Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

October 10, 2013

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
v.
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. No. 3:13-cv-20026-DRH-PMF This Document Relates to: Bennett et al. MDL No. 2100

ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for case management. The instant action was transferred to this Court on October 3, 2013. On October 4, 2013, the plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, emailed the Court asking the Court to take special notice of the motions that are currently pending in this action (Doc. 34). The email included numerous arguments in support of the pending motions (Doc. 34). The email appeared to only be directed to the Court (there was no visible "CC" to defense counsel). That same day, the Court issued a minute order explaining that the plaintiff's email constituted inappropriate ex parte contact (Doc. 34). The Court further explained that any further communication with the Court should be made by motion, on the record, with copies to defendants (Doc. 34).

Since the Court's October 4, 2013 Order, the plaintiff has sent the Court at least 4 additional emails. The first email, sent to the Court on October 7, 2013, stated as follows:

I am writing to notify the court that I did not send an ex parte email to the Judge. I contact Sean Simmons with the same info and Sean has the very same information that I sent to Judge Herdon [sic]. I sent Sean Simmons a copy at the same time I sent the email to Judge Herdon [sic]. I have a proof of this to support my claim, and will be happy to provide it upon request or Sean Simmons can verify that I did in fact BCC him the email.
When I sent the request for special notice, I was under the impression that I had to notify the court before sending out new pleadings. That was the reason for my email and I have also sent the court, and will send the Defense counsel, the New pleading that I typed up after sending out the email, I sent to Judge Herndon.
I would also like to mention that, I notified Roger Denton and the other Co-Liaisons, that I sent the request notice to Judge Herdon [sic], if it please the court, all that I have said in the email can be verified and I will be happy to provide the info upon request.
For future reference, I have established with Defense Counsel Sean Simmons his permission to send and receive emails between the two of us. So just because you do not see their info in the email does not mean that I did not contact them.

(Email to the Court from Maryam T. Bennett dated October 7, 2013).

The October 7th email was followed with several additional emails attaching "proof" that the plaintiff did not engage in improper ex parte communication with the Court. Then on October 8, 2013, the plaintiff emailed the Court copies of certain pending motions and informed the Court regarding her recent contact with the JPML (Email to the Court from Maryam T. Bennett dated October 8, 2013). The plaintiff's continued contact with the Court via email demonstrates that the plaintiff clearly did not understand this Court's October 7th Order. Accordingly, the Court is entering this order.

The plaintiff's direct communications with this Court via email are improper. This is so regardless of any agreement the plaintiff claims to have reached with defense counsel and regardless of whether the plaintiff is sending copies of her email communications to defense counsel. The plaintiff cannot simply make up her own rules. The plaintiff has elected to proceed in this case pro se. As a pro se plaintiff, she has a duty to pursue her action in a manner that complies with the federal rules and with the local rules of this Court. Thus, the plaintiff MUST become familiar with the federal rules of civil procedure and with the rules of this Court. The Court notes a few relevant rules below.

The plaintiff's emails to this Court amount to asking the Court to take action, in one way or another, on her case. Any such request should not be made by email to the Court. Rather, any such request must be FILED as a MOTION in the case and must include an appropriate certificate of service.

Electronic Filing Rule 1, provides guidance regarding the manner in which a pro se plaintiff should file a motion:

• Electronic Filing Rules, Available at ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.