyseven plaintiffs should not be viewed as a sanction because he did not object to dismissal, the Magistrate Judge did, in fact, characterize dismissal as a sanction. (Docket No. 3025 at 2 ("Dismissal is an available sanction, see Samos Imex Corp. v. Nextel Communications, 194 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 1999), and, in the circumstances of each of these forty-seven cases, is the appropriate sanction.").) -5-

original or supplemental interrogatory responses, none of which was signed or verified by the individual plaintiffs.3 Sixty-

three, or more than half, of those filings, give the same answer, nearly word for word, to Interrogatory No. 11 (asking about incidents of psychiatric illness): "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" without any further descriptive information. The case of plaintiff Josephine Jackson explains why this is particularly problematic. In 2008, Ms. Jackson filed handwritten

interrogatory responses, signed under oath, and wrote "N/A (none of my family members have seek/need any of the above [psychiatric] services." Mr. Boone produced an unsigned

supplemental response for Ms. Jackson in 2010 that stated "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" in response to Interrogatory No. 11. exchange occurred: Q: Now, in response to the - the new set that we got today, it says that, as far as you are concerned, for you, that you had abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation. Did you have suicidal ideation? A. I don't know who put that there, because I did not tell nobody that. Q. Do you did not [sic] have suicidal ideation when you were taking Neurontin? At Ms. Jackson's deposition, the following

3

With his objections to the Report, Mr. Boone filed 68 interrogatory responses that he claims provide evidence that supplemental interrogatory responses were, in fact, signed. However, not one had an example of a verification by a plaintiff. Each interrogatory response was signed by Mr. Boone, but only in the context of a certificate of service. -6-

A. No. (Docket No. 3258, Ex. C at 113-14.) The reasonable inference is

that Mr. Boone filed supplemental interrogatory responses without consulting his clients. This is serious misconduct.

On December 1, 2010, the Court held a status conference, jointly presided over with the Magistrate Judge, with respect to all Neurontin products liability cases. as were counsel for defendants. Mr. Boone was present,

After defendants' counsel raised

certain concerns about inadequate discovery responses, Mr. Boone represented that he and his clients had fully complied and that, upon a case-by-case review, "the Court will get a different impression once the Court sees we have supplemented." 34.) (Hr'g Tr.

Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's scheduling order

following that hearing, defendants filed the instant motion to compel. With that motion, they also filed an extensive appendix,

outlining the alleged deficiencies with each plaintiff's discovery responses. They provided Magistrate Judge Sorokin with

eight boxes of documents, including interrogatory responses that had been filed by each plaintiff. Mr. Boone opposed the motion,

but did not provide a case-by-case analysis of individual plaintiffs' responses. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge agreed with defendants that template discovery was incomplete for each of Boone's plaintiffs. He found that attorney Boone has "repeatedly failed

to complete template discovery responses despite repeated -7-

opportunities and despite repeated orders to do so" and that his behavior was so extreme as to warrant dismissal. 25.) (Report at 24-

While the Magistrate Judge did not review each and every

plaintiffs' file, the sample of cases he did review corroborated his conclusion that template discovery was incomplete. The

Report recommended that the Court dismiss the Boone plaintiffs' cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the court, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) as a sanction for failure to obey orders to provide discovery. Boone objected to almost every aspect of the Report. Tellingly, he does not address Josephine Jackson's statements at her deposition, described above. While the Court will not

outline each objection here, one major complaint was that the Magistrate Judge failed to review each of plaintiffs' cases in analyzing defendants' motion to compel. Boone asserts that such

a review must be done by the Court on a case-by-case basis. (Objections at 28 ("Although these Plaintiffs are listed in a multi-party complaint, they nevertheless are individual Plaintiffs whose case [sic] must be judged individually.").) Because Boone himself did not provide the Court with a case-bycase analysis in support of his objections, the Court undertook its own individual review of the template discovery. This review

involved a 200-page index of cases provided by defendants, eight boxes of documents including interrogatory responses and medical -8-

providers lists for each plaintiff, and eighty exhibits submitted by Attorney Boone. following. 1. Seventeen plaintiffs have not provided any See Appendix A. Based on this review, the Court finds the

interrogatory responses to defendants. 2.

