Dismissal of a case as a sanction for discovery abuses; Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin; Thorne v. Bell; Bass v. Combs; Dimmit & Owens Fin., Inc. v. Deloitte Touche (ISC), LLC; Vicencio v. Ramirez; North v. Department of Mental Health; Welch v. J Walter Thompson, USA, Inc.; Kalamazoo Oil Co. v. Boerman

The court held that although the trial court erred by not considering other sanctions on the record, remand was not required because dismissal was the appropriate sanction. Plaintiff sought no-fault insurance benefits from defendant following an automobile accident. Shortly thereafter, intervening plaintiffs sought reimbursement for medical expenses plaintiff incurred through their care. Defendant denied plaintiff’s allegations. The trial court eventually dismissed plaintiff’s action for failure to participate in discovery and comply with court orders to do so. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court “erred by failing to explain on the record its decision to dismiss plaintiff’s action in light of the other available sanctions.” However, it found that remand was not required. “[T]he record confirms that plaintiff’s silence was not the result of good-faith efforts or unavoidable conditions, but rather was the product of willful inaction in response to defendant’s numerous attempts to complete discovery.” A “lesser sanction would not have facilitated discovery” and “dismissal of plaintiff’s claims best served the interests of justice.” Affirmed.