Wood v. 3M Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR 	MDL No. 15-md-2666 (JNE/DTS)
WARMING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to: 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Daniel Wood,
v.
3M Company, et al.,
16-cv-0828
Defendants request dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff
Daniel Wood’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. Dkt. No. 18.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a defendant may move to dismiss an
action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “MDL courts must be given greater discretion to organize,
coordinate and adjudicate its proceedings, including the dismissal of cases for failure to
comply with its orders.” In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig.,
496 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir. 2007). When provided sufficient opportunities to cure
noncompliance, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See, e.g., MDL Dkt. No. 2921.
This Court ordered Wood to provide updated medical authorizations on or before
October 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 13. He has not provided Defendants with updated medical
authorizations. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20. Defendants also served written discovery and requested
deposition dates. Dkt. Nos. 17, 18. Wood failed to serve timely discovery responses or
provide deposition dates. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20. On November 25, 2025, the Court held a
telephonic conference. There, the Court ordered Wood to provide updated medical
authorizations, discovery responses, and deposition dates by December 19, 2025. Wood
CASE 0:16-cv-00828-JNE-DTS Doc. 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
failed to comply with that discovery order. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20. Defendants requested
dismissal on December 22, 2025. Dkt. No. 18.
The Court agrees with Defendants that with-prejudice dismissal is appropriate.
After this case was selected as one of the 150 to be worked up for trial, this Court entered
an accelerated scheduling order at plaintiffs’ request. Dkt. Nos. 12–14. Under that
scheduling order, fact discovery commenced on September 29, 2025, and is set to be
completed by February 27, 2026. See Dkt. No. 14 at 3. In the three months since
discovery commenced, Wood has failed to comply with even the most basic of his
discovery obligations—providing updated medical authorizations. Moreover, when the
Court ordered Wood to fulfill his discovery obligations by December 19, 2025, he failed
to comply with that order as well. Moreover, Wood’s counsel has been unable contact
him since the summer of 2025. Dkt. No. 23 at 1. Not only has Wood failed to prosecute
his case, delays such as this threaten to derail the parties’ and the Court’s efforts to move
this MDL forward. With-prejudice dismissal is appropriate here.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) be GRANTED.
Dated: January 16, 2026 	__s/ David T. Schultz_____
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
CASE 0:16-cv-00828-JNE-DTS Doc. 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:16-cv-00828-JNE-DTS Doc. 21 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3