Of those plaintiffs who have filed interrogatory

responses, two plaintiffs have not filed authorizations allowing defendants to retrieve their medical records. See Appendix B.

Two other plaintiffs have not filed a list of their medical providers. 3. See Appendix C. With respect to plaintiffs not listed in Appendices A-

C, there are eighty-nine plaintiffs who have not provided defendants with the most basic information in this case: the dates that they used Neurontin and the physicians who prescribed it to them. See Appendix D. (See also Discovery Order No. 2

(requiring all plaintiffs to provide defendants with basic information about their Neurontin use).) 4. Among plaintiffs who filed interrogatory responses and

provided information about Neurontin use, there are forty-two plaintiffs who provided no response to Interrogatory No. 11, which asks plaintiffs to describe any instances of psychiatric or mental illness, suicide, attempted suicide, homicide or other violent behavior by Plaintiff or any of Plaintiff's family members . . . and, for each such instance, identify the person; the person's relationship to Plaintiff; the nature of the person's illness or -9-

behavior and identify the individuals that might have knowledge of these incidents. Given Mr. Boone's representation to this Court that he was "only pursuing the suicidality issues, suicide, attempted suicide, suicide ideation," (see Hr'g Tr. 36, Dec. 1, 2010) an answer to Interrogatory No. 11 should be considered one of the most basic pieces of information in this case. In addition to the

plaintiffs who did not provide any response to Interrogatory No. 11, there are fourteen plaintiffs who responded with answers limited to a few words, such as "depression," or "abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation."4 See Appendix E. Without more

information, such bare-bones answers are grossly insufficient. 5. Ten plaintiffs have already been deposed by defendants. Serious concerns were raised by their

See Appendix F. depositions.

For example, defendants learned about treatment

providers not previously disclosed, undisclosed medical records in plaintiffs' possession, and newly alleged injuries. this new information, depositions were not completed. 6. Forty-one plaintiffs do not fall into one of the above Due to

categories, although their discovery responses are thin and many of their interrogatory responses were not verified. See Appendix

4

Although 63 of the interrogatory responses filed in 2010 by Boone clients listed "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation," as a response to Interrogatory No. 11, many of those plaintiffs have ignored other essential obligations of discovery, such as providing defendants with the dates they took Neurontin, and therefore are not listed in Appendix E. -10-

G. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), this Court must "consider timely objections [to the Report] and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to compel plaintiffs to comply with the Magistrate Judge's discovery orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). In cases where a motion to compel is connected to a

failure to comply with a court's discovery order, a number of sanctions are available to the court. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that "[i]f a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may

include . . . dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part." Likewise, Rule 41(b) states that "[i]f the plaintiff

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." 30 (1962). See also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629"The sanction of dismissal with prejudice for want of

prosecution, however, is a unique and awesome one, foreclosing forever a plaintiff's opportunity to obtain judicial redress."

-11-

Pomales v. Celulares Telefonica, Inc., 342 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2007). "Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is

appropriate in the face of `extremely protracted inaction (measured in years), disobedience of court orders, ignorance of warnings, contumacious conduct, or some other aggravating circumstance.'" Id. (citing Cosme Nieves v. Deshler, 826 F.2d 1,

2 (1st Cir. 1987)); see also 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2369 (2d ed. 1995). "Where a noncompliant litigant has manifested a disregard for orders of the court and been suitably forewarned of the consequences of continued intransigence, a trial judge need not first exhaust milder sanctions before resorting to dismissal." HMG Property Investors, Inc. v. Parque Indus. Rio Canas, Inc., 847 F.2d 908, 918 (1st Cir. 1988). The First Circuit has noted the inherent vagueness in the case law regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey court orders, stating that "[t]he difficulty is that the range of circumstances is so vast, and the problems so much matters of degree, as to defy mechanical rules." F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1996). Robson v. Hallenbeck, 81

The court did, however, list certain

considerations to guide district courts, including "the severity of the violation, . . . the deliberateness vel non of the misconduct, mitigating excuses, prejudice to the other side and to the operations of the court, and the adequacy of lesser sanctions." Id. (citing Figueroa-Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, -12-

648 (1st Cir. 1990)).

