Madsen v. Cook Incorporated et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Directing that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to attend the Mandatory Status Hearing as directed in PTO # 85, and for failure to respond to my show cause order as directed; this action is STRICKEN from the docket, and any motions pending in this case at this time are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 9/28/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: COOK MEDICAL, INC. PELVIC REPAIR
SYSTEMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2440
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Madsen v. Cook Incorporated, et al.
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1600
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 22, 2018, the court conducted a Mandatory Status Hearing in
plaintiff’s case against defendants Cook Incorporated, Cook Biotech, Inc., and Cook
Medical, Inc. (the “Cook defendants”). When the plaintiff did not appear in person at
the hearing as required by Order entered on July 27, 2018, the court directed the
plaintiff to show cause on or before September 22, 2018, why the case should not be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [ECF No. 17]. Having failed to show cause, and for the reasons stated
below, the court DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE.
I.
Background
On July 27, 2018, I entered Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 85 directing the parties
to appear for a Mandatory Status Hearing on August 22, 2018. [ECF No. 15]. I stated
in the PTO that counsel for plaintiff(s) and defendants must appear in person and be
prepared to explain why, despite representations that all cases in this MDL were
resolved, the cases had not been dismissed. I warned that failure to attend this
hearing will result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the case with
prejudice.
Despite this warning, the plaintiff failed to comply with the above order by
failing to appear in person at the Mandatory Status Hearing as directed. Nothing in
the record suggests that the plaintiff believed in good faith that she was relieved from
the obligation to appear.
Thereafter, by Order entered August 22, 2018, the court directed the plaintiff
to show cause justifying the failure to comply with my previous PTO. [ECF No. 17].
In the same Order, I warned that the failure to show cause on or before September
22, 2018, would result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with prejudice. Nonetheless, the plaintiff again did
not comply with my Order.
II.
Legal Standard
Rule 16(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to issue
orders regarding pretrial conferences for the purpose of facilitating settlement. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5). Rule 16(f) provides a court may issue any just order, including
those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii) if a party fails to appear at a pretrial
conference or fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. Id. 16(a)(5), (f). Rule
37(b)(2), in turn, sets forth a list of sanctions available when a party fails to comply
with a court order, including “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.”
2
Id. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Before levying dismissal or default as a sanction under Rule 37, a
court generally 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 cognizant of the realities of
multidistrict litigation and the unique problems an MDL judge faces. Specifically,
when handling six MDLs, 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 settlement conferences and
strictly adhere to those rules, with the purpose of ensuring that pretrial litigation
flows as smoothly and efficiently as possible. See id. at 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,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). In turn, counsel
3
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 # 85 required the plaintiff to attend the Mandatory Status Hearing and
explicitly stated: “[f]ailure to attend this hearing will result in sanctions, up to and
including dismissal of plaintiff’s case with prejudice.” Likewise, the order entered on
August 22, 2018, warned that the failure to show cause on or before September 22,
2018, would result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure with prejudice.
Applying the Wilson factors to these facts and bearing in mind the unique
context of multidistrict litigation, I conclude that sanctions under Rule 37 are
justified.
The first factor—bad faith—is difficult to ascertain given that the plaintiff was
not present in court and did not respond to the show cause order entered on August
4
22, 2018. While I am cognizant of the difficulties that are presented by the plaintiff
not being represented by counsel, those difficulties do not excuse the plaintiff from
the obligation to pursue her case actively. 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.”). Simply
stated, a pro se litigant is not immune from sanctions for failure to comply with court
orders. “Pro se litigants are entitled to some deference from courts. But they as well
as other litigants are subject to the time requirements and respect for court orders
without which effective judicial administration would be impossible.” Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted). This court spent
resources attempting to notify the plaintiff of the Mandatory Status Hearing and
provided a recourse to the imposition of sanctions upon a showing of good cause.
Having failed to comply with my orders, I must weigh the first factor against the
plaintiff.
The second factor—prejudice caused by noncompliance—also leans toward an
order for sanctions. The plaintiff had nearly a month’s notice of the Mandatory Status
Hearing, yet failed to appear or communicate any inability to attend the Mandatory
Status Conference. The Cook defendants, having no indication that the plaintiff
would fail to attend, likely spent time preparing for the Mandatory Status
Conference. Moreover, the Cook defendants expended substantial resources for their
counsel to travel to and attend the Mandatory Status Hearing.
5
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. In short, I have had to direct my time and resources
to noncompliant plaintiffs at the expense of compliant plaintiffs in this MDL. This
cumbersome pattern goes against the purpose of MDL procedures, 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).
Last, Wilson’s fourth factor directs the court to consider the effectiveness of
lesser sanctions. In recognition of this duty, the court gave the plaintiff one final
chance to justify the failure to comply with the directives of this court by responding
to the show cause order. Having failed to do so – or even respond – the plaintiff has
now blatantly disregarded two consecutive orders, each warning that a failure to
comply may result in the dismissal of this case. In light of the evidence, I find that
dismissal is now appropriate, as there is no reason to believe that a lesser sanction
would be effective. In sum, the court is left with little alternative.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
failure to attend the Mandatory Status Hearing as directed in PTO # 85, and for
failure to respond to my show cause order as directed. It is further ORDERED that
6
this action is STRICKEN from the docket, and any motions pending in this case at
this time are DENIED AS MOOT.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: September 28, 2018
7
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?