Griffin v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/28/2020. (c/m 4/28/2020 ybs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
MARK GRIFFIN
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 18-1959
:
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This multi-district product liability action was remanded
from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in June 2018.
(ECF No. 4).
complaint on September 26, 2018.
Plaintiff filed an amended
(ECF No. 17).
Plaintiff’s pro
hac counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw was granted on August
29, 2019.
(ECF No. 22).
The court granted Plaintiff’s remaining
attorney’s motion to withdraw on October 11, 2019.
(ECF No. 29).
Defendant moved to compel discovery responses and a HIPAAcompliant medical authorization to enable for the collection of
medical records from Plaintiff on August 28, 2019.
Although
Plaintiff
had
requested
and
received
(ECF No. 21).
extensions,
he
failed to respond to either the motion to compel or Defendant’s
discovery requests.
(ECF Nos. 23, 32, and 38).
The motion to
compel was granted on January 8, 2020, and Plaintiff was provided
until January 29, 2020, to provide full and complete responses to
Defendant’s discovery requests.
(ECF Nos. 40 and 41).
He was
explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 4, 2020, and
on March 16, 2020, based on Plaintiff’s continued failure to
respond to discovery.
(ECF Nos. 42 and 44).
Plaintiff was warned
that if he did not file a timely written response, his case may be
dismissed without further notice.
(ECF Nos. 43 and 45).
No
response from Plaintiff has been received.
Defendant seeks dismissal with prejudice as the sanction for
failure
to
participate
in
the
discovery
process.
As
fully
explained by Judge Grimm in Johnson v. Diversified Consultants,
Inc., 2016 WL 1464549 (D.Md. April 13, 2016), dismissal with
prejudice must be reserved for the most egregious cases.
Here,
Mr. Griffin has failed to participate in discovery or comply with
the
order
attorneys
to
were
compel,
but
permitted
replacement counsel.
he
to
has
been
withdraw,
indicating,
that
he
since
was
his
seeking
He has not communicated with the court in
more than five months, however, despite the repeated notices sent
by
the
clerk
regarding
Defendant’s
motions.
Under
the
circumstances, the motion to dismiss will be granted, albeit
without prejudice.
without consequences.
Without prejudice, however, does not mean
As the United States Supreme Court has
noted, “dismissal without prejudice” means “[a] dismissal that
does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the lawsuit within the
2
applicable limitations period[.]” Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505–06 (2001). Thus, if the applicable
limitations periods on Mr. Griffin’s claims have run, Defendants
will, in the event of any future refiling, be able to raise a
statute of limitations defense.
A separate order will be entered.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?