ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to vacate (Doc. 12) the Court's order dismissing the above captioned case with prejudice (Doc. 10). Defendant, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. (BIPI) has responded (Doc. 13). For the reasons discussed herein, the motion to vacate (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2014 the Court announced a Settlement Program, created by a private Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA"), negotiated between the Pradaxa MDL Plaintiffs' Leadership Counsel and the Boehringer Defendants (12-2385 Doc. 515). The Settlement Program has resolved thousands of Pradaxa personal injury claims. Despite the high rate of participation in the Settlement Program, some claims remained unresolved, either because the claimants elected not to participate in the Settlement Program or filed suit after the Settlement Program was announced and were therefore not eligible to participate in the Settlement Program.1 Case Management Order Number 78 is a Lone Pine Order2 adopted by the Court for the purpose of resolving the claims of these two categories of claimants.3 Case Management Order Number 78 provided that subject plaintiffs were required to provide additional information to the defendants or risk having their cases dismissed with prejudice.
The above captioned action was transferred into MDL 2385 prior to the entry of CMO 78. Accordingly, plaintiff was required to opt-in to the Settlement Program, request an extension for more time to opt-in, or abide by the requirements of CMO 78. Plaintiff did not seek an extension or opt in to the settlement by July 9, 2014 ("Opt-In Deadline") and, as a result, this case became subject to the requirements of CMO 78. The above captioned plaintiff's CMO 78 obligations and deadlines were as follows:
July 19, 2014 Sections I.A. and B.: deadline to send written notices of records preservation to applicable pharmacies and healthcare providers.
July 24, 2014 Section II. A-C.: deadline to produce (1) Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS"), (2) all pharmacy records of for five year period prior to date of alleged injury to present; (3) all medical records related to Plaintiff from all healthcare providers listed in PFS from five years prior to date of alleged injury to present, and (4) an affidavit attesting that all records have been collected from all pharmacies and healthcare providers and have been produced according to CMO 78.
July 29, 2014 Section I.C: deadline to certify to defendant that all records preservation notices were sent and provide copies.
August 8, 2014 Section II. D. and E.: deadline to produce expert reports on general and specific causation.
Plaintiff did not produce any of the required information or documents by the CMO 78 deadlines.
Due to the plaintiff's failure to file an Initial Claimant Certification Form as required by CMO 76,4 discovery of the plaintiff's lack of compliance was delayed.5 Once the issue was discovered, on October 29, 2014, BIPI provided plaintiff with a deficiency notice. Pursuant to CMO 78, after receipt of the notice, the plaintiff had 14 days to cure the identified Section I deficiencies and 20 days to cure the identified Section II and III deficiencies. The Cure Period is the only extension permitted under CMO 78.6
The plaintiff did not respond to BIPI's deficiency letter and did not provide the required information and documents by the CMO 78 cure deadlines. Accordingly, in accord with CMO 78, BIPI filed a Motion to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice." Pursuant to CMO 78, the plaintiff had 20 days to respond to the motion and show good cause why the case should not be dismissed. CMO 78 further provided that "[a]ny failure to respond to the Motion within the specified period shall lead to dismissal of the case with prejudice." (12-2385 Doc. 519 §§ I.D., H.G.).7
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to show cause and, on December 16, 2014, the action was dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 10). Plaintiff now asks the Court, 8 months following the dismissal, to vacate the Order of Dismissal, reinstate the case, and allow the plaintiff an unspecified extension in which to comply with CMO 78.
III. ANALYSIS
Despite court filings and publicly available information, plaintiff's counsel states that he first discovered BIPI's motion to show cause (filed November 20, 2014) and the Court's order of dismissal with prejudice (entered December 16, 2014) on June 17, 2015. Counsel then waited 42 days (after discovering the case had been dismissed) to file the present motion to vacate. Counsel asks the Court to vacate the order of dismissal, reinstate the case, and give the plaintiff even more time to comply with CMO 78.
Counsel bases the motion to vacate on a series of internal administrative errors, including but not limited to the following:
1. Failure to follow Fichera & Miller internal policy regarding electronic notifications: Alex Hattimer of the law firm Fichera & Miller, P.C. was plaintiff's original attorney of record. Fichera & Miller has an internal policy requiring attorneys to utilize the firm's general email box of info@fichermiller.com for purposes of notice, so that all documents and communications are accessible to assistants, paralegals and attorneys of the firm. Mr. Hattimer failed to follow this policy. Instead, Mr. Hattimer registered for CMECF using his personal email account at Fichera & Miller. Accordingly, when Mr. Hattimer left Fichera & Miller, in the fall of 2013, electronic notifications generated by the Court's CM/ECF system were being sent to Mr. Hattimer's personal email account at the firm and not the firm's general email account. The Court further notes that after Mr. Hattimer left the firm, the action was assigned to Joseph Lupinacci. Joseph Lupinacci never entered his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.8 In February 2014, Joseph Lupinacci left the firm and Jack Marshall took over responsibility for the case. Jack Marshall never entered an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. In February 2015, Jack Marshall left the firm and the matter was reassigned to partners Dominic Fichera and Howard Miller. Mr. Fichera and Mr. Miller never entered an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court notes that Mr. Miller filed the motion to vacate on behalf of the plaintiff on July 29, 2015 and was added to the docket at that time. However, Mr. Miller has never entered an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff as required under S.D. of Ill. Local Rule 83.1(f). Further, the Court notes that, to date, Mr. Hattimer is still listed as an attorney of record for the plaintiff (and through July 29, 2015, despite having left the firm in 2013, remained the only attorney of record for the plaintiff).
