UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 28, 2012
IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
This Document Relates to: Tiffani Brown v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12012-DRH-PMF
Jodie Coston and Mike Coston v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12605-DRH-PMF
Melindy Crittenden and James Crittenden v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20034-DRH-PMF
Lindsey Cross v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11643-DRH-PMF
Leanne Rosenthal v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12882-DRH-PMF
Kimberly Wilson v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12906-DRH-PMF
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on the Bayer Defendants' motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 ("CMO 12"),*fn1 for an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims in the above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS") obligations.*fn2
Under Section C of CMO 12, each Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants with a completed PFS, including a signed Declaration, executed record release Authorizations, and copies of all documents subject to the requests for production contained in the PFS which are in the possession of Plaintiff. Section B of CMO 12 further provides that a completed PFS is due "45 days from the date of service of the first answer to her Complaint or the docketing of her case in this MDL, or 45 days from the date of this Order, whichever is later."
Accordingly, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have served completed PFSs on or before May 21, 2011. See 3:10-cv-12012 Doc. 6-1.*fn3 Bayer contends that although the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters have served PFSs, each PFS is still delinquent pursuant to CMO 12. For example, none of the Plaintiffs has submitted all of the required authorizations. In addition, Bayer states, many of the Plaintiffs did not sign the PFS declaration or provide responsive and substantially complete answers to PFS questions regarding personal and family medical history. Instead, Plaintiffs "responded" to these questions by stating "see medical records" or "plaintiff will supplement." See 3:10-cv-12012 Doc. 6-1. Per Section E of CMO 12, Bayer notified each Plaintiff that her PFS was not "substantially complete" as required by CMO 12. See 3:10- cv-12012 Doc. 6-2. Plaintiffs' completed PFSs are months overdue.
Under Section E of CMO 12, plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Bayer's motion, in this case 14 days from January 26, 2012, to file a response either certifying that they served upon defendants and defendants received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate documentation of receipt or an opposition to defendant's motion.*fn4
To date, none of the plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions has filed a response. Because the Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases have failed to respond to Bayer's allegations, the Court finds that these plaintiffs have failed to comply with their PFS obligations under CMO 12. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
x The above captioned member actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 12.
x Further, the Court reminds plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants' motion.
David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
2012.02.28 17:07:43 -06'00'