Spitzer-Gibson et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 2:2013cv15361 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 11 MOTION by Boston Scientific Corporation to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the plaintiffs' case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 4/14/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)

Download PDF
Spitzer-Gibson et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation Doc. 13 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: Spitzer-Gibson, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-15361 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corp.’s (“BSC”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely Serve the Plaintiff Profile Form [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs have responded to the motion [ECF No. 12], 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. 9], entered on February 17, 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. 9] (applying the Wilson factors to Ms. SpitzerGibson’s 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 Dockets.Justia.com as 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 plaintiffs 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. SpitzerGibson 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. Spitzer-Gibson 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 17, 2016 Order [ECF No. 9], it is ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED, and the plaintiffs’ 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. 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 ENTER: April 14, 2017 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.