In Re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
In re: PARAQUAT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to All Cases
Case No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR
MDL No. 3004
SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING OVERDUE PLAINTIFF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES
Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 10 (“CMO 10”), a Plaintiff is required to serve
upon Defendants a Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (“PAQ”) within 30 days after a complaint
has been entered on the docket (CMO 10, § III(2)). If a Plaintiff fails to do so without good cause
shown, including after the opportunities to cure set forth in CMO 10, the Plaintiff’s claim shall be
dismissed (Id., § VI(3)).
Specifically, CMO 10 states that if a Plaintiff or Representative (specifically, an individual
possessing authority to act on behalf of Plaintiff) fails to timely serve a PAQ, Defendants may serve
on Plaintiff a Notice of Overdue PAQ. Id., § VI(1). If a Plaintiff or Representative fails to serve
upon Defendants a PAQ within 30 days after receiving a Notice of Overdue PAQ, Defendants may
seek review of that case by the Special Master for dismissal for failure to comply with CMO 10.
Id., § VI(2). At that time, Plaintiff must within 10 days submit a PAQ or file an opposition
demonstrating good cause and justified cause for failure to comply with CMO 10. Id. If the Special
Master finds that Plaintiff has failed to submit a PAQ within 10 days or demonstrate good cause
and justified cause for failing to submit a PAQ, the Special Master shall provide a Report and
Recommendation to the Court. Id., § VI(3). Thereafter, the Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint. Id.
Case 3:21-md-03004-NJR Document 5796 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
Defendants have submitted 10 cases to the Special Master for review to be dismissed for
failure to serve a PAQ, including after multiple opportunities to cure as required by CMO 10. Those
cases are identified in Exhibit A. Each Plaintiff identified in Exhibit A has failed to timely serve a
PAQ upon Defendants within 30 days as required by CMO 10. As noted in Exhibit A, in each of
these cases, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Overdue PAQ. While not required to do
so by CMO 10, after Plaintiff failed to respond to the first Notice within 30 days, Defendants served
a Second Notice of Overdue PAQ in an effort to avoid Court intervention. Despite these efforts,
none of the Plaintiffs or their Representatives identified in Exhibit A has served a PAQ, nor has any
Plaintiff in Exhibit A demonstrated good cause or justified cause for failing to timely submit a PAQ.
Accordingly, the Special Master recommends that the Court set a hearing to show cause as
to why the matters identified in Exhibit A should not be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED: March 18, 2026
s/ Randi S. Ellis
Randi S. Ellis
Court-Appointed Special Master
Case 3:21-md-03004-NJR Document 5796 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>