%PDF-1.3 %% %%Page: 1 1 4 0 obj << /Length 5 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 225.408 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (Volume 1 of 2) Tj /F1 13 Tf 100 Tz -137.2685 -35.1 Td 1.3 Tw (FOR PUBLICATION) Tj /F1 15 Tf 100 Tz -78.2395 -24 Td 1.5 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj 43.47 -23.1 Td (FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.37 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (In re: P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( \(PPA\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RODUCTS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (IABILITY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,*) Tj 0 -18 Td 173 0 Td 42.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35370) Tj -215.07 -11.4 Td (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HANTELL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LLEN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, on behalf of) Tj 226.734 -6.6 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -226.734 -6.6 Td (Allen, Vera, et al.,*) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 181.62 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.382 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (MD-01-01407-BJR*) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -127.35 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 10.848 -18 Td (v.) Tj -82.5 -18 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NDERSON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (R) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (., et al.,*) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35562) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.382 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (MD-01-01407-BJR*) Tj -199.002 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -108.15 m 183.8 -108.15 l s .5 w 0 -159.95 m 173 -159.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -177.1 m 186.6 -116 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -255.2 m 186.6 -194.1 l s .9 w 0 -262.15 m 183.3 -262.15 l s .9 w 0 -280.15 m 183.8 -280.15 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -317.9 m 186.6 -288 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -364.8 m 186.6 -334.9 l s .9 w 0 -371.75 m 183.3 -371.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 245.7 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td .48 Tw (*A complete list of the appellants and appellees with district court case) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .75 Tw (numbers is set forth in a separate, unpublished order filed contemporane-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.05 Tw (ously with this opinion. Certain appellants on that list were dismissed in) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .6 Tw (this court's orders filed on January 14, 2005, and February 21, 2006. The) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.79 Tw (names of some of the dismissed appellants who were lead plaintiffs in) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (multi-plaintiff cases have been retained on the caption for reference pur-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td (poses only. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 245.7 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 292.25 -664.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10293) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 5 0 obj 4114 endobj 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 4 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 2 2 12 0 obj << /Length 13 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ESLIE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (CKEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,*) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35588) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.382 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (MD-01-01407-BJR*) Tj -199.002 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RIDGETT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RRINGTON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,*) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35611) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.382 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (MD-01-01407-BJR*) Tj -199.002 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ALVIN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (C) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RIGGS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,*) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35614) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 18.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-03-03428-BJR*) Tj -200.334 -11.4 Td (D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ELACO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OMPANY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ETTY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LINTON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,*) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35621) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.382 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (MD-01-01407-BJR*) Tj -199.002 -11.4 Td (D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ELACO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OMPANY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -12.75 m 183.8 -12.75 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -50.5 m 186.6 -20.6 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -97.4 m 186.6 -67.5 l s .9 w 0 -104.35 m 183.3 -104.35 l s .9 w 0 -122.35 m 183.8 -122.35 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -160.1 m 186.6 -130.2 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -207 m 186.6 -177.1 l s .9 w 0 -213.95 m 183.3 -213.95 l s .9 w 0 -231.95 m 183.8 -231.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -269.7 m 186.6 -239.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -316.6 m 186.6 -286.7 l s .9 w 0 -323.55 m 183.3 -323.55 l s .9 w 0 -341.55 m 183.8 -341.55 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -379.3 m 186.6 -349.4 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -426.2 m 186.6 -396.3 l s .9 w 0 -433.15 m 183.3 -433.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10294) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 13 0 obj 5017 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 12 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 3 3 15 0 obj << /Length 16 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ONNA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ASSEEN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-35884) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -134.082 -6.6 Td (Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.746 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-03-03279-BJR) Tj -203.334 -11.4 Td (IDE I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NTERSTATE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NC) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (., et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (E) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LIZABETH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AGE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 04-36137) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -134.082 -6.6 Td (Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.746 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-03-01343-BJR) Tj -203.334 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 75.024 -13.2 Td (Defendant-Appellee.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 106.596 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARIE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ILEY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 80.988 -13.2 Td (Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.512 -18 Td (v.) Tj 132.57 -8.4 Td (No. 05-35105) Tj -215.07 -9.6 Td (W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (YETH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, obo itself and its) Tj 226.734 -8.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -226.734 -4.8 Td (unincorporated division, Wyeth) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 181.62 -3.1 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-03-02073-BJR) Tj -203.334 -4.8 Td (Consumer Healthcare, fka) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Whitehall-Robins Healthcare) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (formerly known as American) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Home Products Corporation, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -12.75 m 183.8 -12.75 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -50.5 m 186.6 -20.6 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -97.4 m 186.6 -67.5 l s .9 w 0 -104.35 m 183.3 -104.35 l s .9 w 0 -122.35 m 183.8 -122.35 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -160.1 m 186.6 -130.2 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -207 m 186.6 -177.1 l s .9 w 0 -213.95 m 183.3 -213.95 l s .9 w 0 -231.95 m 183.8 -231.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -302.7 m 186.6 -239.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -382.6 m 186.6 -319.7 l s .9 w 0 -389.55 m 183.3 -389.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10295) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 16 0 obj 3936 endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 15 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 4 4 18 0 obj << /Length 19 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (K) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EVA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( K. A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LFORD) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, on behalf of all) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (wrongful death beneficiaries of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Henry Dexter, et al.,*) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 71.652 -13.2 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 6.684 -18 Td (and) Tj -78.336 -18 Td (E) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (DDIE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ULLOCK) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 126.984 -13.2 Td (Plaintiffs,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -44.484 -18 Td (v.) Tj 132.57 -1.8 Td (No. 05-35121) Tj -215.07 -16.2 Td (W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (YETH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, obo itself and its) Tj 226.734 -1.8 Td (D.C. No.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -45.114 -7.9 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -3.5 Td 1.2 Tw (unincorporated division, Wyeth) Tj 200.334 -1.8 Td (CV-04-00399-BJR*) Tj -200.334 -11.4 Td (Consumer Healthcare, fka) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Whitehall-Robins Healthcare) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (formerly known as American) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Home Products Corporation, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12.648 -18 Td (and) Tj -78.336 -18 Td (N) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OVARTIS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HARMACEUTICALS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 116.34 -13.2 Td (Defendants.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 65.28 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OBBY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( H) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OLMES) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 05-35129) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-01-02061-BJR) Tj -203.334 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 75.024 -13.2 Td (Defendant-Appellee.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 106.596 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -12.75 m 183.8 -12.75 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -152.5 m 186.6 -20.6 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -301.4 m 186.6 -169.5 l s .9 w 0 -308.35 m 183.3 -308.35 l s .9 w 0 -326.35 m 183.8 -326.35 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -364.1 m 186.6 -334.2 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -411 m 186.6 -381.1 l s .9 w 0 -417.95 m 183.3 -417.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10296) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 19 0 obj 3631 endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 18 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 5 5 21 0 obj << /Length 22 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ELODY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (C) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ANIEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 80.988 -13.2 Td (Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 134.082 -2.4 Td (No. 05-35147) Tj -132.57 -15.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 45.114 -1.1 Td 1.2 Tw (D.C. No.) Tj -23.4 -13.2 Td (CV-03-03226-BJR) Tj -203.334 -2.4 Td (W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (-M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ART) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TORES) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NC) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (., et al.,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AMANTHA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AMUELS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, et al.,) Tj 215.07 -6.6 Td (No. 05-35184) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -143.418 -6.6 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 155.082 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj -144.234 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 99.12 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.714 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-01-02059-BJR) Tj -203.334 -11.4 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AYER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ORPORATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 224.34 -6.6 Td (OPINION) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -149.316 -6.6 Td (Defendant-Appellee.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 106.596 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -145.212 -26.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeals from the United States District Court) Tj 16.776 -13.4 Td (for the Western District of Washington) Tj -29.34 -13.4 Td (Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding) Tj 70.626 -26.4 Td (Argued and Submitted) Tj -63.624 -13.3 Td (February 7 and 8, 2006**) Tj (Seattle, Washington) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -20.846 -26.2 Td 1.87 Tw (**Eighteen ) Tj (appeals, several consolidated, were randomly assigned to) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 1.3 Tw (two panels, one consisting of Judges D. Nelson, Rymer, and Fisher, the) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 2.87 Tw (other of Judges Leavy, Rymer, and Fisher. The Nelson/Rymer/Fisher) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .2 Tw (panel heard argument on February 7, 2006 in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Hill v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35219,) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 2.62 Tw (and) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Anderson v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35875. The panel) Tj ( unanimously found) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.3 Td 1.25 Tw (Womack v. SmithKline Beecham) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35933,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Page v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .81 Tw (36137, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35588, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35611,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.3 Td 3.61 Tw (McGriggs v. Delaco) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35614, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Riley v. Wyeth) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35105,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.3 Td 1.36 Tw (Holmes v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35129, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .42 Tw (35147, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Samuels v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35184, suitable for decision without) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .55 Tw (oral argument. Disposition of these cases ) Tj (has priority over cases heard by) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.03 Tw (the Leavy/Rymer/Fisher panel on February 8, 2006 in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Burrage) Tj ( v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .05 Tw (No. 03-35953, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Allen v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-25370, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Leon Anderson v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No.) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.86 Tw (04-35562, and) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Lorrilla Hill v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-85518. This panel ) Tj (unani-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .22 Tw (mously found ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton v. Delaco) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35621,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Sasseen v. IDE Interstate) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -12.75 m 183.8 -12.75 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -50.5 m 186.6 -20.6 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -97.4 m 186.6 -67.5 l s .9 w 0 -104.35 m 183.3 -104.35 l s .9 w 0 -122.35 m 183.8 -122.35 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -160.1 m 186.6 -130.2 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -207 m 186.6 -177.1 l s .9 w 0 -213.95 m 183.3 -213.95 l s .5 w 0 -319.25 m 300 -319.25 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10297) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 22 0 obj 5645 endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 21 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 6 6 24 0 obj << /Length 25 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 94.53 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (Filed August 29, 2006) Tj -73.476 -26.2 Td (Before: Dorothy) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (W.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Nelson, Pamela) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Ann) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Rymer and) Tj -7.176 -13.2 Td (Raymond) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (C.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Fisher, Circuit) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Judges; and Edward) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Leavy,) Tj -12.174 -13.2 Td (Pamela) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Ann) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Rymer and Raymond) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (C.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Fisher, Circuit) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Judges.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 84.33 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Opinion by Judge Rymer;) Tj -74.514 -13.2 Td (Partial Concurrence and Partial) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Dissent by Judge) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Rymer) Tj 1 0 0 1 156 309.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 148.5 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -148.5 -26 Td 1.44 Tw (No. 04-35884, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Alford v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35121, suitable for decision) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (without oral argument. ) Tj 10 -16.2 Td 1.78 Tw (This opinion resolves all appeals except ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Womack v. SmithKline Bee-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .17 Tw (cham) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35933, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Hill v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-35219, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .32 Tw (04-35875, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Burrage v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 03-35953, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Lorilla Hill v. Bayer) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (04-35518, for which separate unpublished dispositions have been filed. ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.08 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (All judges participated in deciding, and sign the opinion with respect) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .41 Tw (to, Parts I, II and III which are common to all appeals. Judges Nelson and) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.18 Tw (Leavy participated in deciding and sign an opinion only with respect) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .6 Tw (to those appeals assigned to the panel of which they were respectively) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 3.17 Tw (a member. For convenience, we note panel composition for discrete) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (appeals Part by Part. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 309.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10298) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 25 0 obj 2926 endobj 23 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 24 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 7 7 28 0 obj << /Length 29 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -27.6 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (COUNSEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.2 Td .46 Tw (Damon A. Kirin, Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, Louisiana,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.52 Tw (for plaintiffs-appellants Allen, Anderson, Clinton, Riley,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .45 Tw (Holmes and Samuels; Michael J. Miller, Miller & Associates,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Alexandria, Virginia, for plaintiff-appellant Hill. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 3.47 Tw (Randolph S. Sherman \(argued\), Kaye Scholer, LLP, New) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.52 Tw (York, New York, and D. Joseph Hurson \(signed the briefs\),) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.32 Tw (Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP, Seattle, Washington, for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the defendants-appellees. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 3 Tw (Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Murray Law Firm, New Orleans,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.06 Tw (Louisiana, for plaintiffs-appellants Ackel, Arrington, and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (McGriggs. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 4.22 Tw (Terry O. Tottenham, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Austin,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .21 Tw (Texas, and Douglas A. Hofmann, Williams, Kastner & Gibbs,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for the defendants-appellees. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 2.66 Tw (Leila H. Watson, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, P.C.,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Birmingham, Alabama, for plaintiff-appellant Sasseen. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 1.21 Tw (D. Joseph Hurson, Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP, Seat-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (tle, Washington, for the defendants-appellees. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10303) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 29 0 obj 1962 endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 28 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 8 8 32 0 obj << /Length 33 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.37 Tw 0 Tc (David B. Vermont, Herman, Mathis, Casey, Kitchens &) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .28 Tw (Gerel, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for plaintiff-appellant Page.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td 1.42 Tw (W. Thomas McCraney, III, McCraney & Montagnet, PLLC,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.2 Tw (Jackson, Mississippi, for plaintiffs-appellants McDaniel and) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Alford. ) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .03 Tw (Frank A. Wood, Jr., Watkins & Eager PLLC, Jackson, Missis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (sippi, for defendant-appellee Bayer Corporation. ) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .25 Tw (Alan J. Lazarus, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.34 Tw (California, for all defendants-appellees SmithKline Beecham) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.65 Tw (Corporation \(dba Glaxosmithkline\) and GlaxoSmithKline) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Consumer Healthcare, L.P. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.8 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.4 Td (RYMER, Circuit Judge: ) Tj 12 -26.4 Td 1.5 Tw (These appeals are from judgments of dismissal entered in) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .16 Tw (a multidistrict litigation \(MDL\) proceeding for failure to com-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.12 Tw (ply with case management orders. The orders were entered) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2 Tw (with the agreement of all sides that they were necessary to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.25 Tw (move hundreds of cases and thousands of plaintiffs toward) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.77 Tw (resolution on the merits. The district court found that many) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .36 Tw (plaintiffs inexcusably failed to do what was required, and dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.5 Tw (missed their actions. Some appeal. We must decide whether) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (these dismissals were a clear error of judgment. ) Tj 12 -26.4 Td .47 Tw (The principles that guide a court's discretion to dismiss are) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.17 Tw (well settled, but we have never addressed how they play out) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.95 Tw (in the context of multidistrict litigation. We conclude that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.54 Tw (while the rules are the same as for ordinary litigation on an) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .23 Tw (ordinary docket that is, a court determining whether to dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (miss an action on account of a plaintiff's noncompliance with) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.3 Tw (a court order must weigh the public's interest in expeditious) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -206.75 m 300 -206.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10304) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 33 0 obj 2831 endobj 31 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 32 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 9 9 35 0 obj << /Length 36 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .47 Tw 0 Tc (resolution of litigation; the court's need to manage its docket;) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.52 Tw (the risk of prejudice to the defendants; the public policy) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 0 Tw (favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and the avail-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.32 Tw (ability of less drastic sanctions ) Tj (multidistrict litigation is) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.74 Tw (different because of the large number of cases that must be) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.47 Tw (coordinated, its greater complexity, and the court's statutory) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 4.41 Tw (charge to promote the just and efficient conduct of the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .58 Tw (actions. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .58 Tw (1407. As a result, the considerations that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (inform the exercise of discretion in multidistrict litigation may) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .07 Tw (be somewhat different, and may tip the balance somewhat dif-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (ferently, from ordinary litigation on an ordinary docket. ) Tj 12 -26.9 Td 3.78 Tw (Recognizing this, we cannot say that the district court) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .52 Tw (abused its discretion in dismissing the cases before us, except) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (for ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, as to which we reverse.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 148.002 -26.9 Td (I) Tj -136.002 -26.8 Td 1.33 Tw (Phenylopropanolamine \(PPA\) was used in many deconge-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2 Tw (stants and weight-control products until the Food and Drug) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.75 Tw (Administration \(FDA\) issued a public health advisory on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.94 Tw (November 6, 2000 warning that this ingredient potentially) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.22 Tw (increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (U.S. Food &) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.12 Tw (Drug Admin., Ctr. for Drug Evaluation & Research, Pub.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4 Tw (Health Advisory Subject: Safety of Phenylpropanolamine,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 6.2 Tw (Nov. 6, 2000, http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (advisory.htm \(last visited Feb. 26, 2006\). The advisory stated) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.8 Tw (that the FDA was taking steps to remove PPA from drug) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.58 Tw (products and to request drug companies to discontinue mar-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.1 Tw (keting products containing PPA. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (U.S. Food &) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.16 Tw (Drug Admin., Ctr. for Drug Evaluation & Research, Phenyl-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (propanolamine \(PPA\) Information Page, http://www.fda.gov/) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 7.25 Tw (cder/drug/infopage/ppa/default.htm \(last visited Feb. 26,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (2006\). ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The disposition as to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is authored by Judge Fisher, joined by) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (Judge D. Nelson. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10305) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 36 0 obj 3675 endobj 34 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 35 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 10 10 38 0 obj << /Length 39 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.37 Tw 0 Tc (As a result, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.21 Tw (throughout the country against pharmaceutical companies by) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (persons claiming injury for ingestion of a product containing) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .18 Tw (PPA. On motion of plaintiffs in one such action in the Eastern) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .95 Tw (District of Louisiana, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Liti-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (gation found that fourteen actions then pending in several dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (trict courts were rooted in complex core questions concerning) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.47 Tw (the safety of PPA and that centralization was necessary to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.86 Tw (eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .85 Tw (rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their coun-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.08 Tw (sel, and the judiciary. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In re Phenylpropanolamine \(PPA\)) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.52 Tw (Prods. Liab. Litig. No. 1407) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .82 Tw (\(J.P.M.L. 2001\). Accordingly, on August 28, 2001, the Panel) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.25 Tw (designated the Western District of Washington as the appro-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.17 Tw (priate forum for ) Tj (MDL 1407, and ordered the PPA actions to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .62 Tw (be transferred and assigned to Hon. Barbara Jacobs Rothstein) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (for pretrial consolidation and coordination.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1380. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td .77 Tw (MDL 1407 got under way with an initial status conference) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.33 Tw (on November 16, 2001. It addressed the leadership structure) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.55 Tw (for counsel, and issues relating to discovery, experts, use of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.05 Tw (technology, class actions, and federal-state coordination. The) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.58 Tw (court appointed Lead and Liaison Counsel for plaintiffs and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.41 Tw (defendants on November 21 and a Plaintiffs' Steering Com-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.57 Tw (mittee on January 17, 2002. As part of its duties, the Plain-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.22 Tw (tiffs' Steering Committee was to assist all plaintiffs in MDL) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .16 Tw (1407 by overseeing discovery, communicating with plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.11 Tw (lawyers, making court appearances, attending status confer-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.81 Tw (ences, and preparing motions and responses regarding case-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (wide discovery matters. ) Tj 12 -26.4 Td 2.12 Tw (At the court's direction, the parties submitted an agreed-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -2 -26.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .93 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (More than 3300 actions were eventually listed on the docket in MDL) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.6 Tw (1407. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Distrib. of Pending) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 4.4 Tw (MDL Dockets \(as of Jan. 10, 2006\), http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 4.7 Tw (Pending_MDLs/PendingMDL-January-06.pdf; http://www.jpml.uscourts.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (gov/Pending_MDLs/pending_mdls.html. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10306) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 39 0 obj 3831 endobj 37 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 38 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 11 11 41 0 obj << /Length 42 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .88 Tw 0 Tc (upon Case Management Order \(CMO\) 1, which set out basic) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.77 Tw (procedures and a master framework for discovery. Among) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (other things, this order, filed January 29, 2002, states that ) Tj ([a]) Tj 0 -13 Td .77 Tw (party's failure to either produce a relevant document or iden-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.13 Tw (tify same as withheld pursuant to a privilege may be viewed) Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (by the Court as an infraction of its orders, justifying appropri-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.36 Tw (ate sanctions.) Tj ( CMO 1 at ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.36 Tw (VIII. It also provides that notice) Tj 0 -13 Td 2 Tw (by the court to Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and Defendants') Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (Liaison Counsel of any matter or ruling relating to all actions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (would be considered as notice to all MDL 1407 parties, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (that service on Liaison Counsel would constitute service on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (all plaintiffs' and all defendants' counsel, respectively. