Dismissal under MCR 2.504(B)(1) (for failure to comply with rules or court order); Application of MCR 2.314(C)(1); The Vicencio v Ramirez factors

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss under MCR 2.504(B)(1) because it “did not properly apply MCR 2.314(C)(1) and this inaccurate application permeated its analysis of the Vicencio factors.” Thus, the court vacated and remanded for “the trial court to determine whether dismissal was warranted under the facts when applying MCR 2.314(C)(1)(d) properly.” It appeared the trial court, in determining dismissal was the appropriate sanction, “relied heavily on its conclusion that plaintiff had an obligation to provide requested medical records to defendant.” But the court noted that “MCR 2.314(C)(1)(d) specifically allows a party to satisfy its obligation by providing an authorization. Defendant had been in possession of the authorizations for the medical information he was requesting since 2021, and plaintiff’s counsel had resubmitted the authorizations in 2023. The trial court’s reliance on the supposed failure of plaintiff’s counsel to understand his obligation to provide discovery as a primary reason for choosing the sanction of dismissal was an abuse of discretion because it misapplied the court rule.”