In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation v. 3M Company
In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation v. 3M Company, et al.
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:25-cv-00970
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Robin Kleppe Sr. v. 3M Company, Judge Schultz recommends dismissing the case without prejudice because Kleppe repeatedly ignored discovery orders.
Robin Kleppe Sr.’s action against 3M Company and the other defendants is affected. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, but the document is not a final district court order or judgment.
What happened
Robin Kleppe Sr.’s case was selected for trial preparation in the Bair Hugger litigation. The defendants asked to dismiss it because Kleppe did not comply with his discovery obligations, including providing dates for his deposition.
The court ordered Kleppe several times to provide deposition dates and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal. Kleppe did not meet any of the deadlines. His lawyer said she had repeatedly tried to contact him, and asked that the case be paused instead, but did not provide a rule or other legal basis for that request.
Judge Schultz recommends dismissing Kleppe’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This report and recommendation is not a final order or judgment; the parties may file written objections within the time stated in the notice.
The detailed version
- In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation v. 3M Company · No. 0:25-cv-00970
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 3, 2026
Background
Robin Kleppe Sr.’s Bair Hugger product-liability case was selected as one of 150 cases to be prepared for trial in the multidistrict litigation. The defendants requested dismissal for failure to prosecute based on Kleppe’s failure to comply with discovery obligations.
Discovery Orders and Noncompliance
The opinion states that, in May 2026, the defendants reported Kleppe had not provided deposition dates for nearly four months. The court ordered him to provide dates, but he did not comply. Kleppe’s counsel responded that she had repeatedly tried to contact him without success.
In June 2026, the court again ordered Kleppe to provide deposition dates by June 30 and warned that it would recommend dismissal if he did not comply. Kleppe again failed to do so. The court then gave him one final opportunity to provide dates by July 17, but he did not comply with that order either.
Request to Pause the Case
Kleppe’s counsel asked that the case instead be “paused.” The court stated that Kleppe cited no rule or other authority supporting that request and did not explain why a stay was appropriate despite his repeated failure to comply with court orders.
Recommendation
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a defendant may seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the rules or a court order. Judge David T. Schultz concluded that Kleppe’s repeated failure to comply with discovery orders justified dismissal under that rule.
The court recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the district court. It states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and that the report is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.