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (III C, D. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.24 Tw (A series of eighteen case management orders followed.) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (They were applicable MDL-wide to all PPA actions trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (ferred to MDL 1407, and governed both MDL-wide and case-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (specific issues. Case Management Orders were posted on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 7.47 Tw (court's public website for the PPA litigation \(http://) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (www.wawd.uscourts.gov/mdl\). The primary orders at issue in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (these appeals are CMOs 6, 10, and 19, which control pretrial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (management of discovery, and CMOs 13 and 15, which con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cern product identification. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .66 Tw (Case Management Order 6, filed March 18, 2002, set forth) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (the basic principles for taking fact discovery of plaintiffs. No) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.9 Tw (objections were lodged to the order in its final form. It) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (requires all case-specific discovery to occur during the time) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (periods permitted in the order, and adopts a ) Tj (Plaintiff's Fact) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (Sheet) Tj ( \(PFS\) protocol in lieu of interrogatories to streamline) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (the process. The PFS is a questionnaire to be signed under) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (oath seeking information about the plaintiffs' injuries, medi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (cal history, current medical condition, identification of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (product claimed to have caused injury, specifics of the injury) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (suffered, and the identity of the plaintiffs' healthcare provid-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.4 Tw (ers. It also includes blank authorizations to be signed by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (plaintiffs to allow defendants to collect medical and other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (records. \(CMO 6A replaced several authorizations in CMO 6) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10307) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 42 0 obj 3569 endobj 40 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 41 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 12 12 44 0 obj << /Length 45 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.28 Tw 0 Tc (that did not comply with federal statutory provisions, but) Tj 0 -13 Td 2 Tw (made no other changes.\) CMO 6 set a case-specific cut-off) Tj 0 -13 Td .84 Tw (date of February 28, 2003 for all cases docketed in the MDL) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.15 Tw (by February 12, 2002, and for cases docketed after February) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (28, 2003, case-specific discovery was to be completed within) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.3 Tw (12 months of the docket date. Plaintiffs in every case cur-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.17 Tw (rently docketed were ordered to complete a Plaintiff's Fact) Tj 0 -13 Td .51 Tw (Sheet no later than 45 days after a blank PFS was transmitted) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.18 Tw (by defendants, and plaintiffs in all cases transferred to MDL) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.13 Tw (1407 thereafter were to complete a PFS within 45 days after) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (service. ) Tj (The PFS was the starting point for defendants' assess-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (ment of plaintiffs' claims and the precondition for proceeding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.2 Tw (with further discovery, including depositions; defendants) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (could not take case-specific fact depositions sooner than 120) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (days after the plaintiff served a completed Fact Sheet. CMO) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (6 provided that Defendants' Liaison Counsel was to send a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (warning letter to any plaintiff who failed to serve a Fact Sheet) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.26 Tw (within the time allowed; if the plaintiff still failed to furnish) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (complete responses within 30 days of the warning letter,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (defendants could seek appropriate relief if a meet and confer) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (did not resolve the issues. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.92 Tw (There were approximately 439 cases in the MDL when) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (CMO 6 was entered; eight months later, there were more than) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (1,500 plaintiffs in 736 cases either in, or pending transfer to,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.23 Tw (MDL 1407. The court found that despite the efforts of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committees, many) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (plaintiffs had failed to comply with CMO 6's requirement to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (complete a Plaintiff's Fact Sheet. ) Tj (Therefore, the court entered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (CMO 10 on November 22, 2002 ) Tj (to provide for the timely) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (completion of discovery.) Tj ( CMO 10 provides that the one-year) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (period for completion of discovery would not begin to run) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (until a substantially complete PFS and accompanying authori-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (zations were provided to defendants, and that no case would) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (be considered for remand until the plaintiff had complied with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (the discovery requirements set forth in the court's prior) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (orders, the court had determined that the discovery obliga-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (tions of the plaintiff had been completed, and defendants had) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10308) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 45 0 obj 3573 endobj 43 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 44 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 13 13 47 0 obj << /Length 48 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.95 Tw 0 Tc (sufficient time to complete case-specific discovery. It also) Tj 0 -13 Td 2 Tw (states that ) Tj ([n]othing in this Order shall prevent defendants) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.1 Tw (from seeking additional remedies or sanctions against any) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.32 Tw (plaintiff for failure to comply with the discovery obligations) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (set out in prior CMOs, on a case-by-case basis.) Tj ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.87 Tw (CMO 19 was entered on June 23, 2004. The court noted) Tj -12 -13 Td .02 Tw (that it had issued CMO 10 after learning that plaintiffs had not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (complied with the requirements of CMO 6, and found that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (despite the requirements of CMOs 6 and 10, changes were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.41 Tw (necessary to provide for the timely completion of case-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (specific discovery in the MDL cases. CMO 19 ordered plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (tiffs to complete a Plaintiff's Fact Sheet in all respects and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (serve it within 45 days after transmission of the blank PFS.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (For cases where no PFS was returned, Defendants' Liaison) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (Counsel were to send a letter warning that the case ) Tj (was) Tj ( sub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (ject to dismissal, after which the plaintiff would have an addi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .69 Tw (tional 15 days to comply. ) Tj (If a PFS were received on time but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (was not completed in all respects, a deficiency letter was to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (be sent allowing an additional 15 days to serve a completed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (PFS and warning that the case was subject to dismissal if one) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (were not received. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .38 Tw (Meanwhile, the court addressed two different product iden-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (tification problems in CMOs 13 and 15. The first set of cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.82 Tw (involved individuals who claimed to have ingested one or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (more PPA-containing products. CMO 13, entered on May 2,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (2003, requires each plaintiff in a multi-defendant case to file) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (and serve within 30 days an Affirmation setting forth the PPA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (product he or she allegedly ingested and the manufacturer of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (that product. It authorizes defendants to submit a proposed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (order of dismissal with prejudice of the claims of any plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (tiffs who failed to identify them in the PFS or in their Affir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.7 Tw (mation, and to seek additional sanctions with regard to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (discovery and PFS obligations. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .7 Tw (The other set of cases involved unrelated claims of numer-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (ous plaintiffs who were joined without specifying which prod-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10309) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 48 0 obj 3364 endobj 46 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 47 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 14 14 51 0 obj << /Length 52 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.25 Tw 0 Tc (ucts they allegedly ingested or the manufacturers of the) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (products that allegedly caused their injuries. By way of exam-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.51 Tw (ple, the court noted that there were 29 pending cases out of) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (Louisiana that attempted to join over 1000 plaintiffs, with one) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (case alone \(not on appeal\) accounting for over 500 PPA plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (tiffs. Therefore, it entered CMO 15 on May 29, 2003, direct-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (ing each plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case to file and serve an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (individual, new complaint within 30 days to provide specific) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.38 Tw (allegations regarding the products allegedly ingested, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (dates on which the products were ingested, the injury alleged,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (and the dates of injury. CMO 15A, issued August 26, 2003,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (supplemented CMO 15 by providing for dismissal with preju-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (dice of all jointly-filed complaints, including those plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (for whom a timely filed individual severed complaint was not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (filed, as of the effective date of the order \(October 26, 2003\).) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.83 Tw (The court held a status conference on July 31, 2003 to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (address the problem of noncompliance with both the discov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.76 Tw (ery and the product-identification CMOs. Liaison Counsel,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and Discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (Steering Committee, ) Tj (and Lead Counsel appeared. During this) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (session, Judge Rothstein stated from the bench: ) Tj 22 -26 Td .57 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .57 Tw (I right now will tell you that any case that has not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (complied with my discovery order will be dismissed.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.9 Tw (Now, that sounds simple, because there are some) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (cases you can tell right off the bat there are no fact) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sheets, no medical records; they will be dismissed. ) Tj 0 -26 Td .91 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .91 Tw (But then you get into the more complicated cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (that I think [counsel] was about to address, but I'm) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (going to go into it myself. And that is cases that have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (not complied with my order to break down multi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (plaintiff cases into single plaintiff cases with a spe-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cific complaint that sets out the facts for the case. ) Tj 0 -26 Td 4.75 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 4.75 Tw (Now, when hundreds of cases are filed with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (exactly the same complaint, I would say, by defini-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10310) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 52 0 obj 3316 endobj 50 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 51 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 15 15 54 0 obj << /Length 55 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td .06 Tw 0 Tc (tion, you're in violation of the order. And if a motion) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (is brought, I will dismiss those cases. ) Tj 0 -26.4 Td 2.08 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 2.08 Tw (Now, if there's an answer that for some reason,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.25 Tw (justifiable reason really and truly all of those plain-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.07 Tw (tiffs were exactly the same and had the same injury) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 0 Tw (from the same product against the same defendant on) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .7 Tw (the same day, if you can convince me that that's the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (case, I will certainly not dismiss the case. ) Tj 0 -26.4 Td .13 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .13 Tw (But the time has come to figure out which of these) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.04 Tw (cases are real and which of them aren't. And if dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.9 Tw (covery hasn't been complied with, there's a strong) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .92 Tw (presumption on my part that the case should be dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (missed . . . . ) Tj -22 -26.3 Td .88 Tw (A minute entry documenting the July 31, 2003 status confer-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .17 Tw (ence and indicating that ) Tj ([t]he court instructed the Defendants) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.32 Tw (to diligently pursue filing motions to dismiss for failure to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.23 Tw (comply with CMO 6, 13, and 15) Tj ( was posted on the district) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.8 Tw (court's electronic docketing system, PACER/CM-ECF, on) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .73 Tw (August 7, 2003 as ) Tj (Document 1922,) Tj ( and a few months later) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .3 Tw (on the court's public MDL website. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (W.D. Wa. PPA Litig.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Website, http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/mdl. ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.41 Tw (Defendants moved to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs who) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 2.06 Tw (did not comply with these orders. The district court denied) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.33 Tw (some requests, and granted others. Appeals were not taken) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.18 Tw (from a great number of dismissal orders,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( but timely appeals) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .24 Tw (were filed in the matters now before us. We shall consider the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.81 Tw (factual background, and procedural posture, of these cases) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (individually once we have discussed the general standards by) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.22 Tw (which we review dismissals for failure to comply with court) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .58 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (For example, more than 850 claims were dismissed pursuant to defen-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.91 Tw (dants' motions to dismiss for failure to comply with CMO 6 in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Allen,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .39 Tw (Anderson, Hill) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (; of these, 237 pursue a challenge to these dis-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (missals in the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Allen) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( consolidated appeals. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10311) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 55 0 obj 3731 endobj 53 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 54 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 16 16 57 0 obj << /Length 58 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.11 Tw 0 Tc (orders, and the MDL context in which these dismissals were) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ordered. ) Tj 146.004 -26 Td (II) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -134.004 -26 Td 1.22 Tw ([1]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The principles that apply to dismissals for violation of) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.55 Tw (pretrial orders are well established, as are the standards that) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.63 Tw (govern appellate review. Courts are to weigh five factors in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (a court order: ) Tj (\(1\) the public's interest in expeditious resolu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (tion of litigation; \(2\) the court's need to manage its docket;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (\(3\) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; \(4\) the public pol-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (icy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and \(5\) the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (availability of less drastic sanctions.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone v. U.S. Postal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (Serv.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d 128, 130 \(9th Cir. 1987\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Thompson) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 782 F.2d 829 \(1986\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (\(per curiam\)\). These factors are ) Tj (not a series of conditions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (precedent before the judge can do anything,) Tj ( but a ) Tj (way for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (a district judge to think about what to do.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Valley Eng'rs Inc.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (v. Elec. Eng'g Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 \(9th Cir. 1998\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.81 Tw (We review for abuse of discretion. ) Tj (Although it is pre-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (ferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (findings in order to show that it has considered these factors) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (and we may review the record independently to determine if) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (the district court has abused its discretion.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ferdik v. Bonze-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.11 Tw (let) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 \(9th Cir. 1992\) \(as amended\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.44 Tw (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 130; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Henderson v. Duncan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 779 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (1421, 1424 \(9th Cir. 1986\). ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.11 Tw (`Dismissal is a harsh penalty) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (and is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.' Never-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (theless, we will overturn a dismissal sanction only if we have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (a definite and firm conviction that it was clearly outside the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (acceptable range of sanctions.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 130) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (\(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Henderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 779 F.2d at 1423\) \(internal citation omit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ted\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .58 Tw (Expeditious resolution of litigation) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. As the first of the Fed-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (eral Rules of Civil Procedure reflects, the public has an over-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10312) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 58 0 obj 3820 endobj 56 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 57 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 17 17 60 0 obj << /Length 61 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.33 Tw 0 Tc (riding interest in securing ) Tj (the just, speedy, and inexpensive) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (determination of every action.) Tj ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Orderly and) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the) Tj 0 -13 Td .97 Tw (rule of law. By the same token, delay in reaching the merits,) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.73 Tw (whether by way of settlement or adjudication, is costly in) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.18 Tw (money, memory, manageability, and confidence in the pro-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.22 Tw (cess. We defer to the district court's judgment about when) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (delay becomes unreasonable ) Tj (because it is in the best position) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (to determine what period of delay can be endured before its) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.11 Tw (docket becomes unmanageable.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Moneymaker v. CoBen \(In) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (re Eisen\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 \(9th Cir. 1994\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .44 Tw (Court's need to manage its docket. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (District courts have an) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (power they may impose sanctions including, where appropri-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (ate, default or dismissal.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Thompson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 782 F.2d at 831. ) Tj (It is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts' power to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (manage their dockets) Tj ( without being subject to endless non-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .12 Tw (compliance with case management orders. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (1261. Rule 16, the central pretrial rule, authorizes a court to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (manage cases so that disposition is expedited, wasteful pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.85 Tw (trial activities are discouraged, the quality of the trial is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (improved, and settlement is facilitated. It recognizes ) Tj (the need) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (for adopting special procedures for managing potentially dif-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (ficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.9 Tw (multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (problems. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16\(c\)\(12\). The goal is to get cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (decided on the merits of issues that are truly meritorious and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (in dispute. Subsection \(f\) puts teeth into these objectives by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.45 Tw (permitting the judge to make such orders as are just for a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (party's failure to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, including) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (dismissal. Rule 37\(b\)\(2\)\(C\) allows dismissal for failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (comply with discovery plans and orders, and Rule 41\(b\) per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.13 Tw (mits dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (comply with any order of court. In addition, the Supreme) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (Court has recognized that dismissal ) Tj (must be available to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.46 Tw (district court in appropriate cases, not merely to penalize) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanc-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10313) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 61 0 obj 3877 endobj 59 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 60 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 18 18 63 0 obj << /Length 64 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .3 Tw 0 Tc (tion, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.54 Tw (in the absence of such a deterrent.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Nat'l Hockey League v.) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.03 Tw (Metro. Hockey Club, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 427 U.S. 639, 643 \(1976\) \(per) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.51 Tw (curiam\). So have we. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Allen v. Exxon Corp. \(In re the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.62 Tw (EXXON VALDEZ\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 102 F.3d 429, 433 \(9th Cir. 1996\). ) Tj (This) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.58 Tw (factor is usually reviewed in conjunction with the public's) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (interest in expeditious resolution and, as with the first factor,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.27 Tw (we give deference to the district court ) Tj (since it knows when) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.18 Tw (its docket may become unmanageable.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (at 1452. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.53 Tw (Risk of prejudice to the defendant) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj (A defendant suffers) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (prejudice if the plaintiff's actions impair the defendant's abil-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (ity to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful deci-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.76 Tw (sion of the case.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Thoeren) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (1406, 1412 \(9th Cir. 1990\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 131; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1453. ) Tj ( Failing to produce documents as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (ordered is considered sufficient prejudice. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.64 Tw (at 1412.) Tj ( Late tender is no excuse. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.35 Tw (F.3d at 1453; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d 899,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (906 \(9th Cir. 2002\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Henry v. Gill Indus) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 983 F.2d 943,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (947, 948 \(9th Cir. 1993\). The law also presumes prejudice) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (from unreasonable delay. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1453 \(quot-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (ing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson v. Air West, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.2d 522, 524 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (1976\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 942 F.2d 648, 652) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (\(9th Cir. 1991\) \(as amended\) \(presuming from elapsed time) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (that defendants' ability to defend a case has been prejudiced\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (The presumption may be rebutted and if there is a showing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (that no actual prejudice occurred, that fact should be consid-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (ered when determining whether the district court exercised) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.36 Tw (sound discretion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1452-53 \(quoting) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.2d at 524\). A plaintiff may proffer an excuse) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (for delay that, if ) Tj (anything but frivolous,) Tj ( shifts the burden of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (production to the defendant to show at least some actual prej-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (udice; if it does, the plaintiff must persuade the court that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (claims of prejudice are illusory or relatively insignificant in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (light of his excuse. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1453 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Nealey v. Transporta-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (cion Maritima Mexicana, S.A.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 662 F.2d 1275, 1281 \(9th Cir.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10314) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj 4639 endobj 62 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 63 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 19 19 66 0 obj << /Length 67 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.13 Tw 0 Tc (1980\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hernandez v. City of El Monte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 138 F.3d 393, 401) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (\(9th Cir. 1998\) \(reiterating that the burden of production shifts) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (to the defendant to show at least some actual prejudice only) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .52 Tw (after the plaintiff has given a non-frivolous excuse for delay\).) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.75 Tw (In this circumstance prejudice, delay, and excuse all inform) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.51 Tw (the district court's discretion. Prejudice normally consists of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.45 Tw (loss of evidence and memory, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1453;) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .96 Tw (it may also consist of costs or burdens of litigation, although) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .9 Tw (it may not consist of the mere pendency of the lawsuit itself,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 2.62 Tw (Pagtalunan v. Galaza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d 639, 642 \(9th Cir. 2002\).) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.82 Tw (That the case is ) Tj (an involved, complex case increases the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.24 Tw (prejudice from the delay. Early preparation and participation) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.87 Tw (are essential in such circumstances.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.95 Tw (525 \(citation omitted\). The district court's finding of preju-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.23 Tw (dice ) Tj (deserves `substantial deference' because `the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (court is in the best position to assess prejudice.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.28 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Computer) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.23 Tw (Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364 F.3d 1112, 1116 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.18 Tw (2004\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anheuser-Busch ) Tj (v. Natural Bev. Distribs.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 69) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (F.3d 337, 354\) \(9th Cir. 1995\)\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td .5 Tw (Disposition on the merits. