Filed: Jun. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN , District Judge . Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed by Cook, Inc., Cook Biotech, Inc., and Cook Medical Inc. (collectively "Cook") [ECF No. 14]. The plaintiff has not responded, and the deadline for responding has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. Cook's Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 12], entered on July 17, 2015, denying Cook's Motion for Sanctions, including monetary penalt
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN , District Judge . Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed by Cook, Inc., Cook Biotech, Inc., and Cook Medical Inc. (collectively "Cook") [ECF No. 14]. The plaintiff has not responded, and the deadline for responding has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. Cook's Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 12], entered on July 17, 2015, denying Cook's Motion for Sanctions, including monetary penalti..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge.
Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed by Cook, Inc., Cook Biotech, Inc., and Cook Medical Inc. (collectively "Cook") [ECF No. 14]. The plaintiff has not responded, and the deadline for responding has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review.
Cook's Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 12], entered on July 17, 2015, denying Cook's Motion for Sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the court, for failure to file a Plaintiff Profile Form ("PPF") in compliance with Pretrial Order # 17. In reaching this decision, I relied on Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1977), in which the Fourth Circuit identified four factors that a court must consider when reviewing a motion to dismiss on the basis of noncompliance with discovery. (See Order [ECF No. 12], at 4-7 (applying the Wilson factors to Ms. McBride's case)).1 Concluding that the first three factors weighed in favor of sanctions as requested by Cook, I nevertheless declined to award the requested sanction because it would offend the court's duty under Wilson's fourth factor, which is to consider the effectiveness of lesser sanctions. In recognition of this duty, I gave the plaintiff "a final chance to comply with discovery." (Id. at 7). I afforded her 30 business days from the entry of the Order to submit to Cook a completed PPF, with the caveat that a failure to do so "will result in dismissal with prejudice upon motion by the defendant." (Id.). Despite this warning, Ms. McBride has again refused to comply with this court's orders and did not provide Cook with her PPF within the 30-day period. Consequently, Cook moved to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Because the less drastic sanction instituted against Ms. McBride has had no effect on her compliance with and response to this court's discovery orders, which she has continued to blatantly disregard, I find that dismissal with prejudice is now appropriate. For the reasons explained in my July 17, 2015 Order [ECF No. 12], it is ORDERED that Cook's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
