McNish v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice or For Other Relief) The 9 MOTION by Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson to Dismiss With Prejudice or for Other Relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the plaintiff has 30 business days from the entry of this Order to pay Ethicon $1000 as minimal partial compensation for the reasonable expenses caused by the plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery; in the event that the plaintiffs do not provide adequate or timely payment, the court will consider ordering a show-cause hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, upon motion by the defendants; 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. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/20/2017. (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:
ETHICON, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2327
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Esther McNish v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03062
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice or
For Other Relief)
Pending before the court is Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s (collectively “Ethicon”)
Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice or for Other Relief 9 (“Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 9]. The
plaintiff has responded to the motion [ECF No. 16] and Ethicon has replied [ECF No. 17], making
it ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, Ethicon’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
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 over 70,000 cases currently
pending, approximately 30,000 of which are in the Ethicon, Inc. MDL, MDL 2327. 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”) # 17, for example, ensures that
Ethicon receives the plaintiff-specific information necessary to defend the cases against it. Under
PTO # 17, each plaintiff in this MDL must submit a Plaintiff Profile Form (“PPF”) to act as
interrogatory answers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and responses to requests for
production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. (See PTO # 17, In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic
Repair System Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:12-md-2327, entered Oct. 4, 2012, available at
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/ethicon/orders.html). Each plaintiff must submit a PPF
within 60 days of filing a Short Form Complaint. (Id. ¶ 1b). Failure to do so subjects the plaintiff
“to sanctions, to be determined by the court, upon motion of the defendants.” (Id. ¶ 1i). The parties
jointly drafted the requirements for PTO # 17, and I entered it as applicable to every one of the
thousands of cases in this MDL.
Here, the plaintiff filed her complaint on May 26, 2017, and her PPF was due to Ethicon
by July 25, 2017. The plaintiff did not submit a PPF during this time period. Indeed, the plaintiff
did not submit a PPF until Ethicon filed the instant motion, making the PPF more than 65 days
late. Ethicon asks the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case or, alternatively, sanction the plaintiff a
reasonable monetary penalty. The plaintiff, while admitting that the PPF was untimely, insists that
because the discovery deficiency has been cured and there was no bad faith, sanctions are not
appropriate.
II.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides that a court may issue “just orders” when
a party fails to provide or permit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). In the MDL world, this
authority has particular significance. An MDL judge bears the “enormous” task of “mov[ing]
thousands of cases toward resolution on the merits while at the same time respecting their
individuality,” and to carry out this task in a smooth and efficient manner, the judge must establish
and, more importantly, enforce rules for discovery. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig.,
2
460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 37(b)(2) supplies the tool for this enforcement, allowing
a judge to impose sanctions when a party fails to comply with the court’s discovery orders. See id.
at 1232 (“[A] willingness to resort to sanctions, sua sponte if necessary, may ensure compliance
with the [discovery] management program.” (internal citation omitted)); 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.”).1
III.
Discussion
The circumstances of this case lead me to impose the sanction provided in Rule
37(b)(2)(C), which requires the disobeying party to pay “the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, caused by the [discovery] failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). The plaintiff
has not provided substantial justification for her failure to timely submit to discovery. Furthermore,
there are no circumstances that make this sanction unjust. Although the discovery violation has
since been cured, it nevertheless resulted in litigation expenses for Ethicon. Applying Rule
37(b)(2)(C) ensures that the disobeying party, rather than the innocent party, bears those costs.
Accordingly, Ethicon’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part in regard to dismissing the
plaintiffs’ claim and GRANTED in part to the extent that it seeks the payment of reasonable
expenses.
The plaintiff’s contention that the court must apply the Wilson factors before ordering monetary sanctions is
inaccurate. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed courts to consider the Wilson factors in the case of
“extreme sanction[s],” such as dismissal or judgment by default, where the “district court’s desire to enforce its
discovery orders is confronted head-on by the party’s rights to a trial by jury and a fair day in court.” Mut. Fed. Sav.
& Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Associates, Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 503–06 (4th Cir. 1977)). The minor sanction ultimately ordered in this case, partial compensation
of the expenses caused by the plaintiff’s discovery violation, does not raise these concerns. Therefore, I do not find it
necessary to review the Wilson factors.
1
3
To bring this Motion for Sanctions, Ethicon expended time and money identifying the
plaintiff as one of the non-compliant plaintiffs; assessing the effect of their discovery violations;
drafting a motion to dismiss or for sanctions; serving the motion; and replying to the plaintiff’s
brief in opposition. All knowledgeable MDL counsel would consider these efforts, which could
have been avoided had the plaintiff followed the court’s order, to be worth $1000 at the least.
Based on my understanding of the economic and administrative realities of multidistrict litigation,
I conclude that a minimal representative valuation of Ethicon’s expenses is $1000.
IV.
Conclusion
It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff has 30 business days from the entry of this
Order to pay Ethicon $1000 as minimal partial compensation for the reasonable expenses caused
by the plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery.2 In the event that the plaintiffs do not provide
adequate or timely payment, the court will consider ordering a show-cause hearing in Charleston,
West Virginia, upon motion by the defendants. It is further ORDERED that Ethicon’s Motion for
Sanctions [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 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: October 19, 2017
2
The court directs Ethicon to communicate with plaintiffs’ leadership regarding payment instructions.
4
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?