In March 2014, Jenna Thurmond sued Bayer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that her use of the Mirena contraception system caused her to develop pseudotumor cerebri.  Her symptoms included changes to her vision and hearing, head and neck pain, severe migraines and Vertigo.

Ms. Thurmond asserted claims for breach of implied and expressed warranties, concealment, design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud suppression, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and strict liability.

On May 23, 2014, the parties filed a joint preliminary report and discovery plan.  The District Court granted the parties’ joint request to extending the deadlines for fact discovery to January 31, 2015.  On January 31, 2015, Ms. Thurmond moved to extend the deadline until October 23, 2015, and the Court denied the request holding that Ms. Thurmond had not shown what new fact discovery was needed or why it was needed.

Ms. Thurmond moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline and to amend her complaint to add foreign entities Bayer OY and Bayer Pharma AG as Defendants.  On May 11, 2015, Bayer moved for summary judgment.  On August 4, 2015, the District Court denied Thurmond’s motions to extend discovery and to amend her complaint and awarded Bayer’s Summary Judgment.

Ms. Thurmond appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motions to extend fact discovery and expert disclosure deadlines.  The appellate court noted that Ms. Thurmond submitted her first request for production on October 21, 2014, four months after the discovery schedule was entered, and she initiated no depositions, or name any expert witnesses.  Ms. Thurmond explained that further discovery would be necessary if additional defendants were added.

Because the District Court was within its discretion to deny leave to amend her complaint, it properly denied Ms. Thurmond’s request for an extension, the appellate court held.  The appellate court noted that the trial court granted one discovery deadline extension and it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a second.

The appellate court also rejected Ms. Thurmond’s argument that the District Court abused its discretion by denying her motion to amend her complaint to add two Bayer foreign entities.

Finally, the appellate court held that the trial court properly awarded Bayer summary judgment.  The appellate court concluded:

In the appeal, Thurmond has conceded that she has not attempted to argue the merits of the lower court’s ruling on granting summary judgment. Thus, she has abandoned this issue, and it is not before us.