Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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, S.D. Illinois

February 26, 2014

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., DRH-PMF This Document Relates to Michele Greenstein

ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Bayer's motion to show cause why the claims of the above captioned plaintiff should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the document preservation requirements in Case Management Order Number 61 ("CMO 61") (MDL 2100 Doc. 2740). Specifically, Bayer's motion to show cause relates to the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 61 ยง II.A.[1] Bayer's motion to show cause seeks dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in accord with the provisions of Section II.E. of CMO 61.[2]

Pursuant to Section II.E. of CMO 61, the plaintiff had 30 days to respond to Bayer's motion to show cause. The plaintiff did not file any response.

At the expiration of the responsive pleading time, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg.[3] Special Master Saltzburg reviewed the pleadings and the requirements of CMO 61 and filed a report and recommendation. Special Master Saltzburg found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 61 and recommended that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice in accord with the requirements of CMO 61.

The parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special Master Saltzburg's report and recommendation. The 14 day deadline for responding or objecting to the Special Master's report has expired. The plaintiff has not responded or objected in any way.

Upon consideration of Bayer's motion to dismiss, the Special Master's report and recommendation, and the requirements of CMO 61, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to comply with CMO 61. Therefore, the plaintiff's claims are subject to with prejudice dismissal. The Court adopts Special Master Saltzburg's report and recommendation as to this plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 61.

Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment reflecting the same.

SO ORDERED:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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