Lorenz v. Mentor Worldwide LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 23 MOTION by Coloplast Corp. to Dismiss is GRANTED and and Coloplast is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/28/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PELVIC SUPPORT SYSTEMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2387
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Val Lorenz, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-20013
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 23] filed
by Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast"). The plaintiffs have responded [ECF No. 24], and the
defendant has replied [ECF No. 25]. Thus, this matter is ripe for my review. For the
reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
Defendant's Motion arises from this court’s Order [ECF No. 22], entered on
December 1, 2017, denying defendant's first Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20] for
failure to meet and confer with defendant’s counsel to engage in good faith discussions
about the possibility of settlement in compliance with Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 134.
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
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).
Concluding that the first three factors weighed in favor of sanctions as requested by
defendant, 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 PTO # 134. I afforded them thirty days
from the entry of the Order to meet and confer with defendant to discuss settlement,
with the caveat that failure to do so may result in dismissal of their case with
prejudice upon motion by the defendant. Despite this warning, the plaintiffs have
again failed to comply with this court’s orders and did not meet and confer with
defendant within the thirty-day period. Consequently, defendant moved to dismiss
Because the less drastic sanction instituted against the plaintiffs has had no
effect on their compliance with and response to this court’s orders, which they have
continued to blatantly disregard, I find that dismissing the defendant with prejudice
is now appropriate. For the reasons explained in my December 1, 2017 Order, it is
ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED, and
Coloplast is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and to any unrepresented party.
February 28, 2018
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?