Leonard v. Boston Scientific Corporation
2:13-cv-31949
S.D.W. VaApr 19, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs filed a short-form complaint in the MDL against Boston Scientific (BSC) related to transvaginal mesh and failed to submit the required Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF) under PTO #16.
- PTO #16 required a PPF within 60 days of filing and made failure subject to sanctions, including possible dismissal.
- Plaintiffs’ PPF was over 800 days late when BSC moved to dismiss and seek monetary sanctions; plaintiffs did not respond to the motion and counsel reported loss of contact with the plaintiff.
- The MDL (MDL 2326) contains over 19,000 BSC cases; the court emphasized the need for firm, uniform case-management rules to process thousands of coordinated cases.
- The court applied the four-factor test for dismissal/sanctions derived from the Fourth Circuit (Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc. / Wilson factors) while accounting for MDL management realities.
- Outcome: the court denied dismissal and monetary sanctions, but ordered plaintiffs to submit a completed PPF within 30 business days and required counsel to serve the plaintiff by certified mail; failure to comply would permit dismissal upon defendant’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal or sanctions are warranted for failure to submit PPF under PTO #16 | No response in the record; counsel has lost contact with plaintiff | Move to dismiss or impose monetary/other sanctions for complete noncompliance | Denied dismissal now; final opportunity to comply within 30 business days or dismissal on defendant’s motion |
| Whether plaintiffs acted in bad faith for Wilson factors | Implied lack of intent (no formal response) | Failure to comply despite clear notice and PTO obligations shows culpability | Court weighed factors: some evidence against plaintiffs (blatant disregard) but not conclusive bad faith |
| Prejudice and need for deterrence in an MDL context | No reply; cannot contest prejudice | Lack of PPF prejudices defendant’s ability to defend and disrupts MDL case management; deterrence needed | Court found prejudice and deterrence factors favor sanctions, given effect on MDL administration |
| Appropriateness/effectiveness of lesser sanctions versus dismissal | (No specific alternative proposed by plaintiff) | Dismissal or monetary sanctions available; alternatives under Rule 37(i–iv) listed | Court held lesser, administrable remedy appropriate: final cure period; individualized lesser sanctions impracticable across MDL |
Key Cases Cited
- Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.) (sets four-factor test for dismissal/sanctions)
- Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir.) (discusses standards for dismissal as discovery sanction)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.) (MDL management principles; use of case-specific forms to enable defense)
- Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.) (gives MDL judges greater discretion to enforce deadlines and dismiss noncompliant cases)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S.) (a plaintiff may lose claim when failing to insure counsel prosecutes case diligently)
- In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir.) (failure to follow court-imposed deadlines can support finding of lack of good faith)