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (We have often said that the pub-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 5.16 Tw (lic policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .42 Tw (strongly counsels against dismissal. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Hernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 138) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .76 Tw (F.3d at 399. At the same time, a case that is stalled or unrea-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .47 Tw (sonably delayed by a party's failure to comply with deadlines) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.1 Tw (and discovery obligations cannot move forward toward reso-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.13 Tw (lution on the merits. Thus, we have also recognized that this) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (factor ) Tj (lends little support) Tj ( to a party whose responsibility it) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .37 Tw (conduct impedes progress in that direction. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3 Tw (EXXON VALDEZ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 102 F.3d at 433 \(noting that plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.47 Tw (total refusal to provide discovery obstructed resolution of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .6 Tw (their claims on the merits\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1454 \(giv-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .39 Tw (ing weight to the plaintiff's failure to specify why it is impor-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .83 Tw (tant that his actions be resolved on their merits\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Morris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 942) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (F.2d at 652 \(observing that it ) Tj (is the responsibility of the mov-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (ing party to move toward disposition on the merits\). ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10315) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 67 0 obj 4263 endobj 65 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 66 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 20 20 70 0 obj << /Length 71 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.85 Tw 0 Tc (Availability of less drastic sanctions.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.85 Tw (`The district court) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal with-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (out first considering the impact of the sanction and the ade-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (quacy of less drastic sanctions.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .25 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 131-32) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (\(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 792 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (906, 912 \(9th Cir. 1986\)\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Factors that indicate whether a dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (trict court has considered alternatives include: ) Tj (\(1\) Did the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (court explicitly discuss the feasibility of less drastic sanctions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (and explain why alternative sanctions would be inadequate?) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (\(2\) Did the court implement alternative methods of sanction-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (ing or curing the malfeasance before ordering dismissal? \(3\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (Did the court warn the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (before actually ordering dismissal?) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 132. While helpful) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (and encouraged, explicit discussion of alternatives is not nec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.13 Tw (essary for a dismissal order to be upheld. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Warning that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .71 Tw (meet the ) Tj (consideration of alternatives) Tj ( requirement. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Estrada) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.9 Tw (v. Speno & Cohen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 \(9th Cir. 2001\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 3.28 Tw (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 132-33; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d at 1413;) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although a warning is not always) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.66 Tw (required, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d at 1413; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .88 Tw (132; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anheuser-Busch) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 69 F.3d at 353, we focus more closely) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.6 Tw (on the lack of warning and absence of consideration of less) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.41 Tw (drastic alternatives when the dismissal is ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (sua sponte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( rather) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.7 Tw (than in response to a noticed motion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Oliva v. Sullivan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (958 F.2d 272, 274 \(9th Cir. 1992\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Compare ) Tj (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (F.3d at 1455, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (and Morris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj (942 F.2d at 652 \(rejecting a warn-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.81 Tw (ing ) Tj (requirement in a case involving a noticed motion to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (dismiss\),) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( with Oliva) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 958 F.2d at 274 \(reversing a dismissal) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .06 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( notes that ) Tj ([a]lternative sanctions include: `a warning, a formal) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .13 Tw (reprimand, placing the case at the bottom of the calendar, a fine, the impo-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .96 Tw (sition of costs or attorney fees, the temporary suspension of the culpable) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.26 Tw (counsel from practice before the courts, . . . dismissal of the suit unless) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .04 Tw (new counsel is secured . . . preclusion of claims or defenses, or the imposi-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .28 Tw (tion of fees and costs upon plaintiff's counsel. . . .) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 132 n.1 \(quoting) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td .37 Tw (Titus v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 \(3rd Cir. 1982\)\).) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.51 Tw (Giving another chance following a failure to comply is also a sanction,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (albeit a lenient one. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10316) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 71 0 obj 5153 endobj 69 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 70 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 21 21 73 0 obj << /Length 74 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .25 Tw 0 Tc (because the court ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (sua sponte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( dismissed a case without consid-) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (ering alternative sanctions or giving a warning\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (and ) Tj (Hamilton) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.29 Tw (v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., 811 F.2d 498, 500 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.81 Tw (1987\) \(reversing a district court's ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (sua sponte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( dismissal of a) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.74 Tw (case because it failed to warn prior to dismissal\). However,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.06 Tw (for the prior implementation of a lesser sanction to be a per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (suasive factor, it must have occurred after the plaintiff's viola-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (tion of a court order. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (191 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (983, 992 \(9th Cir. 1999\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d at 643. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.13 Tw ([2]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We have been guided by the same dismissal factors in) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (complex as well as ordinary cases. For example, we applied) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (these factors in determining whether dismissal for failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (comply with discovery obligations was warranted in the liti-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.43 Tw (gation arising out of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (EXXON VALDEZ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( oil spill,) Tj ( which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (involved ) Tj (scores of lawsuits and thousands of litigants.) Tj ( 102) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (F.3d at 433. There, we also took note of the fact that, even) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (though the appeal concerned only a fraction of the parties in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (the overall litigation, the district court appropriately consid-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (ered the importance of sanctions as a deterrent to noncompli-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ance by the thousands of other plaintiffs in the litigation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (However, we have never before addressed the issue of dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (missals for failure to comply with case management orders in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (the context of multidistrict litigation. As we recognized in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (Toussaint v. McCarthy) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj (the scope of review will be directly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (related to the reason why that category or type of decision is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (committed to the trial court's discretion in the first instance.) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.23 Tw (801 F.2d 1080, 1088 \(9th Cir. 1986\). As we shall explain,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (administering cases in multidistrict litigation is different from) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (administering cases on a routine docket, so the lens through) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (which the district court and we, in turn view transgres-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sions, and sanctions, is different as well. ) Tj 144.006 -26 Td (III) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -132.006 -26 Td 3.06 Tw ([3]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The goal of the multidistrict litigation process is to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.41 Tw (promote the just and efficient conduct) Tj ( of ) Tj (civil actions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (involving one or more common questions of fact) Tj ( that are) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10317) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 74 0 obj 3933 endobj 72 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 73 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 22 22 76 0 obj << /Length 77 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .37 Tw 0 Tc (pending in different districts. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .37 Tw (1407\(a\). If realized,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.7 Tw (hundreds or as here, thousands of cases, coordinated,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (will proceed toward resolution on the merits with less burden) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (and expense overall than were each litigated through pretrial) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (individually. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td 2.5 Tw (Section 1407 arose out of the federal courts' experience) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.1 Tw (with a massive prosecution of electrical equipment manufac-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.12 Tw (turers for antitrust violations, which had been rendered man-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.04 Tw (ageable only by conducting joint pretrial proceedings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.3 Td .63 Tw (H.R. Rep. No. 1130, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 \(1968\), reprinted) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.16 Tw (in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1898, 1899.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although the parties had) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.28 Tw (voluntarily agreed to consolidate their cases in that instance,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.07 Tw (Congress saw a need to create a mandatory version of that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .63 Tw (procedure to govern cases such as ) Tj (civil antitrust actions . . .,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.14 Tw (common disaster \(air crash\) actions, patent and trademark) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.65 Tw (suits, products liability actions and securities law violation) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.88 Tw (actions, among others.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1900. It therefore created the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .32 Tw (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and conferred on the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.5 Tw (Panel the power to consolidate pretrial proceedings for such) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .51 Tw (cases and to assign them to a single judge who would coordi-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (nate them. ) Tj 12 -26.4 Td 1.25 Tw (This procedure was meant to ) Tj (assure uniform and expedi-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.32 Tw (tious treatment in the pretrial procedures in multidistrict liti-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .16 Tw (gation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1901. Without it, ) Tj (conflicting pretrial discovery) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.9 Tw (demands for documents and witnesses) Tj ( might ) Tj (disrupt the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .15 Tw (functions of the Federal courts) Tj ( as they nearly had in the elec-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.55 Tw (trical equipment company cases. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1899. One of the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.14 Tw (Panel's first rulings described the alternative as ) Tj (multiplied) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.4 Tw (delay, confusion, conflict, inordinate expense and inefficien-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.23 Tw (cy. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Plumbing Fixture Cases) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 298 F. Supp. 484, 495) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.46 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The judges who coordinated the electrical engineering cases contrib-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .72 Tw (uted their experience to the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Manual on Complex and Multidistrict Litiga-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.53 Tw (tion) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, which was developed in tandem with the proposed legislation that) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .05 Tw (ultimately became ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .05 Tw (1407. Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (H. Cooper, F) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (EDERAL) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (RACTICE AND) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (ROCEDURE) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (3861 \(2d ed. 1986\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10318) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 77 0 obj 4296 endobj 75 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 76 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 23 23 79 0 obj << /Length 80 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .53 Tw 0 Tc (\(J.P.M.L. 1968\). It was thought that consolidation and central) Tj 0 -13 Td .91 Tw (coordination would avoid these dangers and would yield sig-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.26 Tw (nificant benefits of economy and speed. As a former Execu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.4 Tw (tive Attorney to the Panel and the Executive Editor of the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .9 Tw (Manual for Complex and Multidistrict Litigation) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( wrote: ) Tj (Im-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.4 Tw (plicit in Section 1407 is the assumption that the transferee) Tj 0 -13 Td .7 Tw (judge will, as did the judges in the electrical equipment com-) Tj 0 -13 Td .96 Tw (pany cases, establish a national unified discovery program to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.25 Tw (avoid delay, repetition and duplication and to insure that the) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (litigation is processed as efficiently and economically as pos-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (sible. John T. McDermott, ) Tj (The Judicial Panel on Multidis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (trict Litigation,) Tj ( 57 F.R.D. 215, 217 \(1973\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.48 Tw (Transfer proceedings may be commenced either on the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (Panel's own initiative or as in MDL 1407 by motion of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.58 Tw (any party. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.58 Tw (1407\(c\). The Panel analyzes each) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (group of cases in light of the statutory criteria and the primary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (purposes of the MDL process to determine whether transfer) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (is appropriate. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In re Food Lion, Inc., F.L.S.A. Effective) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.09 Tw (Scheduling Litig.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 73 F.3d 528, 532 \(4th Cir. 1996\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 3.98 Tw (Federal Judicial Center, M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 3.93 Tw (ANUAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 3.98 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 3.93 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 3.98 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 3.93 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .43 Tw (20.131 at 220 \(4th Ed. 2004\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Plumbing Fixture) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (Cases) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 298 F. Supp. 484 \(J.P.M.L. 1968\)\); M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .31 Tw (ULTIDISTRICT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .32 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .31 Tw (IT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .32 Tw (-) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .76 Tw (IGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .77 Tw ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .76 Tw (ANUAL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .77 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .77 Tw (5.16 \(noting that factors considered by the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (Panel also include the progress of discovery, docket condi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.21 Tw (tions, familiarity of the transferee judge with the relevant) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (issues, and the size of the litigation\). A transfer is effective) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (when the order of transfer is ) Tj (filed in the office of the clerk) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.58 Tw (of the district court of the transferee district.) Tj ( ) Tj (28 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .38 Tw (1407\(c\). When the transfer becomes effective, ) Tj (the jurisdic-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (tion of the transferor court ceases and the transferee court has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.38 Tw (exclusive jurisdiction.) Tj ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 5.32 Tw (ANUAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 5.38 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 5.32 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 5.38 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 5.32 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.1 Td 1.31 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.31 Tw (20.131 at 220; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.29 Tw (ULTIDISTRICT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.31 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.29 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.31 Tw ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.29 Tw (ANUAL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.31 Tw (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.82 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.82 Tw (9.1 \(explaining that upon transfer of the litigation ) Tj (the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (divestment of [the transferor court's] jurisdiction is com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (plete\). A transferee judge exercises all the powers of a dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (trict judge in the transferee district under the Federal Rules of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (Civil Procedure and ) Tj (may make any pretrial order that the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10319) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 80 0 obj 5035 endobj 78 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 79 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 24 24 82 0 obj << /Length 83 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.74 Tw 0 Tc (transferor court might have made in the absence of a trans-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.53 Tw (fer. Stanley A. Weigel, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.86 Tw (Litigation, Transferor Courts and Transferee Courts) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 78) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.32 Tw (F.R.D. 575, 578-79 \(1978\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.32 Tw (1407\(b\)) Tj 0 -13 Td .77 Tw (\(authorizing the transferee judge to ) Tj (exercise the powers of a) Tj 0 -13 Td .07 Tw (district judge in any district for the purpose of conducting pre-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.62 Tw (trial depositions) Tj (\). This includes authority to decide all pre-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.61 Tw (trial motions, including dispositive motions such as motions) Tj 0 -13 Td .07 Tw (to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for invol-) Tj 0 -13 Td .88 Tw (untary dismissal under Rule 41\(b\), motions to strike an affir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.03 Tw (mative defense, and motions for judgment pursuant to a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.86 Tw (settlement. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weigel, 78 F.R.D. at 582-83; M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.82 Tw (ANUAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.59 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.61 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.59 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.61 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.61 Tw (20.131 at 222; ) Tj (15 Charles A. Wright,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.51 Tw (Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, F) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.48 Tw (EDERAL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.51 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.48 Tw (RACTICE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.35 Tw (AND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.37 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.35 Tw (ROCEDURE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.37 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.37 Tw (3866, 618 \(2d ed. 1986\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Am. Cont'l) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (Corp./Lincoln Sav. & Loan Sec. Litig.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 102 F.3d 1524, 1532-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (33 \(9th Cir. 1996\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Lexecon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 523 U.S. 26) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (\(1998\) \() Tj (noting that ) Tj (the transferee court is empowered to dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .39 Tw (pose of the cases transferred to it by means of summary judg-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (ment or dismissal) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .49 Tw (Taj Mahal Litig.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 7 F.3d 357, 367-68 \(3rd Cir. 1993\) \(hold-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (ing that ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .74 Tw (1407 empowers transferee courts to enter a dispo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sitive pre-trial order terminating a case) Tj (\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.62 Tw (Once pretrial proceedings are completed in the MDL, the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (Panel remands individual cases to the district court in which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (the action was originally filed for trial. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.63 Tw (1407\(a\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (\() Tj (Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .54 Tw (at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (district court from which it was transferred unless it shall have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.11 Tw (been previously terminated . . . .) Tj (\). When remand occurs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (depends upon the circumstances of the litigation and the rec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.04 Tw (ommendation of the transferee court. M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.01 Tw (ANUAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.04 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.01 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.19 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.21 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.21 Tw (20.133 at 225 \(noting that ) Tj ([t]he Panel looks to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (the transferee court to suggest when it should order remand,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (but that court has no independent authority to . . . remand) Tj (\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (In MDL 1407, for instance, Judge Rothstein entered CMO 17) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10320) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 83 0 obj 4859 endobj 81 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 82 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 25 25 85 0 obj << /Length 86 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .5 Tw 0 Tc (on November 18, 2003, superseded by CMOs 17A, B, and C,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (that detailed the procedures and conditions she would con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.77 Tw (sider before determining that a case was ) Tj (ripe for remand.) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (These conditions included completion of discovery permitted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (by CMOs 1, 6, 6A, 10, 13, 13A, and 15. After an MDL action) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (is remanded, the transferor court resumes exclusive jurisdic-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tion over further proceedings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 226. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .7 Tw ([4]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( A district judge charged with the responsibility of ) Tj (just) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (and efficient conduct) Tj ( of the multiplicity of actions in an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (MDL proceeding must have discretion to manage them that is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (commensurate with the task. The task is enormous, for the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (court must figure out a way to move thousands of cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (toward resolution on the merits while at the same time) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (respecting their individuality. The court is also confronted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (with substantial legal questions, such as, in MDL 1407, FDA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.18 Tw (issues, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Daubert) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( motions, questions of joinder and federal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (jurisdiction, class certification, timeliness of claims, and cau-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.73 Tw (sation. For it all to work, multidistrict litigation assumes) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (cooperation by counsel and macro-, rather than micro-, judi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (cial management because otherwise, it would be an impossi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (ble task for a single district judge to accomplish. Coordination) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (of so many parties and claims requires that a district court be) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (given broad discretion to structure a procedural framework for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .79 Tw (moving the cases as a whole as well as individually, more so) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (than in an action involving only a few parties and a handful) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (of claims. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit put it,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.96 Tw (a district court must be able to ) Tj (uncomplicate matters) Tj ( and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (counsel must, for their part, ) Tj (collaborate with the trial judge) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.38 Tw (from the outset in fashioning workable programmatic proce-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.57 Tw (dures, and thereafter alert the court in a timely manner as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.45 Tw (operating experience points up infirmities warranting further) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .18 Tw (judicial attention.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Masaro v. Chesley \(In re San Juan Dupont) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.96 Tw (Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 111 F.3d 220, 229 \(1st Cir. 1997\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td -.31 Tw (\(internal quotation marks and citations omitted\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz -.3 Tw (AN-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.36 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (., 509 U.S. 579 \(1993\) \(setting) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (standards for admissibility of expert opinions\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10321) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 86 0 obj 4098 endobj 84 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 85 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 26 26 89 0 obj << /Length 90 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.35 Tw 0 Tc (UAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.38 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.35 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.38 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.35 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.38 Tw (, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.38 Tw (10 at 7 \() Tj (Fair and efficient) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (resolution of complex litigation requires at least that \(1\) the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.24 Tw (court exercise early and effective supervision \(and, where) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .95 Tw (necessary, control\); \(2\) counsel act cooperatively and profes-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (sionally; and \(3\) the judge and counsel collaborate to develop) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (and carry out a comprehensive plan for conduct of pretrial . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (proceedings.) Tj (\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.28 Tw (Pretrial plans will necessarily vary with the circumstances) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.83 Tw (of the particular MDL. However, the district judge must) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (establish schedules with firm cutoff dates if the coordinated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (cases are to move in a diligent fashion toward resolution by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (motion, settlement, or trial. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (Sperling) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 493 U.S. 165, 172 \(1989\). As happened in MDL) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.05 Tw (1407, the multidistrict process contemplates involvement of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (representative counsel in formulating workable plans. Once) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (established in consultation with counsel, time limits and other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (requirements must be met and, ) Tj (when necessary, appropriate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (sanctions are imposed . . . for derelictions and dilatory tac-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (tics. M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.09 Tw (ANUAL FOR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.11 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.09 Tw (OMPLEX) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.11 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 1.09 Tw (ITIGATION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.11 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.11 Tw (10.13 at 13. ) Tj (Close) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (judicial oversight and a clear, specific, and reasonable man-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.61 Tw (agement program, developed with the participation of coun-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (sel, will reduce the potential for sanctionable conduct because) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.71 Tw (the parties will know what the judge expects of them . . . .) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (Although sanctions should not generally be a management) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .93 Tw (tool, a willingness to resort to sanctions, sua sponte if neces-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .34 Tw (sary, may ensure compliance with the management program.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 10.151 at 15. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td .14 Tw (In sum, multidistrict litigation is a special breed of complex) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .78 Tw (litigation where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .25 Tw (The district court needs to have broad discretion to administer) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.37 Tw (the proceeding as a whole, which necessarily includes keep-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (ing the parts in line. ) Tj (Case management orders are the engine) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.46 Tw (that drives disposition on the merits.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( With this in mind, we) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.22 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (A great number of MDL 1407 plaintiffs complied with the court's) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 3.22 Tw (orders, and their cases moved forward with relative speed. In some) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10322) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 90 0 obj 4251 endobj 88 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 89 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 27 27 92 0 obj << /Length 93 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .6 Tw 0 Tc (turn to the discrete appeals that arise from dismissals for fail-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ure to comply with CMOs 6, 10, 13, 15, and 19. ) Tj 143.67 -26.2 Td (IV) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -43.866 -26.2 Td (Allen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -87.804 -26.2 Td 2.5 Tw (In these consolidated appeals, Shantell Allen, et al., and) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (Leon Anderson,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( et al., appeal dismissal of their actions with) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (prejudice for failure to comply with CMOs 6 and 6A. CMO) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (6A simply changed the form of the authorizations required by) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (CMO 6, so we treat the appeals as involving CMO 6. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 4.66 Tw (Almost all cases included in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Allen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.2 Td 2.37 Tw (appeals were transferred to MDL 1407 in December 2002.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.41 Tw (Completed Fact Sheets were due for most members of the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (Allen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( group and all members of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( group in March) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .09 Tw (or April, 2003. Both ) Tj (groups were among the first to be subject) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (to a motion to dismiss for noncompliance with CMO 6, and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.18 Tw (were dismissed in a pair of orders issued on October 22 and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (24, 2003. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.22 Tw (Allen and Anderson argue that dismissal was too severe a) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.04 Tw (sanction and that noncompliance with the case-specific dis-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (covery requirements of CMO 6 was not the result of willful-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (ness, fault, or bad faith. They proffered several excuses in the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td 3.37 Tw (instances, settlement resulted. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See In re Phenylpropanalomine \(PPA\)) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .32 Tw (Prods. Liab. Litig.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 227 F.R.D. 553 \(W.D. Wa. 2004\) \(certifying class and) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .22 Tw (approving settlement for plaintiffs alleging injury due to ingestion of Dex-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.96 Tw (atrim\). In others, remand for trial. Remand procedures were adopted) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.26 Tw (November 18, 2003, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( CMO 17, http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/mdl,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .83 Tw (and the district court recommended remands in the first wave of cases in) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (March, 2004. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (Allen) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( are before Judges Leavy, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj 0 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.42 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Leon Anderson, the lead plaintiff in case No. 04-35562, was dis-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.73 Tw (missed as a party to the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to our) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .1 Tw (order dated February 21, 2006. We retain his name in this opinion for con-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .7 Tw (venience to designate the group for whom he was formerly lead plaintiff.) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -348.95 m 300 -348.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10323) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 93 0 obj 4007 endobj 91 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 92 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 28 28 95 0 obj << /Length 96 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.66 Tw 0 Tc (district court, including the difficulty in locating clients, the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.37 Tw (debilitating nature of the injuries at issue, and the burden of) Tj 0 -13 Td .16 Tw (complying with other case management orders \(CMOs 13 and) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (15\). The district court was not persuaded, observing that no) Tj 0 -13 Td .5 Tw (additional time had been requested, and that the CMO 13 and) Tj 0 -13 Td .17 Tw (15 obligations stemmed from the plaintiffs' own choice to file) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.38 Tw (mass-joinder cases against numerous defendants. Allen and) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.11 Tw (Anderson also contend that some of their plaintiffs tried to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (cure deficiencies before the defendants moved to dismiss or) Tj 0 -13 Td .44 Tw (before the court's order was entered. Allen points out that her) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (group served 114 Fact Sheets after the motion was filed, but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (the district court found that many of them were incomplete.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (This finding is not challenged on appeal. Anderson notes that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (his group submitted a spreadsheet and supporting correspon-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (dence establishing that three plaintiffs served some discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (on August 27 or 29, but this was well past the deadlines in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (CMO 6 and does not excuse failure to take timely action. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1453; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (906. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .25 Tw ([5]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Rule 37 sanctions, including dismissal, may be imposed) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (where the violation is ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .57 Tw (`due to willfulness, bad faith, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (or) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( fault) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (of the party.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d at 905 \(quoting the stan-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (dard articulated in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (857 F.2d 600, 603 \(9th Cir. 1988\)\) \(emphasis added\). ) Tj (Dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (obedient conduct not shown to be outside the litigant's control) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (meets this standard.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d at 905; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Virtual) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (Vision, Inc. v. Praegitzer Indus., Inc. \(In re Virtual Vision,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (Inc.\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d 1140, 1143 \(9th Cir. 1997\). Our review of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (record indicates that failure to comply with CMO 6 was not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.12 Tw (outside Allen's or Anderson's control. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In re Virtual) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (Vision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d at 1145 \(holding that a litigant's failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (advise counsel of his whereabouts and failure to keep abreast) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .64 Tw (of the status of his case indicates a lack of due diligence\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( W.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .29 Tw (Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (\(9th Cir. 1990\) \(holding that ) Tj (the faults and defaults of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.23 Tw (upon, his or her client) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 134 \(same\);) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10324) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 96 0 obj 4273 endobj 94 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 95 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 29 29 98 0 obj << /Length 99 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.5 Tw 0 Tc (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.2d at 526 \(same\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Link v. Wabash) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (R.R.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 370 U.S. 626, 633 \(1962\). Thus, dismissal was an avail-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (able sanction. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td -.85 Tw ([6]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court addressed the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, or dismissal, fac-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.4 Td .96 Tw (tors,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.11 Tw (missal was appropriate. The court observed that many of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .27 Tw (cases subject to its dismissal order had been pending for close) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (to, or over, a year without forward movement, and that such) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .8 Tw (lack of diligence does not serve the public interest in expedi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.16 Tw (tious resolution of litigation. This is consistent with ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Yourish) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (where we explained that dismissal serves the public interest) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.03 Tw (in expeditious resolution of litigation as well as the court's) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (need to manage the docket when a plaintiff's noncompliance) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .97 Tw (has caused the action to come to a halt, thereby allowing the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.27 Tw (plaintiff, rather than the court, to control the pace of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.06 Tw (docket. 191 F.3d at 990. Sound management of the court's) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.07 Tw (docket also counsels in favor of sanctions as a deterrent to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.46 Tw (others, particularly in the context of an MDL proceeding) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .11 Tw (where there are thousands of plaintiffs and tag-along cases are) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .3 Tw (continually being added. The first two factors therefore weigh) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (heavily in favor of dismissal. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.5 Td 1.22 Tw ([7]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court found that the unreasonable delay in) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.67 Tw (completing Fact Sheets prejudiced the defendants' ability to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.41 Tw (proceed with the cases effectively. It explained that the pur-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1 Tw (pose of the Plaintiff's Fact Sheet was to give each defendant) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.17 Tw (the specific information necessary to defend the case against) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.4 Tw (it, and that without this device, a defendant was unable to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.47 Tw (mount its defense because it had no information about the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .03 Tw (plaintiff or the plaintiff's injuries outside the allegations of the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .38 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The district court and parties refer to the dismissal factors as ) Tj () Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -10 -11.3 Td .8 Tw (factors,) Tj ( probably because our opinion in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( provides a comprehen-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .95 Tw (sive discussion of them. 833 F.2d at 130-134. We recognized the impor-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .25 Tw (tance of the same five factors before ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( was decided, but conforming) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.09 Tw (to the practice frequently followed in MDL 1407, we, too, refer to them) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (interchangeably as ) Tj () Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( or ) Tj (dismissal) Tj ( factors. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10325) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 99 0 obj 4213 endobj 97 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 98 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 30 30 101 0 obj << /Length 102 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .77 Tw 0 Tc (complaint. We defer to this assessment. ) Tj (The court also found) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (that Allen's and Anderson's inability or unwillingness to fur-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.33 Tw (nish the information requested in a timely fashion was not) Tj 0 -13 Td .67 Tw (excusable. ) Tj (Deference is due to this finding as well. Failure to) Tj 0 -13 Td .83 Tw (produce information without a good reason increases the risk) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.75 Tw (of prejudice from unavailability of witnesses and loss of) Tj 0 -13 Td .12 Tw (records. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d at 642-43 \(recognizing that) Tj 0 -13 Td .14 Tw (unnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses') Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (memories will fade and evidence will become stale\). This fac-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tor, too, supports the district court's determination. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 4.83 Tw (The court found there were no less drastic sanctions) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (remaining. It noted that the named plaintiffs received warning) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.96 Tw (letters from defendants that prompted no response. It also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.92 Tw (noted that the sanction of preventing remand of the cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.66 Tw (where discovery requirements were unmet had previously) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (been imposed in CMO 10, and that it had ordered the time for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (completing case-specific discovery not to begin to run until a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.05 Tw (substantially complete PFS was furnished. Having provided) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (second and third chances following procedural defaults, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (district judge believed the ultimate sanction of dismissal was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (justified. ) Tj ( As the recitation of events was correct, and the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (trict judge was in the best position to evaluate their import,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.38 Tw (Finally, the district court acknowledged that disposition) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (should be on the merits, but found that in light of the inability) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (of many of the named plaintiffs to provide any information) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.75 Tw (that only they possessed regarding the critical elements of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.45 Tw (their claims, it was impossible to dispose of the case on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (merits. Allen and Anderson quarrel with the ) Tj (impossibility) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.43 Tw (of it, but we agree with the district court's basic assessment) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (because, in a proceeding such as this, where the plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (themselves prevent their cases from moving forward, the pub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.41 Tw (lic policy favoring resolution on the merits cannot weigh) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (much, if at all, in their favor. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In re the EXXON VALDEZ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (102 F.3d at 433; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Morris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 942 F.2d at 652 \(placing responsibil-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (ity on the plaintiff to move towards disposition on the merits\).) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10326) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 102 0 obj 3677 endobj 100 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 101 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 31 31 104 0 obj << /Length 105 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.03 Tw 0 Tc ([8]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discre-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tion in dismissing these actions. ) Tj ( ) Tj 145.668 -26 Td (V) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -14.34 -26 Td (Alford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -119.328 -26 Td 2.14 Tw (Keva Alford and Earlene Johnson were dismissed \(along) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (with other individuals originally named as part of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (action\) with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 6.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (Alford failed to file a timely PFS, and Johnson failed to file) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (authorizations. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .4 Tw (Johnson was served with a blank PFS on February 3, 2004,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (which meant that her completed Fact Sheet was due on March) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (19, 2004. On March 17, 2005, Johnson sought an extension) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (until April 19, 2004, which the district court granted. ) Tj ( Johnson) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (timely submitted her PFS on April 19, 2004, but she did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (submit the required authorization forms that were necessary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (to obtain her medical records and financial documents. On) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (June 8, 2004, an omnibus motion was filed under Fed. R. Civ.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (P. 41\(b\) seeking the sanction of dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (Civ. P. 37\(b\)\(2\)\(C\), for actions where the plaintiffs had failed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (to provide a timely, completed PFS. On June 14, 2004, six) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (days after the motion was filed and nearly two months after) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (the authorizations were due, Johnson supplemented her PFS) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (with the required authorizations. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.3 Tw (Alford was served with blank Fact Sheets on March 16,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (2004, which she was required to complete by April 9, 2004.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (She filed nothing. Defendants' Liaison Counsel sent Alford a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (warning letter dated April 13, 2004, which stated: ) Tj 22 -26 Td 2.14 Tw (You must serve a completed Plaintiff's Fact Sheet) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.23 Tw (upon [defense counsel] . . . within 30 days of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.6 Tw (date of this warning letter . . . . Should you fail to) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (12) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (Alford ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (is before Judges Leavy, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.75 m 300 -477.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10327) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 105 0 obj 3219 endobj 103 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 104 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 32 32 108 0 obj << /Length 109 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td .33 Tw 0 Tc (provide complete responses within the allowed time-) Tj 0 -13 Td .62 Tw (frame, defendants will be entitled to move the Court) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (for appropriate relief.) Tj 0 -26 Td 2.62 Tw (Please be advised that, should you fail to comply) Tj 0 -13 Td .12 Tw (with this deadline, the period for fact witness discov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (ery will not begin to run until you serve a substan-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tially complete Plaintiff's Fact Sheet . . . . ) Tj -22 -26 Td .47 Tw (Alford did not serve completed Fact Sheets within thirty days) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (of the warning or request an extension of time to complete) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.19 Tw (them. As a result, she was also included in the June 8, 2004) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (motion to dismiss. By then, Fact Sheets had been submitted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (on behalf of only two of the thirty-two plaintiffs in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (action. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .88 Tw (In response to the motion to dismiss, Alford's counsel, W.) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (Thomas McCraney, III, argued that he had assumed that a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.73 Tw (copy of the warning letter had been sent to Herrington &) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (White, PLLC, lead counsel in Alford's) Tj ( case, and thought Her-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.42 Tw (rington & White would request more time. However,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (McCraney never tried to verify that Herrington & White had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (received the letter; he claimed that he was heavily involved in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (a two-week trial on an unrelated matter at the beginning of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (May, and was busy filing separate complaints as required by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (CMO 15. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .7 Tw (The district court granted the motion to dismiss. It was not) Tj -12 -13.1 Td (persuaded by McCraney's claim that the failure to file timely) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (Fact Sheets was a result of an administrative mix-up, noting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (that he had demonstrated awareness of CMO 6 obligations by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (actually filing a timely PFS in at least two cases. The court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (also noted that service of a PFS on a lead attorney for a given) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (plaintiff was deemed sufficient. Finally, the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (found that counsel's trial commitments and the deadlines for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.85 Tw (filing individual complaints are routine demands of legal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (practice which do not excuse failure to file timely Fact Sheets) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (or, at the least, to request an extension of time. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10328) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 109 0 obj 3175 endobj 107 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 108 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 33 33 111 0 obj << /Length 112 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1 Tw 0 Tc ([9]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Johnson and Alford argue that dismissal was too harsh) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.04 Tw (a sanction, but our ) Tj (review of the record indicates that failure) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.33 Tw (to comply with CMO 6 was not outside Johnson's and) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.77 Tw (Alford's control. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See W. Coast Theater) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 897 F.2d at 1523) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.33 Tw (\(holding that ) Tj (the faults and defaults of the attorney may be) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.96 Tw (imputed to, and their consequences visited upon, his or her) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (client\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 134 \(same\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.2d) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (at 526 \(same\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Link) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 370 U.S. at 633. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.66 Tw (Alford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( differs from ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Allen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in that the district court did not) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (explicitly discuss the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( factors. However, the court had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (gone through the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( factors in its foundational analysis) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.45 Tw (of failure to comply with CMO 6 in early rulings such as) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (Allen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and we assume that Judge Rothstein, one of the most) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (experienced district judges in the country, understood the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.13 Tw (missal factors as they applied to MDL 1407. In any event,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (considering the record in light of those factors ourselves, we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (conclude that the district court had discretion to dismiss the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.87 Tw (Johnson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( actions. The first two factors strongly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (support the court's decision. As we have discussed, this was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (complex, multidistrict litigation involving thousands of plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (tiffs who claimed to have suffered PPA-related injury. ) Tj ([T]he) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (and load of the docket . . . .) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d at 644) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (\(Trott, J., concurring\). Here, given the size and complexity of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (MDL 1407, the docket-managing factor is weighted heavily) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in favor of dismissal. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.03 Tw (CMO 6 set forth a framework for streamlined discovery.) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (When ) Tj (despite the efforts of the Defendants' and the Plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.08 Tw (tiffs' Steering Committee,) Tj ( many plaintiffs were still delin-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.36 Tw (quent eight months later, the court entered CMO 10 to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (increase the incentive for compliance by foreclosing remand) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.55 Tw (until plaintiffs had completely complied with discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (orders. Neither individually nor collectively could the MDL) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (cases move forward toward settlement or trial until compli-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (ance was achieved. Further, noncompliance with discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (orders diverted the court's attention from time it could have) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10329) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 112 0 obj 4107 endobj 110 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 111 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 34 34 114 0 obj << /Length 115 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .72 Tw 0 Tc (devoted to other matters. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1261 \() Tj (It is) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.88 Tw (incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts' power to) Tj 0 -13 Td .38 Tw (manage their dockets without being subject to . . . endless . . .) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (noncompliance . . . .) Tj (\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .57 Tw (Johnson and Alford contend that some delay in completing) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.33 Tw (Fact Sheets was inevitable, but they took this decision away) Tj 0 -13 Td .2 Tw (from the district court, where it belongs, by ignoring the order) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (instead of asking for relief. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d at 642) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (\() Tj (The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (the delay in a particular case interferes with docket manage-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (ment and the public interest.) Tj (\)) Tj (. The information called for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (was solely within the plaintiffs' knowledge. It was basic) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (information about ingestion and injury that was critical to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.77 Tw (plaintiffs' cases as well as to the defense, for without the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.57 Tw (information plaintiffs' claims would lack merit. CMO 6) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (arranged for it to be transmitted to defendants in a form that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (is far simpler and easier to deal with than interrogatories, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (more customary form of first-stage discovery that can be both) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cumbersome and tedious. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.05 Tw ([10]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Prejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1452-53. Failure to produce documents as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (ordered is sufficient prejudice, whether or not there is belated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (compliance. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1453 \(taking action after the defendant's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (motion to dismiss was pending does not excuse taking no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (action before\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Payne v. Exxon Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d 503, 508 \(9th) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (Cir. 1997\) \(noting that last-minute tender of documents does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.07 Tw (not cure prejudice or restore other litigants on a crowded) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (docket to the opportunity to use the courts\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (913 F.2d at 1413 n.6 \(recognizing that refusal to produce evi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (dence presumptively shows that an asserted claim or defense) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (is meritless\). The risk of prejudice is exacerbated where each) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (delay potentially affects the discovery and remand schedule in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (hundreds of other cases. Although a plaintiff's excuse for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (default or delay is relevant, the district court found Alford and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (Johnson's explanation unavailing. We defer to this finding,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (which is not clearly erroneous. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10330) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 115 0 obj 3896 endobj 113 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 114 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 35 35 117 0 obj << /Length 118 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.25 Tw 0 Tc (F.3d at 1116 \(holding that appellate court owes deference to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (the district court's finding that excuses are not credible\). We) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (also note that CMO 15, which counsel maintained was con-) Tj 0 -13 Td .16 Tw (suming his time, itself states that ) Tj ([n]othing in this Case Man-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.75 Tw (agement Order shall delay the production of Plaintiff Fact) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (Sheets by plaintiffs named in multiple plaintiff cases.) Tj ( CMO) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (15, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .33 Tw (3. Therefore, the prejudice factor weighs in favor of dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (missal. ) Tj ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td .82 Tw (The availability of less drastic sanctions was not discussed) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.13 Tw (by the district court, nor did Johnson or Alford propose any.) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.6 Tw (They maintain that to the extent they were in violation of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (CMO 6, no lesser sanction was imposed before proceeding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (directly to dismissal. While true as to them individually,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (CMO 10 reflects the court's awareness of widespread non-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (compliance with CMO 6 and consideration of alternative) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (measures to remedy it. Although the court did not individually) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (warn Johnson and Alford of the possibility of dismissal for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (failure to comply, the text of CMO 1, and of Rules 37\(b\)\(2\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (and 41\(b\), give notice that dismissal is a possible sanction for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (failure to obey pretrial discovery orders. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Valley Eng'rs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 158) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (F.3d at 1056-57. Also, the district court warned all MDL 1407) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (plaintiffs that any case where plaintiffs failed to comply with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (discovery orders would be dismissed; other cases had been) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (dismissed for failure to comply with CMO 6, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Allen) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (v. Bayer) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35370; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson v. Bayer) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35562,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.92 Tw (and this, too, amounted to a warning that similar conduct) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (would result in a similar sanction. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Valley Eng'rs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 158) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (F.3d at 1057. In addition, the court had instructed defendants) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (diligently to pursue filing motions to dismiss for failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (comply with CMO 6 before Alford and Johnson let the dead-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (line go by. Although composed of hundreds of actions, MDL) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (1407 was a unified proceeding for pretrial purposes so its) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (MDL-wide rulings applied to all parties. Further, in accor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (dance with CMO 6's compliance plan, Defense Liaison Coun-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.83 Tw (sel's April 13, 2004 letter advised Alford that she was in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (default of CMO 6 obligations and warned that appropriate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (relief would be requested unless complete responses were) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10331) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 118 0 obj 3845 endobj 116 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 117 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 36 36 120 0 obj << /Length 121 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .77 Tw 0 Tc (forthcoming within 30 days \(the extra time frame allowed by) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .12 Tw (CMO 6 for compliance after warning\). These warnings satisfy) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.18 Tw (this factor in this case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1262) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.25 Tw (\(recognizing that a warning can satisfy the ) Tj (consideration of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.46 Tw (alternatives) Tj ( requirement\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 132 & n.1) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (\(noting that a warning is an alternative sanction, and that case) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.33 Tw (law suggests that warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (court order will result in dismissal can suffice\). ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 2.66 Tw (The fifth factor public policy favoring disposition of) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.87 Tw (cases on the merits normally weighs against dismissal.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (However, failure to comply with CMO 6 obligations brought) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.94 Tw (these MDL actions to a standstill. Noncompliant plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (bear responsibility for halting movement toward a merits res-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.05 Tw (olution. The consequences are compounded in multi-plaintiff) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.38 Tw (actions in multidistrict litigation. This substantially neutral-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .05 Tw (izes the negative effect of this factor in the context of this pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ceeding. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 2.36 Tw ([11]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( On balance, we conclude that dismissal was not an) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (abuse of discretion. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10332) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 121 0 obj 2169 endobj 119 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 120 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 37 37 123 0 obj << /Length 124 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 225.408 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (Volume 2 of 2) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10333) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 124 0 obj 443 endobj 122 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 123 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 38 38 127 0 obj << /Length 128 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 143.67 -34.6 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (VI) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -15.012 -26.2 Td (Clinton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (13) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -116.658 -26.2 Td 3.9 Tw (Betty Clinton, Barbara Evans, Paulette Green, and Joe) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (Johnson were served with a blank PFS on March 21, 2002) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .6 Tw (after their actions were transferred to MDL 1407 in late 2001) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.61 Tw (and early 2002. Completed Fact Sheets and authorization) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.81 Tw (forms were due May 6, 2002. While Clinton and Green) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.17 Tw (applied for extensions, and Green received one, all members) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (of the Clinton group served a late, and incomplete, Fact Sheet) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.62 Tw (\(including Green, who didn't provide hers until after her) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.24 Tw (extension expired\). Numerous ) Tj (deficiency letters were sent to) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 178.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (13) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (The) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Clinton) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( appeals are before Judges Leavy, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 178.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10338) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 128 0 obj 1830 endobj 126 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 127 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 39 39 130 0 obj << /Length 131 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.63 Tw 0 Tc (each up to the time motions to dismiss were filed March 5,) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.22 Tw (2004. The district court found that plaintiffs in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (actions failed to comply with the discovery plan set forth in) Tj 0 -13 Td .43 Tw (CMOs 6 and 10 despite ample opportunity to comply, as well) Tj 0 -13 Td .41 Tw (as warnings that failure to comply would result in appropriate) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.65 Tw (sanctions including dismissal. It also found outstanding) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (deficiencies as to all the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( discovery responses. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.62 Tw ([12]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Clinton, Evans, Green, and Johnson argue that dis-) Tj -12 -13 Td .55 Tw (missal was too severe a sanction and that noncompliance was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (not the result of willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Additionally,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (they posit that the delay in their cases was only slight, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (was due to counsel's difficulty obtaining the required infor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (mation from clients who had been injured by ingestion of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (PPA-containing products. We disagree that the delay was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (slight, as it continued for nearly two years. While the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (trict court made no express finding of fault, we may review) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (the record to determine whether it contains evidence of will-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (fulness, bad faith, or fault. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In re Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (at 1143. Our review indicates that failure to comply with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (CMO 6 was not outside Clinton's control, thus satisfying the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.45 Tw (fault standard for imposing Rule 37 sanctions. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (285 F.3d at 905; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d at 1143-44; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (W.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (Coast Theater) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 897 F.2d at 1523. No member of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Clinton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 5.33 Tw (group substantiated counsel's claim of incapacitation or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.67 Tw (explained why alternative approaches, such as a protective) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (order or further extensions of time, were not pursued. Dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (missal was therefore an available sanction. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .41 Tw ([13]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Considering the dismissal factors here leads us to con-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (clude that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. For rea-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (sons we have already explained, the first two tip in favor of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (dismissal. Prejudice is presumed from unreasonable delay,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1452-53, and the Clinton group failed to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (file a PFS that was not deficient within the deadline set by the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (court, or for two years thereafter. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (at 643 \(observing that unreasonable delay inherently increases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.36 Tw (the risk of prejudice from faded memories and stale evi-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10339) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 131 0 obj 4027 endobj 129 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 130 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 40 40 133 0 obj << /Length 134 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .96 Tw 0 Tc (dence\). Although two of these plaintiffs asked for extensions) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.96 Tw (\(and one received a year of additional time\), substantially) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.41 Tw (complete Fact Sheets were not submitted until after the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.28 Tw (motion to dismiss was filed two years after originally due.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td (This neither excuses, nor cures, prejudice. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (F.3d at 906; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Payne) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d at 508. ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td .7 Tw (While the district court did not explicitly discuss the avail-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (ability of less drastic sanctions in its dismissal order, it found) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .18 Tw (that the Clinton group had received warnings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .39 Tw (F.2d at 1262. It is also apparent from the record that the court) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 7.5 Tw (considered progressive sanctions, as we have already) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (explained. ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td 3.5 Tw (Finally, ) Tj (given plaintiffs' responsibility for moving their) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .85 Tw (cases toward resolution, public policy favoring disposition of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (cases on the merits offers little support in their favor. ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td 2.75 Tw (In these circumstances, dismissal was within the court's) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (discretion. ) Tj 141.672 -26.8 Td (VII) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -7.338 -26.7 Td (Page) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (14) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -122.334 -26.7 Td 1.25 Tw (Elizabeth Page appeals dismissal of her action with preju-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.57 Tw (dice for failure to comply with CMO 19. Page's action was) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1 Tw (transferred to MDL 1407 on August 7, 2003. Bayer served a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td (blank PFS on Page on August 19, 2003, so she was required) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2 Tw (by CMO 6 to furnish a complete Fact Sheet by October 3,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.07 Tw (2003. On October 7, Bayer sent a warning letter to Page) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.5 Tw (informing her that she was not complying with CMO 6. On) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .96 Tw (November 17, 2003, Page returned the PFS, but Bayer noted) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.07 Tw (a number of deficiencies, including a lack of release forms) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.18 Tw (and incomplete answers to questions regarding health and) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.4 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (14) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (Page) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is before Judges D. Nelson, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.55 m 300 -477.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10340) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 134 0 obj 3181 endobj 132 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 133 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 41 41 136 0 obj << /Length 137 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.25 Tw 0 Tc (employment issues, of which it informed Page by a warning) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (letter on March 10, 2004. Page did not respond to the letter.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.11 Tw (On March 16, 2004, Mohammad Syed, an associate at the) Tj -12 -13 Td .43 Tw (law firm representing Page who was involved in her case, but) Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (was not counsel of record, departed for a vacation in the Mid-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (dle East. Due to ) Tj (administrative red tape,) Tj ( the trip was pro-) Tj 0 -13 Td 0 Tw (longed and the record does not reflect when, or if, he returned.) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.2 Tw (On April 14, 2004, Bayer sent a third warning letter again) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.53 Tw (notifying Page of deficiencies in the PFS; a fourth was sent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (on May 14, 2004. Finally, on May 17, 2004, Page responded) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (by sending the requested forms. The next day, Page informed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.12 Tw (Bayer of Syed's absence, requested that Bayer resend the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (warning letters, and promised to correct the deficiencies ) Tj (as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (soon as practical.) Tj ( Bayer resent the letters the next day via) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (fax. On August 9, 2004, having still not received the supple-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (mental PFS that Page had promised, Bayer sent a fifth warn-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (ing letter, which informed Page that, pursuant to CMO 19,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.26 Tw (Bayer would seek dismissal if Page did not send a complete) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.37 Tw (PFS. On August 23, 2004, the post-warning grace period) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.78 Tw (allowed under CMO 19 expired. On September 2, 2004,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (Bayer sought dismissal of Page's case, and on September 7,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (2004, the district court issued an Order to Show Cause \(OSC\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (why Page's case should not be dismissed. On September 20,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (2004, Page responded to the order and appended a supple-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (mental PFS, which addressed many, but not all, of Bayer's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (asserted deficiencies. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .5 Tw (Page admitted that there were ) Tj (absences) Tj ( and ) Tj (failing[s] in) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (Plaintiff's fact sheet) Tj ( and that Bayer was ) Tj (certainly entitled to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (complete answers to the questions on the fact sheet.) Tj ( She con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (ceded that Bayer ) Tj (certainly was within its rights) Tj ( to seek dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (missal under CMO 19 and that she had committed ) Tj (error in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (failing to transmit) Tj ( the supplemental Fact Sheet to Bayer. She) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.45 Tw (accepted ) Tj (responsibility for that delay.) Tj ( Nevertheless, Page) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (tried to excuse the delay by arguing that the revised PFS had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .56 Tw (been completed some time prior to the motion to dismiss, but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (had simply not been given to Bayer because ) Tj (counsel . . .) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10341) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 137 0 obj 3570 endobj 135 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 136 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 42 42 139 0 obj << /Length 140 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.67 Tw 0 Tc (inadvertently forgot to send those responses.) Tj ( Page argued) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (that the errors and omissions in the original PFS were merely) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.42 Tw (technical. In light of that inadvertence, Syed's absence from) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (the country, and the alleged mildness of the omissions, Page) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.92 Tw (argued that dismissal was too harsh a sanction. The district) Tj 0 -13 Td .63 Tw (court found that Page's excuses were not a reasonable justifi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (cation for the delay and that Bayer had been prejudiced. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .76 Tw (Page now argues that the district court erred as a matter of) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (law because her original PFS was ) Tj (complete in all respects) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (as defined by CMO 19. Even if Page had not waived this) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (issue by failing to raise it in district court, Page conceded that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (Bayer was within its rights to seek dismissal for violation of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (CMO 19, that there were absences and failings in her PFS,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (and that she failed to transmit the supplemental Fact Sheet to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (Bayer. Page also maintains that Bayer had answers to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (PFS's requests for technical information in other forms, but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (we rejected a similar argument in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. 364) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (F.3d at 1117. The reason is that ) Tj ([a]n important purpose of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (discovery is to reveal what evidence the opposing party has,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (thereby helping determine which facts are undisputed per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (haps paving the way for a summary judgment motion and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (which facts must be resolved at trial.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Finally, it is not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (without significance that Page never sought a protective order) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (or other relief from her discovery obligations. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.16 Tw ([14]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although the district court's order does not explicitly) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (reflect a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( analysis, it was entered with reference to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (parties' memoranda, which did. In any event, we can review) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (the record independently and, having done so, conclude that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (the dismissal ) Tj (factors support the district court's determination.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (As we have discussed, the first two ) Tj (factors strongly support) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.42 Tw (the court's dismissal. The district court found prejudice,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (which is presumed from unreasonable delay. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (F.3d at 1453. Page failed to submit a compliant PFS for over) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.24 Tw (a year, and this suffices to show prejudice even if there is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (belated compliance. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Payne) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d at 508. Although a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (plaintiff's excuse for default or delay is relevant, the district) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10342) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 140 0 obj 3847 endobj 138 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 139 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 43 43 142 0 obj << /Length 143 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.38 Tw 0 Tc (court found that Page proffered no reasonable justification.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.33 Tw (The public policy favoring disposition on the merits is not) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.4 Tw (compelling when it is thwarted by the plaintiffs' failure to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (move their cases along. ) Tj (While the availability of less drastic) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .37 Tw (sanctions was not discussed in the order, the district court can) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.33 Tw (sometimes meet the ) Tj (consideration of alternatives) Tj ( require-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.39 Tw (ment by issuing a warning that a party's failure to obey a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.16 Tw (court order will result in dismissal. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Estrada) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 244 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (1057; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1262; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 132-33.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.98 Tw (The logistical complexity involved in multidistrict litigation) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.16 Tw (makes it impossible to issue personalized warnings to each) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.97 Tw (one of thousands of parties and give second \(or, in some) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.15 Tw (cases, third, fourth, or fifth\) chances based on each party's) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .38 Tw (unique circumstances. An MDL court facing widespread non-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (compliance with its orders may satisfy the need for consider-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.73 Tw (ation of lesser sanctions, as the district court did here, by) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .21 Tw (implementing progressively more severe penalties and issuing) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.88 Tw (warnings in MDL-wide case management and scheduling) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .45 Tw (orders, served at the outset of a party's transfer to the MDL.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (15) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td .4 Tw (The progression from CMO 6 to CMO 19 indicates that alter-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .62 Tw (natives were considered; Bayer followed the compliance plan) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.16 Tw (incorporated into these case management orders in this case;) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.05 Tw (and, in the wake of widespread noncompliance with earlier) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.26 Tw (discovery orders, the parties to MDL 1407 had been warned) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.14 Tw (by the district judge that future noncompliance could lead to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.52 Tw (dismissal. Accordingly, we conclude the district court ade-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (quately considered its alternatives before dismissing Page's) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.16 Tw (action. Thus, in light of the full ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( analysis, the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (court did not abuse its discretion.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .33 Tw (15) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (While our case law suggests some temporal guidelines for issuance of) Tj -10 -11.4 Td .1 Tw (a warning in ordinary litigation, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see Pagtalunan) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 291 F.3d at 643 \(suggest-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.39 Tw (ing a warning may be inadequate if it did not occur after the plaintiff's) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .95 Tw (violation of a court order\), such guidelines have no salience in the MDL) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.43 Tw (context and would make it impossible to administer the vast number of) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.5 Tw (cases in an MDL. As these guidelines have never been extended to the) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.09 Tw (MDL context, we decline to extend them now as doing so would render) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (an MDL unworkable. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -397.75 m 300 -397.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10343) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 143 0 obj 4156 endobj 141 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 142 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 44 44 146 0 obj << /Length 147 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 139.674 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (VIII) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -89.226 -26 Td (Riley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Holmes) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Samuels) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( McDaniel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (16) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -38.448 -26 Td 5.28 Tw (Marie Riley, Bobby Holmes and his family, Melody) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (McDaniel, and Samantha Samuels, et al. appeal dismissal of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (their actions with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (19. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.52 Tw (Riley's case was transferred to MDL 1407 on April 29,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (2003; a year later, Bayer sent a deficiency notice with respect) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (to the incomplete PFS that Riley had submitted, signed by her) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (daughter who was not a party. Although she then supple-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.55 Tw (mented the PFS, it, too, was unsigned. Bayer sent another) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (deficiency notice August 12, warning of its intent to seek dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (missal if completed documents were not received within 15) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (days \(the additional period allowed by CMO 19\). An OSC) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (was served under CMO 19; counsel responded that Riley was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (unable to complete the PFS due to her deteriorating health,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (but that her daughter had personal knowledge of Riley's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (stroke as well as ingestion of PPA-containing products and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (that a power of attorney was being sought for her. None was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (obtained by November 17, 2004, when the dismissal order) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (was entered. The court noted that no justification was offered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (for the daughter's failure to obtain a power of attorney for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (nearly five months, and that defendants were prejudiced by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (this considerable delay. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.34 Tw (Samuels's case was transferred January 11, 2002, before) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 5.28 Tw (CMO 6 was entered. Five deficiency letters were sent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (between May 31, 2002 and July 14, 2004; the final letter had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (a CMO 19 warning. Samuels submitted an unsigned supple-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (mental response, without authorizations, to Bayer on July 20,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (2004; an OSC was issued September 9; and Samuels provided) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (a signed PFS October 11, 2004 two weeks after the time to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (respond to the OSC expired. The district court found that) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (16) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (The ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Riley) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( appeals are before Judges D. Nelson, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.75 m 300 -477.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10344) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 147 0 obj 3525 endobj 145 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 146 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 45 45 149 0 obj << /Length 150 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.46 Tw 0 Tc (Samuels had been given numerous warnings, which she had) Tj 0 -13 Td .36 Tw (consistently ignored, and that her excuse counsel had writ-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.03 Tw (ten to her on July 21, 2004 emphasizing the importance of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (signing the PFS and providing signed releases that would be) Tj 0 -13 Td .41 Tw (turned over to defense counsel upon receipt was unpersua-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.36 Tw (sive. It found prejudice on account of Samuels's failure to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (comply with court-ordered discovery. