## Facts

- Dorothy Kuykendall, a breast-cancer patient, sued multiple manufacturers and distributors of Taxotere/Docetaxel, alleging the drug caused permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia and that defendants failed to warn.
- Her case was part of a large multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Louisiana with thousands of actions.
- The MDL court required each plaintiff to complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS), a court-ordered discovery device collecting basic case and medical information, within specified deadlines with limited extensions after deficiency notices.
- Kuykendall failed to timely serve a completed PFS and, after deficiency notices and extensions, submitted a substantially incomplete PFS that omitted readily available information.
- At a show-cause hearing, the court granted an additional 30 days to cure; she still did not provide a complete PFS by the new deadline.
- The district court dismissed her case with prejudice under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for failure to obey discovery orders and later refused to reinstate the case after a post-dismissal request and an amended but still incomplete PFS.

## Issues

1. Whether the MDL district court abused its discretion by dismissing Kuykendall’s action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for repeated failure to submit a complete, court-ordered Plaintiff Fact Sheet.
2. Whether the record supported findings of willfulness, prejudice, and the inadequacy of lesser sanctions in the MDL case-management context.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in treating the PFS as mandatory discovery and enforcing compliance through Rule 37 sanctions.
- The court agreed that Kuykendall’s repeated noncompliance was willful, that lesser sanctions had already been attempted through extensions and notices, and that continued noncompliance prejudiced defendants and interfered with management of a large MDL docket.

## Legal Principles

- A Plaintiff Fact Sheet required by MDL case-management orders functions as court-ordered discovery; failure to comply may be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), including dismissal.
- Dismissal with prejudice as a discovery sanction is appropriate where noncompliance is willful or in bad faith, causes prejudice, and lesser sanctions would be ineffective.
- In MDLs involving thousands of cases, district courts have broad discretion to enforce discovery and scheduling orders to prevent delay and maintain orderly disposition.
- Claims of misunderstanding or lack of awareness do not excuse noncompliance when deficiency notices and court warnings clearly identify required information and consequences.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld dismissal with prejudice of an MDL plaintiff’s claims after repeated, willful failure to provide a complete plaintiff fact sheet, emphasizing that strict enforcement of court-ordered discovery is necessary to manage large MDL proceedings and to avoid prejudice and delay.


In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 966 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2020)