Sejdini et al v. Mentor Worldwide LLC et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 28 MOTION by Coloplast Corp. to Dismiss; the defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/21/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:

COLOPLAST CORP.,
PELVIC SUPPORT SYSTEMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2387
______

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Jelena Sejdini, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00936
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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

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
1

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.
ENTER:

February 21, 2018

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).

2