In terms of the severity of violations,

the court wrote that "[r]epeated disobedience of a scheduling order is inherently prejudicial, because disruption of the court's schedule and the preparation of other parties nearly always results. . . . A succession of violations . . .

indicating a general unwillingness to comply with a court-imposed scheduling order, is for us enough to justify dismissal." Id. at

4; see also HMG Property Investors, Inc. v. Parque Industrial Rio Canas, Inc., 847 F.2d 908, 918 (1st Cir. 1988) (dismissal justified where "the contumacy was not a single isolated mishap, but the tip of a rather large iceberg") (internal quotation marks omitted); Farm Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Fudge, 831 F.2d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 1987) ("We can find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in dismissing a case where the appellant has intentionally disregarded court orders on repeated occasions and substituted its own judgment for that of the court."). In addition, the First Circuit has found that dismissals are justified when the district court has previously warned a party that dismissal will result from failure to comply with discovery orders. See, e.g., Cintron-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos

del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (protracted noncompliance with court orders, "in the teeth of explicit warnings," justified dismissal); Chamorro v. Puerto Rican Cars, Inc., 304 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 2002) (dismissal justified where the plaintiff, despite being "suitably forewarned," nevertheless -13-

disobeyed a court order). The Magistrate Judge, in his Report, finds that Mr. Boone's pattern of conduct in this litigation merits dismissal, both as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37, and for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Boone's conduct involves extremely protracted inaction, measured in years, disobedience of court orders, ignorance of warnings, contumacious conduct, and other aggravating circumstances. 826 F.2d at 2. First, Mr. Boone's inaction has been extremely protracted, and can be measured in years. Basic template discovery was due, Three and a See Cosme Nieves,

for the bulk of these plaintiffs, on July 8, 2007.

half years later, the Court's review of the record reveals that none of the Boone plaintiffs have fully complied with their discovery obligations. Second, Mr. Boone has repeatedly Indeed, at

disobeyed explicit orders of the Magistrate Judge.

least one order issued to all litigants in the products liability cases by the Magistrate Judge singled out Mr. Boone and admonished him to pay particular attention to court deadlines. (See Report at 3-7.) Third, Mr. Boone has repeatedly ignored the Indeed, the Magistrate Judge has

Magistrate Judge's warnings.

previously sanctioned Mr. Boone for missing deadlines and ignoring orders by fining him $500. (See Docket No. 3031.) At

the status conference on December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge -14-

explicitly told Mr. Boone that failure to complete discovery would potentially result in dismissal of his cases. (Hr'g Tr. 18

("And what you are inviting me ­ it's inviting me to issue further orders that are going to result potentially in dismissal of your cases if the discovery is not done.").) It has become clear at this point in the litigation that admonitions and even monetary sanctions are not effective. Under

the legal standards set forth by the First Circuit, dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders or, in the alternative, as a sanction, is appropriate for those Boone plaintiffs who have provided virtually no discovery. However,

for those plaintiffs who have met certain threshold discovery requirements, described below, the Court will look to lesser sanctions in order to protect both the plaintiffs' and defendants' interests. 1. Plaintiffs Who Have Been Deposed Ten plaintiffs have already been deposed. (See Appendix F.)

Defendants have held those depositions open on the basis of newly disclosed information that should have been provided to defendants years ago. While the information learned at the

depositions unquestionably highlights previous failures of these plaintiffs to comply with discovery obligations, the resources to conduct the deposition have already been expended. would be too harsh. Dismissal

-15-

2.

Plaintiffs Listed in Appendices A-E The plaintiffs listed in Appendices A-E have not provided

defendants with the most basic information in this litigation. Plaintiffs in Appendix A have not filed interrogatory responses. Plaintiffs in Appendix B have not provided defendants with authorizations to retrieve their medical records. Appendix C have not filed medical providers lists. Plaintiffs in Plaintiffs in

Appendix D have not provided defendants with the dates that they used Neurontin or the physician who prescribed it to them. Plaintiffs in Appendix E provided either no response, or an egregiously insufficient response, to Interrogatory No. 11 concerning suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, and other psychiatric problems. After four years, or longer in the cases of some plaintiffs, it is entirely inexcusable that plaintiffs have not disclosed information to support the most basic elements of their claims. The refusal of these plaintiffs to obey the Court's orders and permit defendants to engage in meaningful discovery in these cases merits a serious sanction. Accordingly, the claims brought by plaintiffs listed in Appendices A-E to this opinion will be dismissed with prejudice. 3. The Remaining Plaintiffs As the Court noted previously, there are forty-one plaintiffs who have met the threshold discovery requirements

-16-

outlined by the Court.

