Landry v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:14-cv-10483

Plaintiff Landry filed a short-form complaint in MDL No. 2326 (Boston Scientific pelvic mesh litigation) and was required by Pretrial Order (PTO) No. 16 to submit a Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF) within 60 days.
Landry failed to submit any PPF; at the time of the order the PPF was over 782 days late.
BSC moved to dismiss Landry’s case and seek monetary sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for failure to comply with the PTO.
Landry’s counsel explained the deficiency resulted from counsel’s inability to contact Ms. Landry despite multiple attempts.
The court applied the Fourth Circuit’s four-factor test for discovery sanctions (bad faith, prejudice, need for deterrence, availability of lesser sanctions) in the MDL context and weighed MDL case-management realities in deciding an appropriate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal or other Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate for failing to submit the PPF required by PTO No. 16	Landry: counsel could not reach the client despite multiple attempts; failure to provide PPF was not sanctionable conduct warranting dismissal	BSC: plaintiff’s total failure to provide PPF forecloses BSC’s ability to defend and warrants dismissal or monetary sanctions	Court: Denied immediate dismissal; found factors weigh for sanctioning but granted one final opportunity—PPF due in 30 business days, failure to comply permits dismissal on defendant’s motion
Whether less-drastic sanctions are practicable in this MDL	Landry: lesser individualized remedies should be considered	BSC: MDL scale makes individualized deficiency cures impracticable; dismissal appropriate	Court: Less-drastic individualized sanctions are impracticable given MDL administrative realities; final-chance conditional dismissal is a just and effective remedy

Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.) (four-factor test for discovery sanctions)
Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir.) (framework for assessing dismissal and other harsh sanctions)
In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.) (MDL case-management principles and use of uniform plaintiff profile forms)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S.) (plaintiff’s responsibility for counsel’s prosecution of suit)
In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir.) (failure to follow court-imposed MDL deadlines can demonstrate lack of good faith)
Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.) (MDL judges have greater discretion to create and enforce deadlines, including dismissal)