IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2848 Civil Action No. 2:18-md-02848 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Carolyn Adams v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sheila Bradley v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20022 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20088

Guadalupe Alvarez v. Merck & Co., Inc., Elaine Braginton v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20055 20053

Sylvia Anderson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Margaret and Frank Bratina v. Merck & Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp. Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20184 20158

Inez Archie v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Connie Bravo, Proposed Administrator for Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson the Estate of Thomas Bravo v. Merck & Co., Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20159 Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Joseph and Gail Bernet v. Merck & Co., 20043 Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Patricia Breault, Individually and as 20189 Executor of the Estate of Shirley Breault v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Carolyn and Alan J. Birmantas v. Merck & Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and No. 2:18-cv-20198 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20050 Dorothy Brougher v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and James and Rose Blocher v. Merck & Co., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20102 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20057 Nancy and William Brown v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Eileen Bowman v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson 20078 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20015 Jolayne Burch v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Carol Connor v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp.,Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20111 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20112

Shirley Butler v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Freda and Edward Cooper v. Merck & Co., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20131 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20072 Clarence and Shirley Cain v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Patricia and Daniel Corrao v. Merck & Co., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20060 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20139 Patti Campbell v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Salvatore and Viola Croce v. Merck & Co., Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20069 Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Shirley Cartwright v. Merck & Co., Inc., 20252 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Patricia and Giovanni Cutillo v. Merck & 20065 Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Rosemarie Case v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck 20197 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20191 Eleanor Dakers v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Edward Cederberg v. Merck & Co., Inc., Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20254 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Patricia and William Damico v. Merck & 20073 Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Robert Coffey v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck 20165 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20131 Zabdy Daniels v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Carolyn Cole and Larry Cole v. Merck & Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20077 Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Michael Deluca v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson 20134 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20076

Alicia Colon v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Margherita DeLustro v. Merck & Co., Inc., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20164 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20079 Philip and Paula DiGregorio v. Merck & Phyllis Ford v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20079 20166 Michael Frisbie v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Dorothy Dillon v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20129 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20089 Nancy and Jack Fritts v. Merck & Co., Inc., Peggy Diss v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20074 20099

Michael and Shirley Dolenic v. Merck & Donald Galloway and Conceita Pittman v. Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action 20092 No. 2:18-cv-20258

Shara Edwards v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Judy and Jerry Gladney v. Merck & Co., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20098 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 01520 Judith Endresen-Worthy v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Howard Glassco v. Merck & Co., Inc., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20025 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20065 Martha and Paul Everts v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Thomas and Patricia Gleason v. Merck & McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20049 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20139 Valentina Falco v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Joyce Grasby v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20256 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20260 Adamilta Figueroa-Lerner v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Judith Grenier v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson 20257 Corp. Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20010

David Fontaine v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Burleigh Grimes v. Merck & Co., Inc., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20216 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20091 Debbie Guerrero v. Merck & Co., Inc., Shirley Jackson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20261 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20247

Ronald and Nobuko Guse v. Merck & Co., Richard Jones, Executor of the Estate of Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Shirley Jarvis v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson 20096 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20154

Roland and Deborah Halle v. Merck & Co., Damaris Jimenez v. Merck & Co., Inc., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20129 20268

Lewis and Evelyn Harper v. Merck & Co., Mike Jones v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20269 20088 William and Patricia Kelshaw v. Merck & Mary and Dennis Higdon v. Merck & Co., Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20178 20152 Donna and Robert Kish v. Merck & Co., Curtis Hiram v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20021 20108

Helen Hoffman v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck John and Trudy Kruczek v. Merck & Co., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20180 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20157 Stephen Hopkins v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Henry and Theresa Kuhn v. Merck & Co., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20264 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20228 Alvah Hulett v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Cheryl and Paul Lamparella v. Merck & Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20153 Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp. Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Linda Huter v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck 20230 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20067 Frances and Darren K. Lane v. Merck & Robert Masucci v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20001 20239 Richard and Anna McDonald v. Merck & Joann and Stephen Leavitt v. Merck & Co., Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20240 20285 Patricia and Keith McKown v. Merck & Co., Etta M. Lee v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20048 20271

