Filed: Feb. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN , District Judge . Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28] filed by Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast") and Mentor Worldwide LLC ("Mentor"). The plaintiffs have responded to the Motion [ECF No. 29], and the defendants have replied [ECF No. 30]. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 25], entered on Decemb
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN , District Judge . Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28] filed by Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast") and Mentor Worldwide LLC ("Mentor"). The plaintiffs have responded to the Motion [ECF No. 29], and the defendants have replied [ECF No. 30]. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 25], entered on Decembe..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge.
Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28] filed by Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast") and Mentor Worldwide LLC ("Mentor"). The plaintiffs have responded to the Motion [ECF No. 29], and the defendants have replied [ECF No. 30]. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.
Defendants' Motion arises from this court's Order [ECF No. 25], entered on December 4, 2017, denying defendants' first Motion to Dismiss for failure to serve a Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS") [ECF No. 14] in compliance with Pretrial Order ("PTO") # 123. 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 at 4-7 (applying the Wilson factors to the plaintiffs' case).1 Concluding that the first three factors weighed in favor of sanctions as requested by defendants, I nevertheless declined to award the requested sanction of dismissal with prejudice 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 plaintiffs a final chance to comply with the deadlines set forth in PTO # 123. I afforded them thirty days from the entry of the Order to submit to defendants a completed PFS, with the caveat that failure to do so may result in dismissal of their case with prejudice upon motion by the defendants. Despite this warning, the plaintiffs have again failed to comply with this court's orders and did not provide defendants with a completed PFS within the thirty-day period. Consequently, defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice.
Because the less drastic sanction instituted against the plaintiffs has had no effect on their compliance with and response to this court's discovery orders, which they have continued to blatantly disregard, I find that dismissing the defendants with prejudice is now appropriate. For the reasons explained in my December 4, 2017, Order, it is ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED, and the defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.