Namely, these plaintiffs have provided

defendants with the following: (1) at least some interrogatory responses; (2) medical records authorizations; (3) medical providers lists; and (4) an answer to Interrogatory No. 11 that lists at least something more than a stock answer such as "abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation." Many plaintiffs

exceed the threshold defined in (4) simply by listing a family member who witnessed a basic claim of depression or thoughts of suicide. While these answers are not good enough, they are

sufficient to avoid outright dismissal. Each of the forty-one plaintiffs listed in Appendix G must provide defendants with a complete list of medical providers and with all the medical records in their possession. If subsequent

deposition testimony reveals that certain providers or records have not been disclosed, dismissal will be ordered. Also, each

of these forty-one plaintiffs must supplement their interrogatory responses within THIRTY days of this order. Supplemental

responses will only be deemed acceptable if they respond to each element of an interrogatory. For example, an acceptable response

to Interrogatory No. 11 is not "depression, witnessed by my wife Jane Doe." The response should at minimum provide dates, a As

detailed description of symptoms, and any treatment sought.

another example, Interrogatory No. 14 concerns medications taken by the plaintiffs. A response that does not at least include

-17-

information about Neurontin, and the dates it was used, is insufficient. For many plaintiffs with multiple prescriptions, a Each of these

complete answer will require a much longer list.

supplemental responses must be signed under oath by the plaintiff in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Failure to comply with

these orders will result in dismissal of the case, and the Court may consider making a referral of attorney Boone to the Mississippi Bar. Defendants' motion for attorney's fees incurred in preparing the motion to compel is allowed (Docket Nos. 3176, 3217). Defense counsel shall submit a bill for reasonable attorney's fees capped at $350 an hour for attorneys and $100 an hour for paralegals. Plaintiffs' counsel shall pay the amount personally. IV. ORDER

Except as outlined here, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 3276) and ALLOWS the Motion to Compel (Docket No. 3176). The Court orders

that cases brought by all those plaintiffs listed in Appendices A-E are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. With respect to plaintiffs

listed in Appendix G, plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their discovery responses, according to the guidelines herein, within THIRTY days of this order. dismissal. Failure to comply will result in

Plaintiffs' counsel is also ORDERED to pay

defendants' attorney's fees.

-18-

The remaining plaintiffs shall comply with the Revised Scheduling Order of December 6, 2010, which requires Mr. Boone (along with defendants' counsel) to conduct fifteen days of depositions per month. (Docket No. 3141.)

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS PATTI B. SARIS United States District Judge

-19-

APPENDIX A Plaintiffs Who Have Not Filed Interrogatory Responses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Robert Barnes Martha Beckum Ledorah Benton Donald Cohn Ruby Crapps Cora L. Crumble Theodore Crystian Marshall Dillon Clara M. Epps Estate of Ethel Fleming Emma Gregory Linda Hales Debra Ann Johnson Lena Johnson Ollie M. Johnson Debra Neal Bobby Woods

-20-

APPENDIX B Plaintiffs Who Have Not Provided Medical Records Authorizations 1. 2. Evia Holmes Emma Howard

-21-

APPENDIX C Plaintiffs Who Have Not Filed Medical Providers Lists 1. 2. Tommy Mills Janice Primer

-22-

APPENDIX D Plaintiffs Who Have Not Provided Basic Information about Neurontin Use (Prescribing Physician/Dates) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Terry Banks Katie Craig Serboya Delotta Pamela Ellis Lillie Beatrice Leggett Evans Gregory Linn Everett Inez Finscher Michael Fisher Marie Givens Frances Glenn Claudette Greer Tommy Hardy Billie Harkins Gregory Hasslet Charles Haynes Mark Head Rufus Hendon Shawand Hicks Evelyn Holt Frank Hoover Ruby Hoover Josephine Jackson Doris Johnson Robert Johnson Rose Jones Edward Jordan Johnny Keyes Falisha Knight Ellaweise Lacy Shanetta Lacy Mary Lawson Diann Lee Mickey Livingston Chris Logan Lula Maria Harper Lott Patricia McBeath Franklin McConnell MarQuittia McCoy Martha McIntee-Nelson Helen Meeks (Helen Booker-Meeks) Laperial Melvin Ava Mitchell Mattie Moore -23-