Vernon Lee and Manan Sommers v. Merck Betty Melucci v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20019 cv-20004 Robert Meyers v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Anne and Milton Levinson v. Merck & Co., Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20148 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20249 Grant Mobley v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Mary Linn v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20076 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20141 Debra Moreno v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Delilah Lloyd v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20212 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20233 Ernest and Mary Morris v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Ernest and Brenda Malizia v. Merck & Co., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20134 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20235 Jean and Kenneth Morse v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Thelma Marshall v. Merck & Co., Inc., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20130 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20085 Rhoda Moziy v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Wanda Martinez v. Merck & Co., Inc., Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20278 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20156 Allen and Barbara Mueller v. Merck & Co., Lenda Pendleton v. Merck & Co., Inc., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20280 20070

Linda and Robert Munger v. Merck & Co., Maureen Pons v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20290 20282 Lillie Pratt v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Jacquelyn Nash v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20051 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20288 Marc and Teri Rawitt v. Merck & Co., Inc., Phyllis Nelson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20104 20135

Kenneth and Delores Nicholas v. Merck & Leonard and Martha Reiss v. Merck & Co., Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20179 20010

Linda and Henry Odess v. Merck & Co., Sondra Reiss v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20293 20211 Pedro Rivera Melendez v. Merck & Co., Inc., Nancy Orth v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20291 20011

Janet and Maurice O’Shea v. Merck & Co., Delores and Robert Rorech v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20077 20295

Mary Outlaw v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Linda Russ v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20172 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20243

James and Linda Paribello v. Merck & Co., Gerald Santo, Personal Representative of the Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Estate of James Santo v. Merck & Co., Inc., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20135 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20241 Gail Santoro v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Joyce Stedman v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20209 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20013

Carol Schasel v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Ronald Stichter v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20298 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20142

Garry and Virginia Schuemann v. Merck & Linda Thompson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20201 20224

Karney and Patience Seymour v. Merck & Carole and John A. Triplett v. Merck & Co., Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20195 20144

Erica Sheid v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Charles and Dorothy Turnbull v. Merck & Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20277 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20203 Mildred Sheppard v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Patricia and Denvil VanHoose v. Merck & McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and 20023 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20058 Leonard and Linda Sherman v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Elsa and Wilfredo Vega v. Merck & Co., McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and 20155 McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20220 Sandra Siudvinski v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Anthony Vespa v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson 20011 Corp. Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20202

Peter and Maria Skumanich v. Merck & Co., Catherine Wade v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20219 20286 Evelyn Wagner v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Mary Speigle v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20218 Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20158 Mary and David Waldroup v. Merck & Co., Matthew Zarosl, Individually and as Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Proposed Administrator of the Estate of McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- Barbara Zarosl v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck 20056 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20194 Edward Waszak v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Felip Zielinski v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20265 Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20177 Martha Watson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20136

Janet and Van Welty v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20262

Eron and Vernon West v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20259

Julie Grace Wiencek v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20107

Waverly Williams v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv- 20124

Jean Wright v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-20181

Olynda Wylie v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-20138

Michael and Sandra Yasso v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and McKesson Corp.,Civil Action No. 2:18-cv- 20253 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SEPARATE PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 285

Bartle, J. March 30th, 2020

Plaintiffs bring these 146 actions against defendants Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”), as well as against McKesson Corp., seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered from Zostavax, a shingles vaccine. They are part of over 1,300 actions assigned to the undersigned in Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) No. 2848 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Before the court is the omnibus motion of Merck to dismiss the above captioned actions under Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure to produce materially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheets in accordance with Pretrial Orders (“PTO”) Nos. 46 and 209. I The parties in this MDL have agreed to waive the initial disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all plaintiffs and to adopt an Initial Discovery Plan intended “to conserve judicial and party resources, eliminate duplicative discovery, serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” In accordance with the Initial Discovery Plan, the court entered PTO 46 which adopted a form Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) acceptable to the parties. The PFS is a questionnaire in which each plaintiff provides, among other information, the date the Zostavax vaccine was received, each injury claimed to be caused by Zostavax, the date the plaintiff became aware of the injuries, the health care

providers who diagnosed and treated the injuries, and the dates of that diagnosis and treatment. Plaintiffs must also sign medical release authorizations to permit Merck to collect records from the health care providers identified in the PFS’s. PTO 46 requires each plaintiff who files an action in this MDL to complete and verify a PFS. Each plaintiff must serve on Merck a completed PFS and signed medical release authorizations within 45 days of the date Merck answers or moves to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.1 If Merck finds a plaintiff’s PFS to be materially deficient, Merck must notify that plaintiff’s counsel by sending a letter identifying the

deficiencies. The plaintiff has 30 days to cure any deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not cured within 30 days, Merck may move to compel the plaintiff to do so under Rule 37. With PTO 46, the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Merck