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.58 Tw (Holmes's case was transferred January 10, 2002. He died) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.14 Tw (shortly before his PFS was due \(May 7\). Co-plaintiffs sent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (unsigned, unverified PFS responses. Three deficiency notices) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (were sent between May 31, 2002 and January 2003; Holmes's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (daughter was deposed in April 2004, but lacked key informa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (tion about her father's injury and ingestion of PPA; two more) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (deficiency letters were sent on May 11 and August 13, 2004,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .69 Tw (the last one with a CMO 19 warning. An OSC was issued on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (September 7, to which counsel responded that he had located) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (Holmes's former girlfriend who was percipient to the stroke,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.87 Tw (and that he was preparing another supplemental PFS. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (court noted that counsel made no attempt to explain why two) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (years had elapsed from the original PFS due date before try-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (ing to locate the girlfriend; that despite repeated requests,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (extensions, and warnings, counsel still had failed to file a PFS) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (that was complete in all respects; and that no reasonable justi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (fication was offered for the failure. It also found prejudice to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (the defense by failure to comply with court-ordered discov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ery. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .87 Tw (Finally, McDaniel's case was transferred to MDL 1407 on) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.58 Tw (September 24, 2003. Bayer sent a deficiency notice with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.03 Tw (respect to her incomplete PFS on March 8, 2004; she) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (responded with a supplement signed by counsel; another defi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (ciency notice with a CMO 19 warning was sent August 11,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (2004, and an OSC was issued September 7, 2004. McDaniel) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (indicated that her counsel had difficulty locating her after she) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (moved from Mississippi to Missouri and disconnected her) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.08 Tw (phone. She also sent Bayer an unsigned supplemental) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (response. On October 8, 2004 after the time for responding to) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10345) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 150 0 obj 3394 endobj 148 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 149 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 46 46 152 0 obj << /Length 153 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .28 Tw 0 Tc (the OSC had lapsed, McDaniel fowarded signed authorization) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (forms to Bayer. The court observed that it was undisputed that) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (McDaniel had failed to serve a timely PFS that was complete) Tj 0 -13 Td .64 Tw (in all respects, and noted of the proffered excuse that counsel) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (had not sought an extension of the deadline from the court on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (account of inability to reach McDaniel. It found that counsel's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (inability to communicate with his client was not sufficient) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (justification for failure to comply with court-ordered discov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (ery; that adequate warnings had been given of the conse-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.06 Tw (quences of failure to comply with CMO 19; and that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (defendants were prejudiced by this failure. ) Tj 145.668 -26 Td (A) Tj -133.668 -26 Td 1.33 Tw (Bayer, the lead defendant in Holmes's case, contends that) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Holmes) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( appeal is untimely. We address this first, as our) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (jurisdiction depends upon the filing of a timely notice. We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (believe that Holmes filed on time. Holmes brought a motion) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (for reconsideration within 10 days of the district court's entry) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (of judgment, thereby tolling his time to file a notice of appeal.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (He then filed his notice of appeal within 30 days of the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. This com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (ports with the rules and gives us jurisdiction. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fed. R. App.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.74 Tw (P. 4\(a\)\(4\)\(A\)\(vi\); Fed. R. App. P. 4\(a\)\(7\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Mt. Graham Red) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Squirrel v. Madigan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 954 F.2d 1441, 1462 \(9th Cir. 1992\). ) Tj 145.998 -26 Td (B) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -133.998 -26 Td 3 Tw ([15]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Riley, Holmes, and Samuels argue that the district) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (court abused its discretion by dismissing their claims without) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.83 Tw (finding willfulness, fault, or bad faith as our precedent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (requires for Rule 37 sanctions. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (at 905. Beyond this, Riley and Holmes maintain that counsel) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (had difficulty locating the information needed to cure defi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (ciencies in the PFS due to Holmes's death and Riley's mental) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (and physical condition; Samuels claims that she served an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (unsigned copy of a supplemental PFS; and McDaniel con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (tends that she substantially complied with CMO 19 and thus) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10346) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 153 0 obj 3518 endobj 151 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 152 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 47 47 155 0 obj << /Length 156 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .23 Tw 0 Tc (was not at fault. The district court found no reasonable justifi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.27 Tw (cation for failure to file a PFS on time, which is tantamount) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (to a determination of fault. Our review of the record also indi-) Tj 0 -13 Td .39 Tw (cates that failure to comply with CMO 19 was not outside the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.47 Tw (litigants' control, which satisfies the standard for imposing) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.36 Tw (sanctions. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d at 1143-44; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (W.) Tj 0 -13 Td .16 Tw (Coast Theater, ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (897 F.2d at 1523. None of these parties sought) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (more time or the court's approval for a different approach to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (allow for unusual difficulties. Nor does ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (substantial) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( compli-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.16 Tw (ance show the absence of fault, as McDaniel maintains,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (because CMO 19 requires ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (complete) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( compliance. Her failure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (to sign the PFS was unexplained, and there is no indication) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (that she was unable to stay in touch with counsel. Thus, dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (missal was an available sanction for each of these parties. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.71 Tw (Weighing the dismissal factors, we conclude that the dis-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (trict court had discretion to dismiss. Although the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (court did not explicitly discuss ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in this case, ) Tj (it was not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (required to. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1261. Our review) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (of the record indicates that the first two factors strongly sup-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (port the district court's decision. CMO 6 set forth a frame-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (work for discovery that was tightened in CMO 10 when many) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (plaintiffs failed to comply, and again in CMO 19 when delin-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (quencies still existed more than two years later. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Riley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (actions had been pending in MDL 1407 for one to three years,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.04 Tw (during which period defense discovery, triggered by com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (pleted Fact Sheets, could not begin. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.25 Tw (The district court found prejudice and we are not firmly) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (convinced this is wrong, as prejudice is presumed from unrea-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (sonable delay. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1452-53. These actions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (were stalled for anywhere from one to three years. Without a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (completed PFS, a defense could not be mounted, the structure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (for MDL 1407 discovery carefully-tailored by court and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (counsel was thwarted, and the actions could not move) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (toward remand. Failure to produce documents as ordered is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.1 Tw (prejudicial, whether or not there is belated compliance.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (Payne) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d at 508. A plaintiff's excuse for default or) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10347) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 156 0 obj 4030 endobj 154 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 155 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 48 48 158 0 obj << /Length 159 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.77 Tw 0 Tc (delay is relevant, and the district court found no reasonable) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.37 Tw (justification for the conduct here. Samuels offered no expla-) Tj 0 -13 Td .11 Tw (nation at all; Holmes's co-plaintiffs failed to explain why they) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.26 Tw (waited two years to try to find another witness who might) Tj 0 -13 Td .24 Tw (provide the requested information; Riley's claims of incapaci-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.74 Tw (tation are unsubstantiated and her daughter did not obtain a) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (power of attorney until after her action had been dismissed;) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.71 Tw (and McDaniel did not indicate why timely communication) Tj 0 -13 Td 4 Tw (was impossible. Accordingly, the prejudice factor weighs) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.1 Tw (heavily in favor of dismissal, and the fourth factor public) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits offers lit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tle support to plaintiffs in these circumstances. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.82 Tw (Although the district court did not explicitly consider the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (availability of less drastic sanctions, it is apparent from the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.38 Tw (record that progressive sanctions had been considered. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .86 Tw (court had tried in CMO 10 to compel compliance with CMO) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (6 by deferring the start of a one-year discovery period until) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (the PFS was completed; when that didn't work, it entered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (CMO 19 requiring submission of a PFS complete in all) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (respects and providing for a warning program that the defense) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (followed in these actions. In each of these cases, letters were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (sent giving notice of deficiencies, affording Riley, Samuels,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.83 Tw (Holmes, and McDaniel successive opportunities to comply) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (with the court's orders, and warning of dismissal under CMO) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (19 should the deficiencies not be corrected. There is no reason) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (the court should have believed that any of these parties would) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (comply in the future. ) Tj (In addition, the text of Fed. R. Civ. P.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (37\(b\)\(2\) gives notice that dismissal is a possible sanction for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (failure to obey discovery orders; CMO 1 warns that failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (produce required documents will be treated as an infraction of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (a court order justifying appropriate sanctions; and the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (judge advised all MDL 1407 parties on July 31, 2003 that any) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (case that had not complied with her discovery orders would) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (be dismissed. As Judge Rothstein explained, ) Tj (the time has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (come to figure out which of these cases are real and which of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (them aren't. And if discovery hasn't been complied with,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (there's a strong presumption on my part that the case should) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10348) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 159 0 obj 3607 endobj 157 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 158 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 49 49 161 0 obj << /Length 162 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.81 Tw 0 Tc (be dismissed.) Tj ( Further, these dismissals were entered only) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (after the parties had been given an opportunity to explain) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (delay and urge alternative sanctions. ) Tj (In light of the number) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (and clarity of warnings, the court's findings that these parties) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (ignored the warnings, and the progression of CMOs 6, 10, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (19, this factor supports dismissal. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (1262. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1.41 Tw (We conclude that dismissal was within the court's discre-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tion. ) Tj 143.67 -26.1 Td (IX) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -76.296 -26.1 Td (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (17) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -55.374 -26.1 Td 1.58 Tw (Leslie Ackel, et al., Bridgett Arrington, et al., and Calvin) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (McGriggs, et al. appeal dismissal of their actions for failure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (to file new individual complaints as required by CMOs 15 and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (15A, and from denial of their motions for reconsideration.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (None of the ) Tj (parties to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, or ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (filed a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (severed complaint before the deadline set in CMO 15 \(June) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .58 Tw (29, 2003\), or requested an extension. However, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 4.88 Tw (and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs filed new individual complaints) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (between August 4 and August 19, and the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs fol-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (lowed suit between August 27 and October 14, 2003. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.83 Tw (CMO 15 applied to numerous cases that joined unrelated) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 4.25 Tw (claims of multiple plaintiffs who allegedly took a PPA-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.88 Tw (containing product without specifying which product was) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.34 Tw (ingested or which manufacturer caused their injuries. The) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.47 Tw (court found as to all such actions that the threshold require-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.07 Tw (ments for permissive joinder under Rules 20 and 21 of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that multiple) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.22 Tw (plaintiffs may ) Tj (assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same trans-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .43 Tw (17) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Arrington) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj (and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( are before Judges D. Nelson, Rymer,) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10349) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 162 0 obj 3816 endobj 160 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 161 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 50 50 165 0 obj << /Length 166 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.72 Tw 0 Tc (action, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences) Tj 0 -13 Td .1 Tw (and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.3 Tw (will arise in the action,) Tj ( could not be met because the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.5 Tw (multiple-plaintiff cases did not seek relief arising from the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.42 Tw (same transaction or occurrence. Thus, severance of the indi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (vidual plaintiffs was proper. In addition, the court noted that) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.1 Tw (under Rule 21\(b\), ) Tj ([t]he court may make such orders as will) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.11 Tw (prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.73 Tw (expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.43 Tw (asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (delay or prejudice.) Tj ( Accordingly, it ordered individual new) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (complaints, which would relate back to the date of the origi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (nal complaint, to be filed within 30 days in all cases that con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tained multiple plaintiffs. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.11 Tw (CMO 15A, entered August 26, 2003, served as an adjunct) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (to CMO 15 to give the parties a mechanism for resolving) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (noncompliant severed complaints and dismissal of original) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (multi-plaintiff complaints. It allowed defendants to move to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (dismiss with prejudice the original case as to those plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (who failed properly to file an individual new complaint, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (as to those plaintiffs who filed an individual new complaint) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (which did not identify a product manufactured by the moving) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.82 Tw (defendant. CMO 15A also provided that upon motion, non-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.08 Tw (compliant complaints must be refiled with the appropriate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (information within 30 days, otherwise dismissal with preju-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (dice would result. In addition, CMO 15A states that 86 origi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 8.52 Tw (nal multiple-plaintiff complaints, including ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(of which ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was then a part\) ) Tj (shall be dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (missed with prejudice as of the effective date of the order \(60) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (days later, or October 26, 2003\), which includes any plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.82 Tw (for whom an individual severed complaint was not timely) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.38 Tw (filed. Simultaneously, the district court entered a separate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (order providing: ) Tj (Pursuant to Case Management Orders 15) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (and 15A, the original multiple plaintiff Complaints listed in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (Exhibit A to this Order are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJ-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (UDICE. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( are listed in this Exhibit. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10350) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 166 0 obj 3828 endobj 164 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 165 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 51 51 168 0 obj << /Length 169 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .03 Tw 0 Tc (By October, some plaintiffs who had filed untimely severed) Tj -12 -13 Td .91 Tw (complaints were taking the position that CMO 15A extended) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.55 Tw (the deadline for filing by 60 days. Defense Liaison Counsel) Tj 0 -13 Td .91 Tw (disputed this interpretation, arguing that the August 26, 2003) Tj 0 -13 Td .1 Tw (order dismissed both the original multiple-plaintiff complaints) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.87 Tw (and the claims of plaintiffs who failed to file severed com-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.63 Tw (plaints within the 30 days prescribed in CMO 15. Given an) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.12 Tw (opportunity to respond by the court, counsel in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 2.41 Tw (admitted to filing late but argued that defense counsel had) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.26 Tw (agreed to extensions; no responses were filed in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. On October 30, the court entered an order holding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .09 Tw (that CMO 15 makes clear on its face that new individual com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (plaints were to be filed in any pending multi-plaintiff cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (within 30 days, that is, by June 29, 2003, and that nothing in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (CMO 15A alters that 30-day period. We accept the court's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (finding of what its order requires. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Yourish) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 191 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (991. The court then directed defendants to file a single pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (posed order of dismissal in all cases in which plaintiffs filed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (untimely new individual complaints, which they did as to) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.9 Tw (The court rejected Arrington's argument that defendants) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (had agreed to extensions, and Ackel's that filing severed com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (plaints late but before the proposed orders of dismissal had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (been served rendered the issue of compliance moot. It) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (denied Arrington's and McGriggs's motion to reconsider) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (based on oversight of counsel, noting that it is the responsibil-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (ity of all attorneys to keep track of deadlines relevant to their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (clients' cases. Beyond this, the court determined that dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (missal was warranted under the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( factors. In particular,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (it found that the practical effect of failure on the part of plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.94 Tw (tiffs in multiple-plaintiff cases to file severed complaints) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (specifying the products ingested and the manufacturers caus-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (ing injury in a timely fashion prevented the cases from mov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (ing forward. It also noted that failure to comply with CMO 15) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (diverted the court's time and resources, and prejudiced defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (dants because without the information contained in the sev-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.53 Tw (ered complaints, their ability to defend these cases was) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10351) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 169 0 obj 3957 endobj 167 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 168 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 52 52 171 0 obj << /Length 172 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.91 Tw 0 Tc (seriously compromised. Further, the court stated that it was) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.63 Tw (impossible to dispose of unsevered cases on the merits, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (that unwillingness to file severed complaints or delay in doing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (so was not excusable. ) Tj 145.668 -26 Td (A) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -45.528 -26 Td (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -88.14 -26 Td 3.32 Tw ([16]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Ackel and Arrington contend that dismissal is too) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (harsh a sanction and that their delay in filing new individual) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (complaints was not the result of willfulness, fault, or bad) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (faith. To be clear, these are not Rule 37 dismissals for failure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (to make discovery; rather, they are dismissals for failure to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (comply with court-ordered severance. Regardless, the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.81 Tw (court found their excuses for failing to comply with the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (court's severance order insufficient, which is tantamount to a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.46 Tw (determination of fault. Nothing in the record indicates that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (failure to comply with CMO 15 was outside their control. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (Fair Hous.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d at 905; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (at 1143-44; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (W. Coast Theater) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 897 F.2d at 1523. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .12 Tw (Considering the dismissal factors, we agree with the district) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (court's assessment of the impact that failing to file severed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (complaints has on the public interest in expeditious resolution) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (and on its own docket. CMO 15 itself is not challenged on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (appeal, so whether severance was a needless formality for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (some individual plaintiffs misses the point of the overall need,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.28 Tw (and requirement, to break out the allegations in multiple-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (plaintiff cases. The first two factors therefore weigh strongly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in favor of dismissal. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.1 Tw (Prejudice is the more difficult question in this case, as the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (delay in complying was between five and twelve weeks. Five) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (weeks may not seem like too much, but the district court is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (in the best position to measure the effect of delay on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (defendants in these cases and overall. ) Tj (The situation that led to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (CMOs 13 and 15 had been building for two years during) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10352) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 172 0 obj 3350 endobj 170 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 171 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 53 53 174 0 obj << /Length 175 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.37 Tw 0 Tc (which defendants in multiple-party complaints did not know) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (what they were defending. In addition, the risk of prejudice is) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.23 Tw (related to the reason for default. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d) Tj 0 -13 Td .48 Tw (at 131; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Yourish) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 191 F.3d at 992. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Yourish) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, for example, we) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (upheld a dismissal with prejudice when the plaintiff failed to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.67 Tw (file an amended complaint within the 60 days allowed by a) Tj 0 -13 Td .95 Tw (district court order, noting among other things that the paltry) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (excuse for default on the judge's order indicates prejudice to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (defendants from the delay. Here, Ackel proffered no excuse,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (and the district court found Arrington's conduct inexcusable.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .67 Tw ([17]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( At least two hundred actions were subject to CMO 15) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (and the court was forced to deal with more than 127 individu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (als who filed a severed complaint late. Nevertheless, the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (trict court was careful to consider the particular situation and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (explanation offered by these plaintiffs, with the exception of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, whose circumstances the court did) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (not address adequately. As to the other plaintiffs, however,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (Judge Rothstein discriminated among them by holding that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (the delay caused by a group of ten who filed their severed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (complaints one day after the deadline was inconsequential.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (How much delay is too much delay is a matter quintessen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (tially within the discretion of the district judge, who is best) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.82 Tw (situated to balance the degree of delay, the importance of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (prompt compliance, the effect on her docket and defendants,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (and the justification. Whether any of us would have drawn the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (line differently is not the issue; the district court here, fully) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (informed, believed the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( delay was conse-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.46 Tw (quential. