Powers et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 19 MOTION by Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson to Dismiss With Prejudice; and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/6/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:
ETHICON, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2327
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Powers, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-18023
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed by Ethicon, Inc., and
Johnson & Johnson (collectively “Ethicon”). [ECF No. 19]. Plaintiffs have responded, Ethicon has
replied, and I have considered the parties’ filings.
Ethicon’s Motion arises from this court’s Order [ECF No. 11], entered on July 8, 2015,
denying Ethicon’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. 11], 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 Ethicon, I
1
The Wilson factors are as follows:
(1) Whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice his
noncompliance caused his adversary, which necessarily includes an inquiry into the materiality
of the evidence he failed to produce; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of
noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions.
Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Wilson, 561 F.2d at
503–06).
nevertheless declined to award the requested sanctions 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 the plaintiffs 30 business days from the entry of the Order to submit to Ethicon 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, the plaintiffs have again refused to comply
with this court’s orders and did not provide Ethicon with their PPF within the 30-day period.
Consequently, Ethicon moved to dismiss the case 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 the plaintiffs have continued
to blatantly disregard, I find that dismissal with prejudice is now appropriate. For the reasons
explained in my July 8, 2015 Order [ECF No. 11], it is ORDERED that Ethicon’s Motion to
Dismiss with Prejudice [ECF No. 19] 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.
ENTER: June 6, 2016
2
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?