1. PTO 7 requires Merck to respond to a plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days after the complaint is served (Doc. # 20). agreed and this court adopted the procedure for addressing deficient PFS’s. On August 30, 2019, Merck moved to compel the production of materially complete PFS’s in 172 actions in this MDL (Doc. # 355). In these actions, Merck sent to counsel for the plaintiffs at least one letter which identified deficiencies

in the PFS’s. The plaintiffs in many of these actions amended their PFS’s. However, Merck found many to remain materially deficient and sent additional delinquency notices. This cycle was repeated in many of the 172 actions and resulted in numerous amended PFS’s. The law firm of Marc J. Bern and Partners (the “Bern firm”) represents the plaintiffs in each of the 172 actions. On September 4, 2019, the court granted Merck’s motion to compel and entered PTO 209 (Doc. # 367) which required the plaintiffs in the 172 actions to cure any material deficiencies in their PFS’s. PTO 209 also required the plaintiffs to

identify the changes in each amended PFS and the Bern firm to certify good faith compliance with its discovery obligations in each of the 172 actions. The court warned that failure of plaintiffs to produce a verified, materially complete PFS and authorization for medical records as required by PTO 46 and PTO 209 may result in dismissal with prejudice. The court required compliance by September 18, 2019. Merck moved to dismiss 146 of the 172 actions on October 11, 2019 (Doc. # 393) on the ground that the Bern firm failed to certify good faith compliance with its discovery obligations. Merck argued that in 62 of the actions plaintiffs had also failed to serve materially complete PFS’s. Merck specified the material deficiencies it alleged existed in each

of the 62 PFS’s in a chart attached to its motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs responded to these deficiencies in a chart attached to its response in opposition to the motion (Doc. # 415).2 The court held oral argument on Merck’s motion to dismiss. Merck agreed at that time to withdraw the motion as it related to the Bern firm’s failure to certify good faith compliance with its discovery obligations, provided each plaintiff in the 146 actions had served a materially complete fact sheet. Merck withdrew the motion in 593 of the 146 actions

2. Plaintiffs continued to serve amended PFS’s after Merck filed its motion to dismiss. Working with a moving target, Merck added to or changed the deficiencies it alleged as the briefing progressed on its motion. Merck provided its most recent alleged deficiencies in a chart attached to a supplemental letter submission filed on December 24, 2019 (Doc. # 464). Plaintiffs have not responded.

3. Civil Actions Nos. 18-20015, 18-20022, 18-20023, 18-20025, 18-20048, 18-20051, 18-20065, 18-20073, 18-20088, 18-20129, 18-20135, 18-20142, 18-20152, 18-20153, 18-20156, 18-20166, 18-20178, 18-20179, 18-20180, 18-20189, 18-20194, 18-20195, 18-20201, 18-20203, 18-20211, 18-20216, 18-20230, 18-20233, 18-20239, 18-20247, 18-20249, 18-20253, 18-20256, 18-20257, 18-20261, 18-20268, 18-20277, 18-20280, 18-20288, 18-20291, 18-20295, 18-20298, 19-20001, 19-20013, 19-20057, 19-20070, (Doc. # 454), and the parties stipulated to dismiss one action.4 Of the original 146 actions, 86 now remain subject to Merck’s motion to dismiss. II Rule 41(b) provides that if a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure] or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes a district court to dismiss an “action or proceeding in whole or in part” as a sanction against parties who disobey discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). A district court may also prohibit a “disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses” or “introducing designated matters in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Dismissing an action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) is a matter of a district court’s discretion.