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Estrada) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 244 at 1056 \(reiterating that ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.46 Tw (`the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (question is not whether this court would have, as an original) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (matter, imposed the sanctions chosen by the trial court, but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (whether the trial court exceeded the limits of its discretion') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .88 Tw () Tj 0 -13.1 Td .76 Tw (\(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Halaco Eng'g Co. v. Costle) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 843 F.2d 376, 379 \(9th) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (Cir. 1988\)\). In the circumstances of MDL 1407, we cannot) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (say that the district judge lacked discretion to make this call.) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.6 Tw (Ackel and Arrington also rely on the fact that they had) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (already furnished Fact Sheets and Affirmations naming the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10353) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 175 0 obj 4090 endobj 173 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 174 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 54 54 177 0 obj << /Length 178 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.67 Tw 0 Tc (drugs ingested and the respective manufacturers, so defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (dants could not have been prejudiced by their failure to repeat) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (the same information in a severed complaint. However, that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (compliant pleadings are ultimately filed does not compel a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (district court to conclude that failure to comply with a court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (order doesn't matter. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (1116 \(rejecting similar argument\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Payne) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d at 508) Tj (.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.63 Tw (Nor are we impressed with the argument advanced by the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs that there could be no prejudice) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (because it took defendants over five months from the June 29,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (2003 deadline to ask the court for assistance. That delay came) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (about only because of a dispute between plaintiffs and defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (dants about the effect of the August 26 order dismissing these) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (actions with prejudice. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1.57 Tw (The district court did not explicitly discuss availability of) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 3.03 Tw (less drastic sanctions in its order, but it implicitly did by) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.32 Tw (rejecting the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' contention that dismissal was) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.2 Tw (too harsh a remedy. Also, the fact that the court examined) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.74 Tw (each case discretely with the exception of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .78 Tw (plaintiffs, whose situation the court did not properly consider) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw ( and determined that no sanctions were warranted in some,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.33 Tw (and that dismissal was warranted only absent a convincing) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (reason for failure to comply with CMO 15 in others, indicates) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the court was sensitive to an appropriate level of sanction. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 2.4 Tw (We do not have a firm conviction that the district court) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.92 Tw (committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors) Tj ( in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .23 Tw (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ferdik) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 963 F.2d at 1260; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Yourish) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 191 F.3d at 992) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (\(applying standard\). ) Tj 145.998 -26.1 Td (B) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -23.664 -26.1 Td (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (18) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -112.334 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .2 Tw (18) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The disposition as to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is authored by Judge Fisher, joined by) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Judge D. Nelson. Judge Rymer dissents. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10354) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 178 0 obj 3871 endobj 176 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 177 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 55 55 180 0 obj << /Length 181 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .71 Tw 0 Tc (The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs were dismissed because they filed) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.53 Tw (severed complaints between August 9 and August 19, five) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.48 Tw (weeks after the June 29, 2003 deadline set by CMO 15. On) Tj 0 -13 Td .77 Tw (August 26, at least a week ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (after) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs filed) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (their severed complaints, the district court entered CMO 15A,) Tj 0 -13 Td .11 Tw (which provided for dismissal with prejudice of all jointly filed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.08 Tw (complaints, including the complaints of those like the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.75 Tw (McGriggs ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs) Tj (, for whom a timely severed complaint) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (had not been filed by the June 29 deadline. Although Fed. R.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (Civ. P. 37\(b\)\(2\) and 41\(b\) provide notice that dismissal is a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (possible sanction for failure to obey pretrial discovery orders,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (see ) Tj (Valley Eng'rs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 158 F.3d at 1056-57, ) Tj (CMO 15 gave no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.32 Tw (explicit warning. And although the district court orally) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (admonished plaintiffs that failure to file severed complaints) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (could result in dismissal, it did so only on July 31, 2003 ) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.3 Tw (more than a month after the June 29, 2003 deadline had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (passed. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.66 Tw (The court's rationale in entering CMO 15 was sensible:) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (each defendant in MDL 1407 needed and was entitled to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (know the particular plaintiff who was suing it, why that plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.39 Tw (tiff was suing it and which product was at issue. Applied to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, this rationale does not justify the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sanction they suffered.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 113.328 -26 Td (DISCUSSION) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -101.328 -26 Td 3.08 Tw ([18]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs comprise two subsets: the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs and the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs \() Tj (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (plaintiffs) Tj (\). The district court's ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( analysis is inadequate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.92 Tw (with respect to both subsets because the court did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (acknowledge that the initial multiparty complaint each subset) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.96 Tw (filed was already detailed, identifying Bayer as the only) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (defendant in the case of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( subset, and Delaco) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.74 Tw (\(and Delaco's successor\) in the case of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( subset.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (These original multiparty complaints made clear, respectively,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (that Alka Seltzer Plus Cold and Bayer, and Dexatrim and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.96 Tw (Delaco \(and Delaco's successor\), were the sole drugs and) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10355) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 181 0 obj 3986 endobj 179 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 180 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 56 56 184 0 obj << /Length 185 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.46 Tw 0 Tc (defendants at issue, and the original complaints alleged spe-) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.96 Tw (cific harms suffered by each plaintiff on precise dates.) Tj 0 -13 Td .14 Tw (Although the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs were necessarily) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.95 Tw (subject to the global application of CMO 15, they rightly) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.58 Tw (argue that filing severed complaints \(which they did do, a) Tj 0 -13 Td .45 Tw (month and a half late\) did not provide the court or defendants) Tj 0 -13 Td .88 Tw (with any information they did not previously have. This can-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.77 Tw (not be said of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, who were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.04 Tw (also dismissed with the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, because their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (original multiparty complaints were not so specific. Whereas) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (the practical effect of [the] failure on the part of ) Tj ([the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs] to file severed complaints specifying) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (the products ingested and the manufacturers causing injury) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .12 Tw (. . . [was to] prevent[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .12 Tw (] the cases from moving forward,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (p. 10351, no evidence suggests the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs' late) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (compliance caused any such delay. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.5 Tw ([19]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' failure timely to obey the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (court's orders was not prejudicial to the public's interest in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (the expeditious resolution of litigation or the court's manage-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (ment of the case, much less to defendants. Defendants did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (lack details about the injuries alleged by the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (tiffs. The defendants named in the original ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.46 Tw (plaint knew what they were defending against. MDL 1407) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (litigants with no liability exposure in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (were not forced to expend unnecessary resources in cases in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (which they were not true parties. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.45 Tw ([20]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs blamed their noncompliance) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.39 Tw (with CMO 15 on an oversight of their counsel, who did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (think to file separate complaints because the original com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (plaint specifically identified the products and defendants at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (issue. Given that these excuses were ) Tj (anything but frivolous,) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (defendants had an obligation to show ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (actual ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (prejudice suf-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (fered by the delay, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see In re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1452-53, ) Tj (a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (showing they did not make, and cannot make, because they) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (had all the information CMO 15 required in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (plaintiffs' original complaint \(as opposed to the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10356) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 185 0 obj 4476 endobj 183 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 184 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 57 57 187 0 obj << /Length 188 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .37 Tw 0 Tc (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, whose multiparty complaints were not so) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.95 Tw (detailed\). Indeed, far from impairing defendants' ) Tj (ability to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (go to trial,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d at 1412, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plain-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.61 Tw (tiffs' detailed original complaint allowed discovery to pro-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.75 Tw (ceed, and written discovery to be completed. Accordingly,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.41 Tw (defendants cannot show loss of memory or evidence. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See In) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.57 Tw (re Eisen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 31 F.3d at 1453. Although ) Tj (the district court is in) Tj 0 -13 Td .88 Tw (the best position to measure the effect of delay on the defen-) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.74 Tw (dants in these cases and overall,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10352, and) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.03 Tw (although a district court is not compelled ) Tj (to conclude that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (failure to comply with a court order doesn't matter) Tj ( because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (compliant pleadings are ultimately filed,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10354,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (the circumstances the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs present show the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (limits of these prudential notions. Ultimately, a district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (must acknowledge and evaluate the unique circumstances an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (individual MDL plaintiff presents and act accordingly. Here,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (the district court's neglect in doing something so basic means) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that we cannot defer to its finding of prejudice. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .85 Tw ([21]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Fundamentally, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' delay in pro-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (viding information they had already given did not cause prej-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (udice sufficient to warrant dismissal \(as opposed to a different) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.25 Tw (kind of sanction\), especially in view of the public policy) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (favoring resolution on the merits. ) Tj (It is too late in the day and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.26 Tw (entirely contrary to the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (Procedure for decisions on the merits to be avoided on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (basis of such mere technicalities.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Foman v. Davis) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 371 U.S.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (178, 181 \(1962\). In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Exxon) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Morris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (approved of the harsh punishment of dismissal because we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (had ) Tj (no doubt) Tj ( about the clearly substantiated, prejudicial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (effect of the parties' egregious conduct. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.02 Tw (at 131; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re the EXXON VALDEZ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 102 F.3d at 433 \() Tj (The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (appellants' ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (total) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( failure to respond to discovery and the time) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4 Tw (consumed by attempting to secure compliance prejudiced) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.24 Tw (appellees.\) \(emphasis added\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Adriana) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d at 1412) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (\(Here, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (repeated) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( failure of Adriana to appear at scheduled) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (depositions compounded by their ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (continuing) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( refusal to com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (ply with court-ordered production of documents constitutes an) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10357) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 188 0 obj 4647 endobj 186 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 187 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 58 58 190 0 obj << /Length 191 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .05 Tw 0 Tc (interference with the rightful decision of the case.) Tj (\) \(emphasis) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.5 Tw (added\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Morris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 942 F.2d at 652 \(plaintiffs' two-year failure) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .18 Tw (to move toward disposition on the merits where they unneces-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.25 Tw (sarily delayed, failed to respond to correspondence, failed to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.66 Tw (appear at meetings and misrepresented intentions prejudiced) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.91 Tw (defendants and obstructed resolution of their claim on the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .22 Tw (merits\). But defendants who must show actual prejudice as) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 5.05 Tw (here, where the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs proffered a serious) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (excuse may not make this showing by mere assertion.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (19) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.62 Tw (Contrary to the dissent's assertion \(Dissent at 10366\), we) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.44 Tw (cannot in these circumstances summarily rely on a case like) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364 F.3d at 1116, for the proposition) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.07 Tw (that failure to produce discovery required by a court order is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (not excused because the same information may be available) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .91 Tw (elsewhere. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, a recalcitrant defendant) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .94 Tw (engaged in a ) Tj (baseless two year fight against each and every) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (discovery request and court order) Tj ( and did so ) Tj (willfully and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.24 Tw (with the intent of preventing meaningful discovery from) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.52 Tw (occurring. 364 F.3d at 1116.) Tj ( In contrast to the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 3.78 Tw (plaintiffs' conduct, there the district court found that the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.42 Tw (defendant violated five court orders over a seven-month) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (period) Tj 22 -26.2 Td .18 Tw (by failing to provide clear answers to interrogatories,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.07 Tw (giving contradictory responses, making frivolous) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .42 Tw (objections, filing frivolous motions[, ] failing to pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.93 Tw (vide the information [the opposing party] sought[,]) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .65 Tw (19) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (We elsewhere, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10324, cite ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Housing of Marin) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 285 F.3d) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .39 Tw (at 905, and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (In re Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d at 1143, for the proposition that) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .16 Tw ([d]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the litigant's control meets) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .9 Tw (th[e predicate] standard [of fault].) Tj ( ) Tj (However, not all disobedient conduct) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .21 Tw (is of the same order, and a conclusory assertion of prejudice will not show) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .52 Tw (why the disobedient conduct in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Housing) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Virtual Vision ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (is analo-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .75 Tw (gous to conduct under review. Although the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' late fil-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .3 Tw (ings were not outside their control, their behavior is not comparable to the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.58 Tw (parties' abusive behavior in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Fair Housing) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Virtual Vision) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 124 F.3d 1143-44. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -376.95 m 300 -376.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10358) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 191 0 obj 4514 endobj 189 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 190 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 59 59 193 0 obj << /Length 194 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td .8 Tw 0 Tc (. . . fail[ing] to pay one of the monetary sanctions[,]) Tj 0 -13 Td .37 Tw (. . . failing to produce important financial documents) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (and ) Tj (throwing up a series of baseless smoke screens) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.28 Tw ([that] [took] the form of repeated groundless objec-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.4 Tw (tions and contradictory excuses,) Tj ( which were ) Tj (ab-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (surd and ) Tj (completely unbelievable.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td .63 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1115 \(quoting the district court\). The defendant blamed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (the loss of documents on an earthquake, a dropped computer) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.55 Tw (and a residential move. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We agreed that these frivolous) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (excuses ) Tj (unnecessarily delayed the litigation, burdened the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.4 Tw (court and prejudiced [the plaintiff],) Tj ( particularly because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (most of the documents [the plaintiff] sought . . . ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (were never) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (produced) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, despite court orders to do so, and most of what [the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.36 Tw (defendant] did submit came in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (two years) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( after it was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (requested, and after discovery had already ended.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1116) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (\(emphasis added\). This delay ) Tj (seriously prejudiced [the plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tiff], as key depositions had already been taken.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.87 Tw (On that egregious record, we upheld the district court's) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.55 Tw (finding that the defendant's ) Tj (over-all disruptive discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (practice regarding the interrogatories and requests to produce) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (was done willfully and intentionally to stall and prevent [the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (plaintiff] from conducting meaningful discovery,) Tj ( and that it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (ha[d] clogged the Court's docket, protracted th[e] litigation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (by years, and made it impossible for [the plaintiff] to proceed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (to any imaginably fair trial.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Under these circumstances,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (we held that the ) Tj (failure to produce documents as ordered . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (is considered sufficient prejudice.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .41 Tw (The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' conduct is nothing like the defen-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (dant's in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Computer Task Group) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, nor is it analogous to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (conduct of the MDL 1407 plaintiffs whose dismissals we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (affirm. Even if the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' belated compliance) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (did not generally cure what minimal prejudice defendants suf-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (fered, if any, ) Tj (their conduct was not willful or egregious, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (they did not refuse to participate in discovery or engage in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (lengthy delays that ) Tj (deprived [defendants] of any meaningful) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10359) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 194 0 obj 3995 endobj 192 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 193 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 60 60 196 0 obj << /Length 197 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.11 Tw 0 Tc (opportunity to follow up on [the] information, or to incorpo-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.26 Tw (rate it into their litigation strategy.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Payne) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 121 F.3d at 508.) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .41 Tw (Nor did the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs confound their own efforts to) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.71 Tw (advance their cases. Rather, they reasonably believed their) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.36 Tw (complaints were in compliance with the intent of the CMOs) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.42 Tw (and that it was therefore unnecessary for them to file a sev-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.46 Tw (ered complaint or affirmation. To the extent the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.4 Td 1.14 Tw (plaintiffs were wrong, they rectified their deficiencies within) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 0 Tw (five weeks of the due date of CMO 15. Although we generally) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .05 Tw (recognize that ) Tj (an involved, complex case increases the preju-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.33 Tw (dice from the delay,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 542 F.2d at 525, we cannot) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.25 Tw (affirm the district court's dismissal because of any prejudice) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs' actions caused. ) Tj 12 -24.7 Td 3.33 Tw (We also reject defendants' argument that if the district) Tj -12 -12.5 Td 1.55 Tw (court excused the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs for their late filing, it) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.96 Tw (would have broadcast a message to all MDL 1407 litigants) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .28 Tw (that CMOs could be disobeyed with impunity. Even were that) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.23 Tw (true, dismissal was not the only sanction that could send the) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.67 Tw (necessary message; lesser punishments tailored to the plain-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.05 Tw (tiffs' violation can be equally effective. We have identified) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (examples:) Tj 22 -24.7 Td 1.92 Tw (a warning, a formal reprimand, placing the case at) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1 Tw (the bottom of the calendar, a fine, the imposition of) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.81 Tw (costs or attorney fees, the temporary suspension of) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.24 Tw (the culpable counsel from practice before the court,) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.56 Tw (. . . dismissal of the suit unless new counsel is) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.85 Tw (secured[,] . . . preclusion of claims or defenses, or) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.85 Tw (the imposition of fees and costs upon plaintiff's) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (counsel. . . . ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -24.8 Td .14 Tw (Supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10316 n.5 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 833 F.2d at 130, 132 n.1) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .57 Tw (\(internal quotation marks and citations omitted\). One obvious) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.67 Tw (penalty would have been monetary sanctions imposed on) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.4 Tw (plaintiffs or their counsel in an amount sufficient to ) Tj (send a) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .24 Tw (message.) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (20) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( But we do not know why this or some other sanc-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .61 Tw (20) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Clients are often several steps removed from the conduct of multidis-) Tj -10 -10.6 Td .37 Tw (trict litigation, since even their representatives depend on the performance) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -467.85 m 300 -467.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10360) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 197 0 obj 4048 endobj 195 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 196 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 61 61 199 0 obj << /Length 200 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .3 Tw 0 Tc (tion would not have worked, because the district court did not) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.2 Tw (address alternatives.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (21) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -27.1 Td .03 Tw (If we endorsed the court's failure to impose lesser sanctions) Tj -12 -13.7 Td 1.9 Tw (under these circumstances, we would risk making dismissal) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.3 Tw (too attractive \(and too available\) an option for defendants to) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .97 Tw (pursue and a MDL court to impose.) Tj ( This is all the more true) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.08 Tw (where, as here, the court dismissed the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.7 Td .84 Tw (sua sponte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( instead of in response to a noticed motion. As we) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .77 Tw (note elsewhere, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10316, such an action requires us to) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.24 Tw (focus more closely on the lack of warning and the failure to) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .92 Tw (consider less drastic alternatives. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Oliva) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 958 F.2d at 274.) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1 Tw (But when a party's conduct is not egregious or when a party) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .12 Tw (receives insufficient warning, the failure to consider any alter-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .06 Tw (natives at all limits the deference we give a MDL court. Plain-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .93 Tw (tiffs should not be casualties of a court's readiness to skip to) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .96 Tw (the most drastic sanction to deter other, more culpable plain-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (tiffs. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -27.1 Td 2 Tw ([22]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In sum, ) Tj (although we grant additional deference to a) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 1.9 Tw (district court administering a MDL proceeding, due process) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.66 Tw (and fundamental fairness may not be sacrificed to provide) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 5.32 Tw (assembly-line justice. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 5.32 Tw (plaintiffs ) Tj (retain[ed]) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.28 Tw (their individual identities,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Career Academy Antitrust) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .33 Tw (Litig.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 57 F.R.D. 569, 570 \(E.D. Wisc. 1972\), when they were) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.7 Td .02 Tw (of proxies such as Lead and Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs' Steering Com-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 2.56 Tw (mittees. Where attorney sanctions are practicable, they may serve the) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .51 Tw (heightened logistical needs of multidistrict litigation without overshadow-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (ing the interests of the parties represented. ) Tj 10 -14.4 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 4.05 Tw (21) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The dissent suggests that we err in reversing dismissal of the) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz -10 -11.5 Td 1.16 Tw (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 04-35884, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (infra) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( p. 10364, because) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 0 Tw (if every MDL plaintiff ignored a CMO simply because he thought it super-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .76 Tw (fluous, ) Tj (the very purpose of the MDL . . . would be subverted.) Tj ( \(Dissent) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1.29 Tw (at 10367.\) As we explain above, we do not condone the noncompliance) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .85 Tw (of the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs or Sasseen. We hold only that ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (dismissal ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( as) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .97 Tw (opposed to another, more appropriate sanction is not warranted under) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (the circumstances they present. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -347.95 m 300 -347.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10361) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 200 0 obj 4327 endobj 198 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 199 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 62 62 203 0 obj << /Length 204 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .14 Tw 0 Tc (involuntarily transferred to MDL 1407, and their arrival in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (litigation did not ) Tj (change the[ir] rights [as] parties.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.82 Tw (Equity Funding Corp. of America Sec. Litig.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 416 F.Supp.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (161, 176 \(C.D.Cal. 1976\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson v. Manhattan) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (R.R.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 \(1933\)\). Because the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (failed to provide the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs the individualized) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (consideration to which they were entitled, we reverse its dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (missal and remand for further proceedings. ) Tj 145.668 -26 Td (X) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -18 -26 Td (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (22) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -115.668 -26 Td 1.08 Tw (Donna Sasseen appeals dismissal of her action with preju-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (dice for failure to file an Affirmation setting forth the PPA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (products that she ingested and the alleged manufacturers or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (distributors of such products, as required by CMO 13. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .85 Tw (Sasseen's complaint, transferred to MDL 1407 on Novem-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (ber 12, 2003, named multiple defendants and thus was subject) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (to CMO 13, issued on May 2, 2003, and CMO 13A, issued) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (on June 21, 2003, requiring plaintiffs in multi-defendant cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.79 Tw (to file an Affirmation within thirty days of the order or the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (date their case was docketed in the MDL listing the products) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.1 Tw (allegedly ingested and the manufacturers of those products.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (Both provide that ) Tj (if the Affirmation fails to disclose the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (ingestion by [the] plaintiff of a PPA-containing product man-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (ufactured and/or distributed by a named defendant, then such) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (defendant is authorized to submit to the Court the name of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (plaintiff who alleges use of a PPA product, requesting dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (missal of that defendant with prejudice with regard to claims) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (brought by the named plaintiff.) Tj ( Each also states that defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (dants may seek ) Tj (additional remedies or sanctions against any) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (plaintiff with regard to discovery obligations set out in this) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .95 Tw (CMO, prior CMOs and/or identification of defendants' prod-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (ucts in a Plaintiff Fact Sheet.) Tj ( CMO 13A simplified the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (22) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (Sasseen) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is before Judges Leavy, Rymer, and Fisher. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.75 m 300 -477.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10362) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 204 0 obj 3608 endobj 202 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 26 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 203 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 63 63 206 0 obj << /Length 207 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.12 Tw 0 Tc (paperwork required to be filed with proposed dismissals, but) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (did not change the Affirmation requirement itself. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.38 Tw (Sasseen's Affirmation was due on December 15, 2003,) Tj -12 -13 Td .36 Tw (which she concedes is a deadline she did not meet. On Febru-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.88 Tw (ary 3, 2004, Defendants' Liaison Counsel filed a motion to) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (dismiss eleven cases, of which Sasseen's was one, pursuant to) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (Rule 37\(b\)\(2\)\(C\) and Rule 41\(b\). Sasseen's February 9, 2004) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.61 Tw (response included an untimely Affirmation, which listed the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (same products and defendants set forth in her complaint. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .11 Tw (The district court dismissed for reasons stated in the motion) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (to dismiss. These included that CMOs 13 and 13A established) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (a procedure whereby a defendant not named in an Affirmation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (or the Plaintiff's Fact Sheet could move to be dismissed with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (prejudice from that individual plaintiff's case; however, fail-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (ure to file any Affirmation prevented defendants from taking) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (advantage of this procedure, thus causing them to spend) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (unnecessary resources conducting discovery in cases in which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (their product may not be at issue. Also, failure to file Affirma-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (tions warranted dismissal under the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Malone) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( factors because:) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (\(1\) The defendants' inability to move to be dismissed unnec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (essarily prolonged their involvement in this litigation, and the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation is not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (served by plaintiffs who fail to file court-ordered Affirmations) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (designed to narrow the field of potentially culpable defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .79 Tw (dants and to clarify the issues for trial. \(2\) Failure to conduct) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (discovery impeded the court's ability to manage its docket, as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (it does not reflect the true parties to each individual action. \(3\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (Defendants who had no liability exposure were being forced) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (to expend unnecessary resources to participate in cases in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (which they were not true parties, and could not make use of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (the court-sanctioned method of seeking dismissal upon receipt) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (of an Affirmation. Further, plaintiffs had control over who the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (parties to their actions would be, as well as exclusive knowl-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (edge of what products they allegedly ingested. \(4\) Although) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (public policy favors trying cases on their merits, it also favors) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (the principle that litigants should be ready to prosecute claims) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10363) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 207 0 obj 3597 endobj 205 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 206 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 64 64 209 0 obj << /Length 210 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.16 Tw 0 Tc (when brought, and should not bring suit against a party who) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .84 Tw (is not liable for their alleged injuries. \(5\) A less drastic sanc-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.3 Tw (tion was available to these plaintiffs. If they had filed Affir-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.5 Tw (mations, defendants could have utilized the court-sanctioned) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 5.55 Tw (method of dismissing individual defendants pursuant to) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (CMOs 13 and 13A instead of seeking to dismiss these cases) Tj 0 -12.7 Td (in their entirety. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -25.3 Td 2.18 Tw ([23]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Sasseen argues that she complied with the intent of) Tj -12 -12.7 Td 1.07 Tw (CMO 13 to give proper notice to the defendants because her) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .82 Tw (complaint pled with specificity the products she ingested and) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.62 Tw (the defendants who manufactured them. As ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is basi-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.45 Tw (cally in the same posture as ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, it is controlled by it) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (and accordingly, we reverse. ) Tj 143.67 -25.3 Td (XI) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -21.006 -25.3 Td (Conclusion) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -110.664 -25.3 Td 2.57 Tw (MDL 1407 is quite a complicated proceeding, involving) Tj -12 -12.7 Td 5.08 Tw (hundreds of actions and thousands of individual claims) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .71 Tw (against many defendants. In consultation with Lead and Liai-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .03 Tw (son Counsel and steering committees) Tj (, the district court crafted) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2 Tw (case management orders to ) Tj (uncomplicate) Tj ( the multidistrict) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 5.16 Tw (proceedings. Congress contemplated that an MDL court) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.07 Tw (should do this to secure the ) Tj (just and efficient conduct) Tj ( of) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.61 Tw (actions coordinated for pretrial purposes under 28 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1407\(a\). ) Tj 12 -25.4 Td 3.74 Tw (The orders themselves are not at issue; they were not) Tj -12 -12.8 Td .39 Tw (objected to, relief from them was not sought, and they are not) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.37 Tw (challenged on appeal. They sought to move individual cases) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.66 Tw (forward by simplifying the discovery process \(CMOs 6, 10,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .87 Tw (and 19\), and by severing multiple-plaintiff claims and claims) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 4.1 Tw (by plaintiffs against multiple defendants into manageable) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (actions against true defendants \(CMOs 13 and 15\). ) Tj 12 -25.4 Td .66 Tw (Many plaintiffs, some of whom pursue the appeals that are) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 1.42 Tw (before us, chose not to comply. All had a chance to explain) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10364) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 210 0 obj 3247 endobj 208 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 209 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 65 65 212 0 obj << /Length 213 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.47 Tw 0 Tc (why not, and the district court found the explanations want-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ing. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.91 Tw (Failure to comply with case management orders in MDL) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.18 Tw (proceedings such as MDL 1407, where both sides agree that) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.18 Tw (the orders serve the important interest of moving the cases) Tj 0 -13 Td .47 Tw (along, adversely affects the public interest, as well as the par-) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (ties' private interest, in expeditious resolution of litigation. A) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (district court cannot manage its docket if such orders are not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.26 Tw (respected. This harms plaintiffs with meritorious claims) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (whose progress toward resolution is bogged down by others) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (who will neither put up nor shut up; defendants who do not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (know against whom or what they are defending and so can) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (neither conduct case-specific discovery, seek an early exit by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (summary adjudication, nor assess the potential value of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (plaintiffs' claims for settlement; and the public, whose access) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (to the courts is impeded when judicial resources are diverted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (from the proper administration of justice to dealing with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (recalcitrant parties. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.07 Tw (In these cases both the orders and the court's expectations) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.77 Tw (were clear. The court was responsive to proper requests for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (relief, and, with the exception of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, excused defaults that were non-consequential. How-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (ever, the court needed to enforce its orders in cases that were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (stalled by noncompliance so that the coordinated cases for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (which it was responsible could be resolved on the merits by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (motion, settlement, or remand for trial. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.61 Tw (Accordingly, we conclude that while the factors which) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (guide a court's discretion in ordinary cases on an ordinary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (docket also inform an MDL court's decision to invoke dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (missal as a sanction for failure to comply with its orders, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (court's discretion is necessarily informed, and broadened, by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (the number of actions, their complexity, and its charge in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (multidistrict context to promote the just and efficient conduct) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (of actions that are coordinated or consolidated for pretrial pur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (poses. The district court acted within its discretion in deciding) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10365) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 213 0 obj 3419 endobj 211 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 212 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 66 66 215 0 obj << /Length 216 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .17 Tw 0 Tc (that dismissal of the cases before us, except for ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td .75 Tw (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, was warranted. We therefore uphold its judgment in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 6.16 Tw (Allen, Anderson, Alford, Clinton, ) Tj (Page, Riley, Holmes,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.75 Tw (McDaniel, Samuels, Ackel, ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Arrington.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We reverse as to) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj ( ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td (AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -52.3 Td 1.32 Tw (RYMER, Circuit Judge, dissenting as to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and con-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.7 Tw (curring as to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, with whom LEAVY, Circuit Judge,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (joins, concurring as to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (: ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.03 Tw (I would also affirm in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, for the same reasons we) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.1 Tw (affirm in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ackel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Arrington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. I am constrained to concur in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.51 Tw (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( as it is materially indistinguishable from ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .44 Tw (However, I disagree that either case should be resolved as the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .03 Tw (majority resolves ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In a nutshell, failure to make dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.85 Tw (covery required by a court order is not excused by the fact) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2 Tw (that the same information may be available elsewhere. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.06 Tw (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364 F.3d 1112,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .25 Tw (1117 \(9th Cir. 2004\). Honoring this rule is particularly impor-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (tant in the context of a multidistrict litigation proceeding such) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .37 Tw (as MDL 1407, where hundreds of cases asserted claims based) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.7 Tw (on ingestion of more than one PPA-containing product, and) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (indiscriminately listed numerous manufacturers as defendants.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.4 Tw (CMO 13 was crafted to, and did, provide a sensible process) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.03 Tw (for sorting this out. Even though some individual complaints) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.34 Tw (may already have done so, many did not. The case manage-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.18 Tw (ment orders necessarily applied to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (all) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( cases in which more) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.25 Tw (than one product and more than one manufacturer were) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .74 Tw (named. Sasseen, for example, sought no relief from this obli-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .45 Tw (gation. Indeed, it could not have been simpler for her to com-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.33 Tw (ply because all that was required was that she identify the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.58 Tw (manufacturer and the product something she says she) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (knew, and in fact had already done. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -114.55 m 300 -114.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10366) Tj 87.4328 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 216 0 obj 4033 endobj 214 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 201 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 215 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 67 67 218 0 obj << /Length 219 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.82 Tw 0 Tc (While the sanction of dismissal probably would not have) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (been imposed were either ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (McGriggs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sasseen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( an individual) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.49 Tw (case on an ordinary docket, the need for an order such as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (CMO 13 would not have arisen, either. Deciphering which) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.21 Tw (complaints properly matched up products and defendants) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.63 Tw (would entail reading tens of thousands of pieces of paper. I) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.11 Tw (believe that Judge Rothstein properly ) Tj (uncomplicated) Tj ( the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.75 Tw (process by the device of requiring plaintiffs in multi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .11 Tw (defendant cases to file a single piece of paper with all the nec-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.66 Tw (essary information. Rather than complying, Sasseen decided) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (for herself to ignore the order. If all MDL plaintiffs were to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (do likewise, the very purpose of the MDL to conduct trans-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .94 Tw (ferred actions in a ) Tj (just and efficient) Tj ( way would be sub-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (verted. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td (Therefore, I would affirm across the board. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 428.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10367) Tj -185.0672 0 Td (I) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (N RE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (HENYLPROPANOLAMINE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 219 0 obj 1741 endobj 217 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 220 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 7 0 R /F1 6 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 218 0 R >> endobj 1 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 221 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 222 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Roman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 84.00 /StemH 42.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 662 /XHeight 450 /Ascent 683 /Descent -217 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F2 /BaseFont /Times-Roman /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400 667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611 444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556 611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ] /Encoding 221 0 R /FontDescriptor 222 0 R >> endobj 223 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 224 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Bold /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 139.00 /StemH 69.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 676 /XHeight 461 /Ascent 676 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F1 /BaseFont /Times-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300 250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400 722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000 389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722 722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ] /Encoding 223 0 R /FontDescriptor 224 0 R >> endobj 225 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 240 /apple ] >> endobj 226 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Symbol /Flags 4 /FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 85.00 /StemH 42.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 0 /XHeight 0 /Ascent 0 /Descent 0 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F3 /BaseFont /Symbol /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444 549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722 768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500 500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549 549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603 400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658 823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603 494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494 790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ] /Encoding 225 0 R /FontDescriptor 226 0 R >> endobj 227 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 228 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 76.00 /StemH 38.00 /ItalicAngle -15.50 /CapHeight 653 /XHeight 441 /Ascent 683 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F4 /BaseFont /Times-Italic /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300 250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400 667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611 611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611 500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500 611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ] /Encoding 227 0 R /FontDescriptor 228 0 R >> endobj 229 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 230 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Helvetica-Bold /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 140.00 /StemH 70.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 718 /XHeight 532 /Ascent 718 /Descent -207 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 26 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F5 /BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333 278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611 975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778 667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556 278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611 611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400 722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722 667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611 667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000 278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722 722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ] /Encoding 229 0 R /FontDescriptor 230 0 R >> endobj 10 0 obj << /Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 30 0 obj << /Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 49 0 obj << /Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 68 0 obj << /Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 87 0 obj << /Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 106 0 obj << /Kids [103 0 R 107 0 R 110 0 R 113 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 231 0 R >> endobj 125 0 obj << /Kids [122 0 R 126 0 R 129 0 R 132 0 R 135 0 R 138 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 144 0 obj << /Kids [141 0 R 145 0 R 148 0 R 151 0 R 154 0 R 157 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 163 0 obj << /Kids [160 0 R 164 0 R 167 0 R 170 0 R 173 0 R 176 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 182 0 obj << /Kids [179 0 R 183 0 R 186 0 R 189 0 R 192 0 R 195 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 201 0 obj << /Kids [198 0 R 202 0 R 205 0 R 208 0 R 211 0 R 214 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 220 0 obj << /Kids [217 0 R] /Count 1 /Type /Pages /Parent 232 0 R >> endobj 231 0 obj << /Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R 106 0 R] /Count 36 /Type /Pages /Parent 233 0 R >> endobj 232 0 obj << /Kids [125 0 R 144 0 R 163 0 R 182 0 R 201 0 R 220 0 R] /Count 31 /Type /Pages /Parent 233 0 R >> endobj 233 0 obj << /Kids [231 0 R 232 0 R] /Count 67 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> endobj 2 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 233 0 R >> endobj 234 0 obj << /CreationDate (Friday August 25, 2006 15:07:24) /Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2) /Producer (ECMP5) >> endobj xref 0 235 0000000000 65535 f 0000271645 00000 n 0000285631 00000 n 0000004240 00000 n 0000000044 00000 n 0000004217 00000 n 0000275764 00000 n 0000273112 00000 n 0000277326 00000 n 0000279977 00000 n 0000283857 00000 n 0000009556 00000 n 0000004454 00000 n 0000009532 00000 n 0000013793 00000 n 0000009772 00000 n 0000013769 00000 n 0000017725 00000 n 0000014009 00000 n 0000017701 00000 n 0000023671 00000 n 0000017941 00000 n 0000023647 00000 n 0000026898 00000 n 0000023887 00000 n 0000026874 00000 n 0000282632 00000 n 0000029162 00000 n 0000027115 00000 n 0000029138 00000 n 0000283974 00000 n 0000032272 00000 n 0000029356 00000 n 0000032248 00000 n 0000036226 00000 n 0000032466 00000 n 0000036202 00000 n 0000040361 00000 n 0000036445 00000 n 0000040337 00000 n 0000044234 00000 n 0000040580 00000 n 0000044210 00000 n 0000048099 00000 n 0000044441 00000 n 0000048075 00000 n 0000051744 00000 n 0000048295 00000 n 0000051720 00000 n 0000284092 00000 n 0000055341 00000 n 0000051940 00000 n 0000055317 00000 n 0000059353 00000 n 0000055537 00000 n 0000059329 00000 n 0000063477 00000 n 0000059572 00000 n 0000063453 00000 n 0000067646 00000 n 0000063684 00000 n 0000067622 00000 n 0000072577 00000 n 0000067853 00000 n 0000072553 00000 n 0000077132 00000 n 0000072784 00000 n 0000077108 00000 n 0000284210 00000 n 0000082589 00000 n 0000077351 00000 n 0000082565 00000 n 0000086826 00000 n 0000082808 00000 n 0000086802 00000 n 0000091414 00000 n 0000087033 00000 n 0000091390 00000 n 0000096753 00000 n 0000091633 00000 n 0000096729 00000 n 0000101904 00000 n 0000096960 00000 n 0000101880 00000 n 0000106294 00000 n 0000102111 00000 n 0000106270 00000 n 0000284328 00000 n 0000110849 00000 n 0000106513 00000 n 0000110825 00000 n 0000115160 00000 n 0000111068 00000 n 0000115136 00000 n 0000119737 00000 n 0000115379 00000 n 0000119713 00000 n 0000124242 00000 n 0000119944 00000 n 0000124218 00000 n 0000128226 00000 n 0000124461 00000 n 0000128201 00000 n 0000131742 00000 n 0000128435 00000 n 0000131717 00000 n 0000284447 00000 n 0000135227 00000 n 0000131964 00000 n 0000135202 00000 n 0000139632 00000 n 0000135437 00000 n 0000139607 00000 n 0000143826 00000 n 0000139842 00000 n 0000143801 00000 n 0000147969 00000 n 0000144036 00000 n 0000147944 00000 n 0000150436 00000 n 0000148179 00000 n 0000150411 00000 n 0000151176 00000 n 0000150646 00000 n 0000151152 00000 n 0000284572 00000 n 0000153293 00000 n 0000151375 00000 n 0000153268 00000 n 0000157630 00000 n 0000153515 00000 n 0000157605 00000 n 0000161109 00000 n 0000157840 00000 n 0000161084 00000 n 0000164989 00000 n 0000161331 00000 n 0000164964 00000 n 0000169123 00000 n 0000165188 00000 n 0000169098 00000 n 0000173589 00000 n 0000169345 00000 n 0000173564 00000 n 0000284697 00000 n 0000177424 00000 n 0000173811 00000 n 0000177399 00000 n 0000181128 00000 n 0000177646 00000 n 0000181103 00000 n 0000184933 00000 n 0000181327 00000 n 0000184908 00000 n 0000189261 00000 n 0000185143 00000 n 0000189236 00000 n 0000193166 00000 n 0000189471 00000 n 0000193141 00000 n 0000197280 00000 n 0000193376 00000 n 0000197255 00000 n 0000284822 00000 n 0000201418 00000 n 0000197502 00000 n 0000201393 00000 n 0000205673 00000 n 0000201628 00000 n 0000205648 00000 n 0000209321 00000 n 0000205883 00000 n 0000209296 00000 n 0000213709 00000 n 0000209531 00000 n 0000213684 00000 n 0000217878 00000 n 0000213919 00000 n 0000217853 00000 n 0000222174 00000 n 0000218100 00000 n 0000222149 00000 n 0000284947 00000 n 0000226948 00000 n 0000222384 00000 n 0000226923 00000 n 0000231893 00000 n 0000227158 00000 n 0000231868 00000 n 0000236717 00000 n 0000232115 00000 n 0000236692 00000 n 0000241022 00000 n 0000236939 00000 n 0000240997 00000 n 0000245368 00000 n 0000241232 00000 n 0000245343 00000 n 0000250005 00000 n 0000245590 00000 n 0000249980 00000 n 0000285072 00000 n 0000253923 00000 n 0000250227 00000 n 0000253898 00000 n 0000257830 00000 n 0000254145 00000 n 0000257805 00000 n 0000261375 00000 n 0000258040 00000 n 0000261350 00000 n 0000265092 00000 n 0000261585 00000 n 0000265067 00000 n 0000269423 00000 n 0000265302 00000 n 0000269398 00000 n 0000271462 00000 n 0000269633 00000 n 0000271437 00000 n 0000285197 00000 n 0000271678 00000 n 0000272831 00000 n 0000274330 00000 n 0000275483 00000 n 0000276986 00000 n 0000277059 00000 n 0000278540 00000 n 0000279693 00000 n 0000281194 00000 n 0000282347 00000 n 0000285282 00000 n 0000285403 00000 n 0000285529 00000 n 0000285688 00000 n trailer << /Size 235 /Root 2 0 R /Info 234 0 R >> startxref 285826 %%EOF 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /Annots [ 238 0 R 240 0 R 242 0 R ] /Contents [ 235 0 R 237 0 R 239 0 R 241 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R /HelvCBC~1376372715 236 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> >> endobj 235 0 obj << /Filter [ /FlateDecode ] /Length 1212 >> stream xW[F~G?O<{M"@ixa(Mlh۪g66ުP@c |vnnG _ *~)Pԉpw+* v3ڠD`%֢}I݆#P*DEih&qzLoF 8l4!XQ