Salazar 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
Antonio Salazar,
v.
3M Company, et al.,
17-cv-4005
Defendants request dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff
Antonio Salazar’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. Dkt. No. 20.
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.
Defendants 	served 	discovery 	requests 	and 	requested 	deposition 	dates.
Dkt. No. 16, Dkt. No. 20. Salazar failed to serve discovery responses that were due on
October 29, 2025. Dkt. No. 16. On November 10, 2025, Defendants requested a
telephonic conference to discuss outstanding discovery. Id. The Court held a telephonic
hearing on November 25, 2025. There, the Court ordered Salazar to provide discovery
responses and deposition dates by December 19, 2025. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. Salazar
failed to comply with that order. Dkt. Nos. 20, 23. On December 22, 2025, Defendants
CASE 0:17-cv-04005-JNE-DTS Doc. 24 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
requested dismissal based on Salazar’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations.
Dkt. No. 20.
The Court agrees with Defendants that with-prejudice dismissal is appropriate.
After this case was selected as one of 150 to be worked up for trial, this Court entered an
accelerated scheduling order at plaintiffs’ request. Dkt. Nos. 11–14. 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. Despite this accelerated scheduling order,
Salazar failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. When the Court ordered
Salazar to provide discovery responses and deposition dates, Salazar ignored that court
order as well. Salazar’s counsel has made multiple attempts to contact Salazar without
success. Dkt. No. 23 at 2. Not only has Salazar 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. 20) 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
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 0:17-cv-04005-JNE-DTS Doc. 24 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 2