Begay et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
Filing
10
ORDER denying 9 MOTION by Boston Scientific Corporation for Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to Timely Serve her Plaintiff Profile Form, as more fully set forth herein; the plaintiff has 30 business days from the entry of this Order to subm it to Boston Scientific a completed PPF and failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice upon motion by the defendant; plaintiff's counsel is directed to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested, and file a copy of the receipt. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/13/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2326
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Shannon Begay et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-06945
ORDER
Pending before the court is Boston Scientific’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 9], to which
the plaintiff has not responded. For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Sanctions is
DENIED.
I.
Background
This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ
prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. In the seven MDLs, there are nearly 70,000 cases
currently pending. Managing multidistrict litigation requires the court to streamline certain
litigation procedures in order to improve efficiency for the parties and the court. Some of these
management techniques simplify the parties’ discovery responsibilities. Pretrial Order (“PTO”)
# 16, for example, provides that each plaintiff in this MDL must submit a Plaintiff Profile Form
(“PPF”) to act as interrogatory answers under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
responses to requests for production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
parties jointly drafted the requirements for PTO # 16, and I entered it as applicable to every one of
the thousands of cases in this MDL.
The plaintiff filed her Short Form Complaint on April 3, 2013, and her PPF was due on or
before July 3, 2013, per an extension. To date, the plaintiff has wholly failed to submit a completed
PPF. Boston Scientific now moves for sanctions against the plaintiff, requesting a reasonable
monetary penalty, dismissal of the plaintiff’s case, or both.
II.
Legal Standard
Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to sanction a party for
failing to comply with discovery orders. Before levying dismissal or default as a sanction under
Rule 37, a court must first consider four factors:
(1) Whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice
his noncompliance caused his adversary, which necessarily includes an inquiry into
the materiality of the evidence he failed to produce; (3) the need for deterrence of
the particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic
sanctions.
Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing
Wilson v. Volkswagon of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 503–04 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434
U.S. 102 (1978)).
In applying these factors to this case, I must be particularly cognizant of the realities of
multidistrict litigation and the unique problems an MDL judge faces. Specifically, when handling
seven MDLs, each containing thousands of individual cases, case management becomes of utmost
importance. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir.
2006) (emphasizing the “enormous” task of an MDL court in “figur[ing] out a way to move
thousands of cases toward resolution on the merits while at the same time respecting their
individuality”). I must define rules for discovery and then strictly adhere to those rules, with the
purpose of ensuring that pretrial litigation flows as smoothly and efficiently as possible. See id. at
2
1232 (“[T]he district judge must establish schedules with firm cutoff dates if the coordinated cases
are to move in a diligent fashion toward resolution by motion, settlement, or trial.”); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 1 (stating that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed and
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding”). In turn, counsel must collaborate with the court “in fashioning workable
programmatic
procedures”
and
cooperate
with
these
procedures
thereafter.
In
re
Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1231–32. Pretrial orders—and the parties’ compliance with
those orders and their deadlines—“are the engine that drives disposition on the merits.” Id. at 1232.
A “willingness to resort to sanctions” in the event of noncompliance can ensure that the engine
remains in tune, resulting in better administration of the vehicle of multidistrict litigation. Id.; see
also Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The MDL judge must be given ‘greater
discretion’ to create and enforce deadlines in order to administrate the litigation effectively. This
necessarily includes the power to dismiss cases where litigants do not follow the court’s orders.”).
III.
Discussion
PTO # 16 requires each plaintiff to submit a completed PPF within sixty days of filing a
Short Form Complaint. Here—as in other MDLs—the purpose of the PPF is “to give each
defendant the specific information necessary to defend the case against it . . . [and] without this
device, a defendant [is] unable to mount its defense because it [has] no information about the
plaintiff or the plaintiff’s injuries outside the allegations of the complaint.” In re
Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1234. To this end, PTO # 16 provided that “[a]ny plaintiff who
fails to comply with the PPF obligations under this Order may, for good cause shown, be subject
to sanctions, to be determined by the court, upon motion of the defendants.” PTO # 16 ¶ 1.i.