Briscoe v. Klaus,

(3d Cir. 2008). The same is true of a district court’s decision to impose the sanction of dismissal under Rule 37(b). Knoll v. City of Allentown,

(3d Cir. 2013). We are required to consider the

19-20072, 19-20076, 19-20077, 19-20078, 19-20085, 19-20088, 19-20092, 19-20096, 19-20104, 19-20131, 19-20134, 19-20157, and 19-20158.

4. Civil Action No. 18-20077. six factors set out in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,

(3d Cir. 1984), when considering dismissal under either rule. They are: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Knoll,

n. 2 (citing Poulis,

. There is no “magic formula” or “mechanical calculation” to determine whether an action should be dismissed under the Poulis factors. In re Asbestos,

(3d Cir. 2013). “In fact, no single Poulis factor is dispositive” and “not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint.”

III The administration of actions in an MDL is different from the administration of individual actions on a court’s docket. In re Asbestos,

. The purpose of centralizing actions in an MDL is their efficient preparation for trial.

. A plaintiff’s failure or delay to provide discovery central to the merits of his or her claims undermines this goal. See

Prejudice caused to defendants by such a failure or delay can weigh significantly in favor of dismissal under Poulis.

This is particularly true when the court is ill-equipped to assess the merits of an action as a consequence of a plaintiff’s failure to provide certain discovery.

In the In re Asbestos MDL, our Court of Appeals

reviewed the district court’s decision to dismiss 12 actions for failure to provide information similar to that sought in the PFS’s at issue in this action. See In re Asbestos,

. There, the pretrial order required each plaintiff to provide either proof of the diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease or a medical opinion that the plaintiff had such a disease.

. Plaintiffs were required also to provide a history of their exposure to asbestos.

The district court dismissed the 12 actions at issue because the plaintiffs had not submitted specific histories of their exposure to asbestos.

. Judge Eduardo Robreno aptly

noted: [w]ithout evidence of an exposure history for each plaintiff and a medical diagnosis that allows defendants and the Court to sort through, for example, which plaintiffs allegedly were exposed to whose asbestos at which locations, the litigation of thousands of cases could not go forward.

at 242 (quoting In re Asbestos,

, at ¶ 1 n. 2). Our Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision under Poulis.

The plaintiffs, by not providing a history of their exposure to asbestos, were holding up the progress of their actions and preventing the district court from considering the merits of their claims.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court properly found that

the dilatory and prejudicial factors set out in Poulis outweighed all others, particularly where the information plaintiffs failed to provide made weighing the meritoriousness factor impossible. IV Plaintiffs contend the PFS’s in the 86 actions which remain subject to Merck’s motion to dismiss are materially complete. Merck concedes that the PFS’s in 245 of the actions are now materially complete. Merck seeks dismissal of these 24 actions, however, on the ground that the PFS’s were untimely and that it was prejudiced by having to review numerous PFS’s in

each action. We accept that many of the PFS’s subject to this motion have been amended several times. We recognize prejudice to Merck which, in order to assess the merits of the claims

5. Civil Actions Nos. 18-20159, 18-20198, 19-20060, 18-20191, 19-20089, 19-20098, 18-20049, 18-20258, 18-20021, 18-20264, 18-20067, 19-20141, 18-20019, 19-20130, 18-20282, 19-20135, 18-20293, 18-20144, 18-20220, 18-20265, 19-20124, 18-20181, 19-20138, 18-20177. against it, has spent great time and expense identifying deficiencies, providing notices of the deficiencies, and filing discovery motions. Nonetheless, Merck, which agrees it has the burden here, has failed to provide the court with the information necessary to determine whether the PFS’s in these 24 actions were untimely. For example, Merck does not identify the

date it was first served a PFS in each of these actions. Merck also fails to specify the deficiencies in the first served PFS’s and to submit those PFS’s for the court’s review. Without this information, Merck has not established any prejudice due to untimeliness. We will therefore deny Merck’s motion to dismiss with respect to these 24 actions. V We have reviewed each of the PFS’s in the remaining 62 actions for the delinquencies Merck alleges as well as plaintiffs’ responses. As noted above, the PFS requires each plaintiff to