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

Helen Morgan Brandy Morgan Linda Murray Betty Newson (Betty Newsom) Martha Norman Tommie Odum Sharon Perez Kathy Phillips Jacquelyn Posey Delories Powell Cynthia Quimby Barbara Readus Sallie Rippy Wayne Rochelle Sean Self Bridgette Shields Sarah Shields Aaron Sims Eugene Smith Ronnie Smith Rosa Smith Ruby Smith Jerry Stagg Darlene Stampley John Staten Carl Steverson Debbie Sullivan Erestia Thomas Magnolia Thomas Martha Thompson Dorothy Tolliver Morris Townsend Doris Toy Larry Vail Joann Walls Shirley Ann Walters Estate of Kathy A. Warfield Della Washington Carole Williams Daisy Williams Eloise Williams Helen Williams Nolan Williams O.C. Williams, Sr. Sanders Williams, Jr. Taylor Williams

-24-

APPENDIX E Plaintiffs Who Did Not Respond to Interrogatory #11 or Who Provided Egregiously Insufficient Information Plaintiffs Who Did Not Respond 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Mary Adams Estate of Leroy Anderson Mary Applewhite Mary Ashford Jimmie Barbee Marie Barber Teresser Bass Vannila Bennett Cassandra Benson Audrey Berry Elizabeth Bland Estate of Joe Blaylock Frances Bouie Minnie Campbell Lillie Cannon Claiborne Collier, Sr. Jimmy Darling Carolyn Davis Alton Dillon Annie Edwards Estate of Texcellar Fields Annie Gatewood Beneal Gildon Kenneth Green Melvin Harris Doyle Harrison Gloria Harrison Carl Henry Cassandra James James Jeffcoat Macatherine Jefferson Charlotte Jenkins Velma Johnson Jannie Lucas Bobbie Maggett Warren Nance Larry Potts Mark Prince Andrew Smith Bennie Spencer Gregory Suber -25-

42.

Dorian Taylor

Plaintiffs Who Provided Insufficient Information 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Jessie Brown - Response says only "depression and suicide thought" Emma Clark - Response says only "had suicidal thoughts" Memye Creswill - Response says only "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" Alford Darby - Response says only "depression" Clarence Harris - Response says only "Abnormal thinking, agitated, depression, and paranoid" Freddie Harris - Response says only "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" Linda Harveston - Response says only "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" Sylvia Longino - Response says only "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" Jerry Lowe - Response says only "addictive to Neurontin" Sherman McDonald, Jr. - Response says only "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation" Jimmy Sayles - Response says "Abnormal thinking and suicidal ideation," and is followed by "Mr. Sayles never had any abnormal thinking" Pamela Shields - Response says only "depression and suicide thoughts" William Webb - Response says only "depression, forgetfulness" Edneatha White - Response says only "plaintiff suffered severe depression and abnormal thinking"

-26-

APPENDIX F Plaintiffs Who Have Been Deposed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Shirley Drennan Catherine Duvall Jerry Lowe Jerry Price Vanessa Scott Lashonda Skinner Louisa Smith Michael Trim Deborah Watson Joyce Watson

-27-

APPENDIX G Remaining Plaintiffs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Lois Adams Jessie Allen Vivian Allen Jerrell Bearden Darrell Brooks Thomas Brown Bobbie Bryson Roy Carroll Mary Cooper Lynnette Criss Linda Cunningham Levi Davis Annie Edwards Essie Ford-Patterson Estate of Aliece Garrett Shannon Glass Fannie Grinston Lee Haley Belinda Havard Mae Hester William Hony James Hunter Nikisha Johnson Jacqueline Kendrick Elizabeth Knight Henry Landrum Birdie Langdon Dawn Lepard Pearlie Maddox Joyce McAdory Lolita Myers Maybelle Newsome Hershel Jack Price Vera Ray Patricia Rhodes Frank Smith Jannie Smith Bobby Steele Michaelon Weatherby Francis Womack Re'Shedia Young

-28-