Action for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits; Validity of a trial court order requiring plaintiff to provide discovery within 21 days; Dismissal as a discovery sanction; Traxler v. Ford Motor Co.; MCR 2.313(B)(2)(c); Thorne v. Bell; MCR 2.504(B)(1); Richardson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.; Vicencio v. Ramirez

The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court’s order requiring her to provide discovery within 21 days was entered in contravention of the court rules, and that it abused its discretion in dismissing her case as a discovery sanction. The trial court had the inherent authority to enforce its scheduling order directives, and it was clear from the record that it considered several relevant factors before deciding to impose the sanction of dismissal. Plaintiff sued for PIP benefits for injuries she suffered in a motor vehicle accident after defendant-insurer refused to pay. As to the trial court’s 3/11/19 order requiring her to provide discovery within 21 days, the court noted that “[d]espite the trial court’s specific order mandating that plaintiff identify all service providers by name, address, and phone number within 28 days of the entry of” the 9/6/18 scheduling order, “plaintiff’s counsel refused to do so.” When defendant noticed depositions of plaintiff and her service providers, “only plaintiff appeared. During her testimony, plaintiff identified by name some of her alleged service providers and apparently, following the deposition, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide their contact information. He failed to do so. Because plaintiff failed to abide by the trial court’s Scheduling Order by identifying and providing the contact information for all of plaintiff’s service providers, and then refused to honor his agreement to do so following plaintiff’s deposition, defendant was again forced to seek the trial court’s assistance in obtaining this mandated discovery information.” The court noted that the “trial court, despite its Scheduling Order directive, gave plaintiff another 21 days to provide the contact information for plaintiff’s service providers. Again, plaintiff’s counsel failed to abide by the trial court’s order. And when he finally did provide some contact information, it was inaccurate and incomplete—necessitating yet another motion to be filed by defendant for this basic discovery information that had been” repeatedly ordered by the trial court. Now on appeal plaintiff argued that the trial court did not have the legal authority to enforce its own “Scheduling Order which mandated the disclosure of the contact information for plaintiff’s service providers in this first-party no-fault case, and further, that the trial court did not have the legal authority to grant defendant’s request that plaintiff be compelled to provide that contact information months later.” There was no merit in this argument. Affirmed.