provide: a date for the receipt of Zostavax; the injuries allegedly caused by Zostavax; the date the plaintiff became aware of the injuries; the health care providers who diagnosed and treated the injuries; and the dates of the diagnosis and treatment. This information shares an important characteristic with the diagnosis and asbestos exposure history the plaintiffs were required to produce in In re Asbestos. It is central to the merits of each plaintiff’s claims. Without it, neither Merck nor the court can properly assess the merits of a plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, like the district court in In re Asbestos, we give great weight to prejudice where a plaintiff has omitted material information in response to all or some of these questions. We do the same where a plaintiff

provides materially inconsistent information in response to the questions. We find no prejudice and will not dismiss any action where an overall review of a plaintiff’s PFS resolves the material inconsistencies or omissions alleged by Merck. Nor will we dismiss an action where vague deficiencies alleged by Merck require the court to speculate as to the merits of some unspecified defense. Similarly, we will not dismiss an action where Merck alleges without explanation that a medical authorization is not usable or that the medical records a plaintiff produced with a PFS are incomplete. These vague

allegations are insufficient for Merck to meet its burden, particularly where Merck has neither referenced nor submitted a complete record in support of its motion to dismiss. Finally, a plaintiff may in good faith respond that he or she does not recall the answers to questions in a PFS just as a party may respond it does not recall the answer to an interrogatory or a deposition question. Of course such answers may bar a plaintiff from later relying on a different answer or even obtaining relief. We find that prejudice weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of Meyers v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 19-20148. Merck alleges the PFS contains “[i]nconsistent responses between date of vaccination, ‘August 2016’ (II.B.1),

when first became aware of injury, ‘July 2015’ (II.C.2), date of diagnosis, ‘11/2016’ (II.C.4) and dates of treatment, ‘July 2016’ (II.C.5).” Robert Meyers states that he suffered shingles and postherpetic neuralgia as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. He purportedly became aware of these injuries

in July 2015 and was treated for them in July 2016. He then adds that he received the Zostavax vaccine in August 2016 and was diagnosed with shingles in November 2016. This inconsistency goes to the merits of plaintiff’s claim that Zostavax caused his injuries. Plaintiff provides no response to this material deficiency. Consequently, neither Merck nor the court can assess the merits of his claims. We also find prejudice weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of Damico, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-20165. Merck alleges the PFS contains “alleged three-year date rage [sic] of ‘sometime between 2010 and 2013’” for the date of plaintiff’s Zostavax vaccination. Patricia Damico states that she was diagnosed and treated for shingles and numerous other injuries as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. She identifies Dr. Louisa Sanchez as the health care provider who administered

the Zostavax vaccine “[s]ometime between 2010 and 2013.” However, she pleads in her Amended Complaint that she “was inoculated with ZOSTAVAX . . . by Yael Ellis, M.D.” in 2013. This inconsistency goes to the merits of plaintiff’s claims that Zostavax caused each of her injuries. Plaintiff provides no response to Merck’s motion to dismiss to specify her vaccination date or to clarify the health care provider who administered the vaccine. The parties agreed on the form of the PFS and the procedure set out for addressing deficiencies in PTO 46. Robert Meyers and Patricia Damico had the opportunity to provide an

amended, materially complete PFS within the timeframe set by PTO 46 but failed to do so. They offer no explanation for this failure. We entered PTO 209 which compelled all the plaintiffs subject to this motion to amend their PFS’s where deficient, required good faith certifications from the Bern firm, and warned that actions may be dismissed should there be a failure to comply. We have also issued orders in this MDL which required other plaintiffs represented by the Bern firm to show cause as to why their cases should not be dismissed for failure to provide materially complete PFS’s. Despite these warnings, Robert Meyers and Patricia Damico and the Bern firm failed to comply with PTO 209 without explanation. We find the remaining Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissing the Meyers and

Damico actions. The plaintiffs in the following three actions did not verify their PFS’s: Frisbie v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 19-20129; Siudvinski v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 19-20011; and Speigle v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-20158. We find that these plaintiffs demonstrate little interest in participating in this litigation. Weighing the Poulis factors, Merck is substantially prejudiced by such nonparticipation. See McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure Inc., Civil Action No. 14-7316,

, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2019); see also Kuznyetsov v. W. Penn

Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., Civil Action No. 09-0379,

, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2010). For these reasons, we will dismiss these five actions with prejudice. VI We find some of the deficiencies Merck alleges in the following 6 of the remaining 57 actions to be material. However, after consideration of the other Poulis factors, we do not find they weigh in favor of dismissal. We will instead prohibit the plaintiffs in the following actions from introducing evidence related to the material omissions contained in their PFS’s pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). In Birmantas, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 19-20050, Merck points out that the plaintiff “[i]dentifies a diagnosing / treating health care provider in response to question regarding how plaintiff first became aware of her injuries (II.C.3), who is not otherwise identified as a diagnosing / treating health care provider.” Plaintiff states in her PFS that she suffered shingles

and, later, a related varicella type rash as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. She adds “Dr. Michael Ahern” at the “OSF Saint Luke Medical Center” diagnosed her with the shingles in December 2016 and that she received treatment that December at the medical center. However, plaintiff notes that she consulted with different health care providers — “Dr. Julio Ramos” and “Dr. Sautkaskas” — when she became aware of the rash. Plaintiff provides sufficient information to identify Dr. Ahern but fails to provide information to identify the whereabouts of Dr. Ramos and Dr. Sautkaskas. For this reason, we will prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence of any diagnosis, treatment, or examination by Drs. Ramos and Sautkaskas. Merck asserts that in Burch v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 19-20111, the plaintiff “[f]ailed to answer question regarding whether plaintiff ever spoke with a health care provider about Zostavax and injury causation

(II.C.6).” Plaintiff sets forth that she suffered from shingles as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. She identifies the health care providers who diagnosed and treated her for shingles but fails to answer whether she communicated with any health care provider about whether Zostavax caused her to contract the shingles. For this reason, we will prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence of any communication she had with any health care provider about whether Zostavax caused her to contract the shingles. In Jones v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action

No. 18-20269, Merck contends that the plaintiff provides “[n]on-responsive answers to key questions, including II.C.1 (injuries alleged to Zostavax – ‘I have Lots of ailments. I’m not sure’).” In the PFS, plaintiff writes that he suffered shingles, “pain and blisters,” and “[l]ots of ailments” as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. He identifies the health care providers who diagnosed him with the shingles and treated his related pain and blisters. However, plaintiff does not specify the other ailments he alleges were caused by Zostavax or identify the health care providers who diagnosed and treated the ailments. For this reason, we will prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence to support any claim that

Zostavax caused him injuries other than the shingles and the related pain and blisters. Merck maintains that in Mobley, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-20076, the plaintiff “[f]ailed to provide diagnosing and treating provider information for alleged injury of loss of vision (II.C.4- II.C.5).” Plaintiff states that he suffered shingles, pain around his left eye, and related loss of vision as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. He identifies the health care providers who diagnosed and treated his shingles and the related pain but does not specify the health care provider who

diagnosed or treated his loss of vision. For this reason, plaintiff may not introduce evidence to support any claim that Zostavax caused plaintiff loss of vision. In Rivera Melendez v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-20011, Merck points out that plaintiff makes reference to a “‘Dr. A. Rivers Bonilla’ in II.C.1” but does not “otherwise identif[y] [Dr. Bonilla].” Plaintiff maintains that he suffered shingles and scarring on his left eye as a consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine. He describes sufficient information to identify the health care provider that diagnosed and treated his shingles but does not specify the health care provider that diagnosed and treated any injury to his eye caused by the

shingles. Though plaintiff states “Dr. A Rivers Bonilla” ordered a CT scan to check whether the shingles affected his eyes, he does not set forth any identifying information for this health care provider. For this reason, plaintiff may not introduce evidence to support a claim that Zostavax caused any injury to his eyes. Finally, in Santoro v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 18-20209, Merck contends that the plaintiff “failed to identify and itemize alleged out-of-pocket expenses (II.C.12).” Plaintiff states she suffered shingles as a

consequence of receiving the Zostavax vaccine and is seeking damages for related out-of-pocket expenses. She does not identify these expenses. For this reason, we will prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence in support of any claim for out-of-pocket medical expenses. The remaining alleged deficiencies in these six actions taken as a whole are not material and do not warrant any further sanction. See supra V. We will therefore deny the motion of Merck to dismiss these actions in total. VII We will deny the motion of Merck to dismiss the remaining 51 actions. After careful review, the alleged deficiencies in the PFS’s in these cases are not material and do

not prejudice Merck.