West v. TEI Biosciences, 2:15-cv-07893

Plaintiff West filed a short-form complaint in the MDL concerning Boston Scientific’s transvaginal mesh (MDL No. 2326); PTO No. 16 requires each plaintiff to submit a Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF) within 60 days.
West failed to submit any PPF; as of the order entry she was more than 207 days late.
Boston Scientific moved to dismiss and seek sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for failure to comply with PTO No. 16; West did not respond to the motion.
The court recognizes the special administrative burdens of MDLs (over 18,000 BSC cases) and the importance of uniform compliance with pretrial orders.
Applying the Fourth Circuit’s four-factor test for Rule 37 sanctions, the court found indicia against the plaintiff (lack of contact with counsel and blatant noncompliance), prejudice to defendant and MDL management, and a need to deter similar failures.
Instead of dismissing immediately or imposing monetary sanctions, the court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered West to submit a completed PPF within 30 business days and required counsel to serve the order on the plaintiff by certified mail; failure to comply will permit dismissal on defendant’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal or sanctions are appropriate for failure to submit PPF under PTO No. 16	(No response filed)	West failed to comply with PTO No. 16; dismissal or sanctions justified under Rule 37	Denied dismissal now; granted one final 30-business-day period to submit PPF, failure permits dismissal on defendant’s motion
Whether plaintiff acted in bad faith for purposes of Rule 37	(No evidence presented)	Noncompliance and lack of contact show failure to prosecute and disregard of court orders	Court weighs bad-faith factor against plaintiff though not conclusively contumacious
Whether defendant was prejudiced by noncompliance	N/A	Without PPF defendant cannot defend and MDL administration is prejudiced	Court finds prejudice to defendant and MDL management, favoring sanctioning power
Appropriate severity of sanction in MDL context	N/A	Monetary or dismissal sanctions appropriate to deter noncompliance	Court selects a less drastic, administrable sanction (final compliance deadline) given MDL realities

Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1989) (sets four-factor test for imposing harsh Rule 37 sanctions)
Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1977) (authorizes consideration of sanctions factors applied with Richards)
In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (discusses MDL management, need for uniform pretrial orders, and PPF-like submissions)
Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2014) (acknowledges greater deference to MDL judges in enforcing deadlines, including dismissal)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (party may be penalized for failing to ensure counsel prosecutes case diligently)
In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2007) (blatant disregard for court-imposed deadlines supports adverse finding on good-faith factor)