Wilson et al v. McBride Clinic Orthopedic Hospital LLC 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
Lydia Wilson,
v.
3M Company, et al.,
19-cv-1199
Defendants request dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff
Lydia Wilson’s failure to comply with her discovery obligations. Dkt. Nos. 39.
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 case was selected as one of 150 Bair Hugger cases to be worked up for trial,
with a scheduling order issued on October 29, 2025. Dkt. Nos 26, 28. The fact discovery
deadline was April 13, 2026. Dkt. No. 28. On January 8, 2026, Defendants informed the
Court that Wilson had failed to respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests.
Dkt. No. 31. The Court ordered Wilson to respond by January 22, 2026. Dkt. No. 32.
Wilson’s counsel informed the Court by e-mail that the responses had largely been
provided and any outstanding responses would be provided shortly. In March 2026,
CASE 0:19-cv-01199-JNE-DTS Doc. 40 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Defendants filed a letter representing that Wilson “has continued to fail to meet multiple
[impending] 	discovery 	obligations.” 	Dkt. 	No. 	35. 	After 	Wilson 	failed 	to 	respond,
Defendants requested dismissal. Dkt. No. 36. The Court ordered Wilson to respond by
April 10, 2026. Dkt. No. 37. Wilson failed to respond. See generally Docket.
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. Dkt. No. 28. Defendants’ counsel represented to the
Court that Wilson had failed to resolve several outstanding discovery issues. Dkt. No. 35
at 2 (listing the outstanding discovery issues Wilson had failed to resolve). Wilson did not
respond to Defendants’ March 17 and April 2, 2026 letters. When the Court ordered
Wilson to respond, she failed to comply with that order as well. The time for fact discovery
has now passed. Dismissal is the appropriate remedy here.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: Defendants’
request for dismissal (Dkt. No. 39) be GRANTED.
Dated: April 21, 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
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 0:19-cv-01199-JNE-DTS Doc. 40 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 2