Steelman v. Boston Scientific Corporation
2:13-cv-07842
S.D.W. VaApr 19, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Steelman filed a Short Form Complaint in the MDL for Boston Scientific pelvic mesh cases; PTO #16 required a completed Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF) within 60 days.
- Steelman failed to submit any PPF; as of the order entry date the PPF was over 1,045 days late.
- BSC moved to dismiss and for monetary sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for failure to comply with the court's PTO. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
- The court emphasizes MDL management concerns: PTOs are collectively drafted, and strict adherence is required to allow efficient handling of thousands of cases.
- Applying the Fourth Circuit’s four-factor test for harsh discovery sanctions, the court found facts weighing against the plaintiff on bad faith, prejudice to defendant, and need for deterrence, but concluded lesser sanctions should be tried first.
- Court denied immediate dismissal but ordered Steelman to submit a completed PPF within 30 business days; failure to comply will permit dismissal on defendant’s motion. Counsel must mail the order to the plaintiff by certified mail and file the receipt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to comply with PTO #16 (PPF requirement) | (No response filed) | Steelman’s failure to submit a PPF justifies dismissal and monetary sanctions under Rule 37 | Denied dismissal now; gave final 30-business-day cure period, with dismissal available if noncompliant |
| Whether plaintiff acted in bad faith for Wilson factors | Counsel lacked recent contact with Steelman; no explanation provided | Argues blatant disregard for PTO deadlines shows lack of good-faith compliance | Court weighed this factor against plaintiff but stopped short of finding contumacious bad faith |
| Whether defendant suffered prejudice from missing PPF | N/A | Without a PPF BSC cannot obtain necessary plaintiff-specific facts and defense is prejudiced; MDL management burden increases | Court found prejudice to BSC and MDL administration, favoring sanctions generally |
| Appropriate sanction level under Rule 37 | N/A | Dismissal or monetary sanctions necessary to deter noncompliance and to protect MDL schedule | Court found lesser sanction (final opportunity to comply) appropriate and effective given MDL realities |
Key Cases Cited
- Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.) (sets four-factor test for imposing dismissal/default sanctions)
- Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir.) (discusses factors for discovery sanctions)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.) (MDL management and use of standardized plaintiff forms)
- Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.) (MDL judges have greater discretion to enforce deadlines and impose dismissal)
- In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir.) (blatant disregard for court deadlines supports adverse inference on good faith)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S.) (plaintiff bears responsibility for ensuring counsel prosecutes the case; failure can lead to dismissal)