Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV , District Judge . On May 26, 2016, this Court issued MDL Order No. 10, which required each plaintiff to complete a Product Identification Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 251 2). On May 26, 2016, this Court also issued MDL Order No. 11, which required each plaintiff to complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 252 14). That Order also required plaintiffs to include signed declarations and duly executed authorizations with their fact sheets. ( Id. ).
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV , District Judge . On May 26, 2016, this Court issued MDL Order No. 10, which required each plaintiff to complete a Product Identification Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 251 2). On May 26, 2016, this Court also issued MDL Order No. 11, which required each plaintiff to complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 252 14). That Order also required plaintiffs to include signed declarations and duly executed authorizations with their fact sheets. ( Id. ). F..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV, District Judge.
On May 26, 2016, this Court issued MDL Order No. 10, which required each plaintiff to complete a Product Identification Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 251 ¶ 2). On May 26, 2016, this Court also issued MDL Order No. 11, which required each plaintiff to complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet. (Docket No. 252 ¶ 14). That Order also required plaintiffs to include signed declarations and duly executed authorizations with their fact sheets. (Id.). Furthermore, the Court ordered that "questions on the fact sheets shall be treated as interrogatories under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and shall be subject to the rules applicable to such interrogatories . . . ." (Docket No. 251 ¶ 7; Docket No. 252 ¶ 17).
It appears that plaintiffs have failed to comply with MDL Orders No. 10 and 11. The Product Identification Fact Sheet was due on April 4, 2018, and the Plaintiff Fact Sheet was due on June 4, 2018. On May 1, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel requested a 60-day extension for both documents. GSK agreed to a 30-day extension, making the Product Identification Fact Sheet due May 4, 2018, and the Plaintiff Fact Sheet due July 4, 2018. To date, the requested documents have not been provided.
On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to withdraw because of plaintiffs' failure to assist in complying with their discovery obligations. The motion was granted on July 11, 2018, effective on August 8, 2018.
Therefore, GSK's motion to show cause is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause in writing on or before August 23, 2018, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery obligations. If good cause is not shown by that date, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
GSK has also requested that plaintiffs pay a sanction of $500 to cover costs incurred in bringing this motion. In general, an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) when parties have failed to provide required discovery. Because plaintiffs have offered no reason for their failure to timely provide discovery, to the extent plaintiffs submit the required documents, they are ORDERED to pay GSK $500 in reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this motion.
So Ordered.