3
As of the date of this Order, the plaintiff has not submitted a PPF. Accordingly, Boston
Scientific moves for sanctions for this violation of PTO # 16. Applying the Wilson factors to these
facts and bearing in mind the unique context of multidistrict litigation, I conclude that although
recourse such as dismissal under Rule 37 is justified, the plaintiff should be afforded one more
chance to comply with discovery before sanctions are imposed.
The first factor, bad faith, is difficult to ascertain, given that the plaintiff has not responded
to Boston Scientific’s motion. Without question, the plaintiff has an obligation to actively pursue
her case. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634 n.10 (1962) (“[A] civil plaintiff may be
deprived of his claim if he failed to see to it that his lawyer acted with dispatch in the prosecution
of his lawsuit.”). Furthermore, “[a]ll attorneys representing parties to this litigation . . . bear the
responsibility to represent their individual client or clients.” PTO # 4 ¶ C. This includes awareness
of and good faith attempts at compliance with all PTOs and other court orders. PTO # 16—which
was jointly drafted by the leadership counsel of both parties—expressly states that failure to timely
submit a PPF could result in sanctions. The plaintiff nevertheless failed to comply. Although these
failures do not appear to be callous, the fact that they were blatant and in full knowledge of the
court’s orders and discovery deadlines leads me to weigh the first factor against the plaintiff. See
In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir.
2007) (“While not contumacious, perhaps, this is a blatant disregard for the deadlines and
procedure imposed by the court, [and t]herefore, we conclude that the [plaintiffs] did not act in
good faith.”).
The second factor—prejudice caused by noncompliance—also leans toward the order of
sanctions. Without a PPF, Boston Scientific is “unable to mount its defense because it [has] no
information about the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s injuries outside the allegations of the complaint.”
4
In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1234. Furthermore, because Ethicon has had to divert its
attention away from timely plaintiffs and onto an individual untimely plaintiff, the delay has
unfairly impacted the progress of the remaining plaintiffs in this MDL.
The adverse effect on the management of the MDL as a whole segues to the third factor,
the need to deter this sort of noncompliance. When parties fail to comply with deadlines provided
in pretrial orders, a domino effect develops, resulting in the disruption of other MDL cases. A
number of plaintiffs in this MDL have failed to supply a PPF. Consequently, the court expects to
have to evaluate and dispose of numerous motions similar to the one at bar, thereby directing its
time and resources to noncompliant plaintiffs at the expense of other plaintiffs in this MDL. This
cumbersome pattern goes against the purpose of MDL procedure, and I must deter any behavior
that would allow it to continue. See H.R. Rep. No. 90-1130, at 1 (1967), reprinted in 1968
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1898, 1901 (stating that the purpose of establishing MDLs is to “assure the uniform
and expeditious treatment” of the included cases).
Wilson’s fourth factor directs the court to consider the effectiveness of lesser sanctions.
Accordingly, rather than imposing monetary sanctions or immediate dismissal at this time, the
court opts for a lesser sanction and allows the plaintiff one more chance to comply with PTO # 16
subject to dismissal with prejudice upon motion by the defendant, if she fails to do so. This course
of action is consistent with PTO # 16, which warned plaintiffs of the possibility of dismissal upon
failure to submit a timely PPF. PTO # 16 ¶ 1.g (“If a plaintiff does not submit a PPF within the
time specified in this Order, defendants may move immediately to dismiss that plaintiff’s case
without first resorting to [the specified] deficiency cure procedures.”).
5
IV.
Conclusion
It is ORDERED that Boston Scientific’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff has 30 business days from the entry of this Order to
submit to Boston Scientific a completed PPF. Failure to comply with this Order will result in
dismissal with prejudice upon motion by the defendant. Finally, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s
counsel send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested, and
file a copy of the receipt.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
6
October 13, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?