Farrow v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 MOTION by Boston Scientific Corporation to Dismiss, as more fully set forth herein. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 12/22/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2326 ______ THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Farrow v. Boston Scientific Corp. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01843 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corp.’s (“BSC”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely Serve her Plaintiff Profile Form [ECF No. 10]. The plaintiff has responded to the motion [ECF No. 11], making it ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. BSC’s Motion arises from this court’s Order [ECF No. 8], entered on February 18, 2016, denying BSC’s Motion for Sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the court, for failure to serve a Plaintiff Profile Form (“PPF”) in compliance with Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 16. 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 [ECF No. 8] (applying the Wilson factors to Ms. Farrow’s case).1 Concluding that the first three factors weighed in favor of sanctions as 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 requested by BSC, I nevertheless declined to award the requested sanctions of either dismissal or monetary 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 the deadlines set forth in PTO # 16. I afforded her 30 business days from the entry of the Order to submit to BSC a completed PPF, with the caveat that a failure to do so may result in dismissal of her case upon motion by BSC. Despite this warning, Ms. Farrow has again failed to comply with this court’s orders and did not provide BSC with her PPF within the 30-day period. Consequently, BSC moved to dismiss this case. Because the less drastic sanction instituted against Ms. Farrow has had no effect on her compliance with and response to this court’s discovery orders, which she has continued to blatantly disregard, I find that dismissal is now appropriate. For the reasons explained in my February 18, 2016 Order [ECF No. 8], it is ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: December 22, 2016 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

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?