2. Paralegal Suzie Florez left the firm: On October 29, 2014, defendant sent a letter to attorney Hattimer via US Mail and electronic mail. Upon receiving a delivery failure notice, defendant faxed a copy of the letter to plaintiff's counsel's office. Paralegal Florez received the letter and contacted defense counsel via email. Paralegal Florez indicated as follows: (1) Howard Miller and Jack Marshall were now handling the file; (2) all email correspondence should be sent to the firm's general email account; and (3) she would update the information with the Court (Doc. 12-3). Plaintiff's counsel's information was not updated on CM/ECF as indicated by Ms. Florez. Shortly thereafter, paralegal Florez left the firm. Notably, the email sent by Ms. Florez, was also sent to attorney Jack Marshall and to the firm's general email account. Accordingly, Jack Marshall and employees with access to the general email account had notice of the defendant's deficiency letter and of the need to provide the Court with updated information. Regardless, the updated information was not provided to the Court and counsel took no action with regard to the deficiency notice.
3. Blocked Emails: According to counsel, in June 2015, counsel discovered "that due to an internal email problem (instead of "re-directing" the emails from CM/ECF, the sender was "blocked), none of the electronic pleadings, notices or orders in this matter were being received or viewed by any Fichera & Miller attorneys or paralegals.
Counsel contends that as a result of the above, it was not aware of the defendant's motion to show cause (Doc. 12) and the Court's order of dismissal with prejudice (Doc. 10). BIPI notes, as does the Court, that plaintiff's motion fails to explain the following: (1) Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with CMO 78; (2) plaintiff's failure to respond to the CMO 78 deficiency letter; (3) plaintiff's failure to timely cure the CMO 78 deficiencies; and (4) plaintiff's failure to respond to BIPI's motion to show cause, which — in addition to being filed via CM/ECF — was also served via email to the email address specifically requested by plaintiff's counsel: info@ficheramiller.com.9
Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (b)(6), which permit a Court to relieve a party from a final judgment on the basis of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" ((b)(1)) or "any other reason that justifies relief" ((b)(6)). The plaintiff has not stated grounds that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b). The explanations provided by counsel amount to attorney inattentiveness to litigation. None of the attorneys responsible for the plaintiff's case after Mr. Hattimer left the firm, filed a written entry of appearance with the Court or a motion to substitute counsel of record — a simple step that would have alleviated the current predicament. In addition, it is apparent that the string of attorneys responsible for the above captioned case did not regularly review the above captioned docket or the related Master Docket for relevant filings.10 As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "Although attorney carelessness can constitute `excusable neglect' under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney's somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's denial of Rule 60(b) motion to vacate dismissal and quoting Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004)).
Moreover, even if the plaintiff had timely responded to the motion to show cause, the action still would have been subject to dismissal with prejudice. Pursuant to CMO 78, once a CMO 78 show cause motion has been filed, the plaintiff may only avoid dismissal by a showing of good cause. The information presented by counsel with regard to failure to comply with CMO 78 does not amount to good cause. See Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered v. Imperial Adjusters, Inc., 28 F.3d 42, 46 (7th Cir. 1994) (rejecting as good cause an attorney's difficulties communicating with his client); Connecticut Nat. Mortg. Co. v. Brandstatter 897 F.2d 883, 884-885 (7th Cir. 1990) (rejecting as good cause "routine back-office problems"). See also this Court's previous orders in the following actions: (1) Baker v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-50002, S.D. Ill., Doc. 9 (January 8, 2015) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice) (rejecting the plaintiff's arguments of good faith and lack of prejudice to BIPI with regard to CMO 78); (2) Henderson v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. Inc., et. al., 3:15-px-230, S.D. Ill., Doc. 8 (June 19, 2015) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice) (granting dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 78); (3) Colletta v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:12-cv-60081, S.D. Ill., Doc. 10, pp. 3-4, fn. 2 (December 16, 2014) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice noting the importance of strict compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, including CMO 78); (4) Wiram v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-50130, S.D. Ill., Doc. 6, p. 2 (October 30, 2014) (Order Denying Motion for Extension) ("Plaintiffs are reminded that their action will be subject to dismissal WITH prejudice in accord with the provisions of CMO 78 for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 78"); (5) Patterson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-50277, S.D. Ill., Doc. 4 (October 30, 2014) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice relating to nine individual cases in which plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 78); (6) Vicari v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-60022, S.D. Ill., Doc. 13 (November 14, 2014) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice for failing to provide expert reports that met the CMO 78 requirements); (7) Radzevich v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-60041, S.D. Ill., Doc 14 (March 27, 2015) (Order of Dismissal with Prejudice); Jones v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. Inc., et al., 3:14-cv-50018, S.D. Ill., Doc. 6 (June 19, 2015) (Order of Dismissal With Prejudice for failure to timely cure CMO 78 deficiencies).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the motion to vacate (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
