No-fault insurance; PIP benefits; Discovery sanctions; MCR 2.313(B)(2); Dismissal; MCR 2.504(B)(1); Maldonado v Ford Motor Co; Failure to comply with discovery; Dean v Tucker; Lesser sanctions

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s no-fault PIP claim as a discovery sanction. Plaintiff, an Uber passenger injured in a hit-and-run crash, sued defendant-insurer for PIP benefits. But he repeatedly failed to provide required discovery, including executed medical authorizations, supplemental initial disclosures, damages computations, medical-bill amounts, wage-loss information, and adequate interrogatory responses. On appeal, the court held that sanctions were warranted because plaintiff failed to comply with multiple court orders, including the scheduling order and a stipulated order requiring supplemental disclosures, medical authorizations, deposition dates, and discovery responses. The court then held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable outcomes because the trial court carefully applied the Dean factors and recognized that dismissal is a “drastic step that should be taken cautiously.” The violation was willful because plaintiff consciously chose not to provide supplemental initial disclosures after deciding that the original disclosures were enough, and “willful” does not require wrongful intent. The record also showed a repeated history of delay and noncompliance, including failure to respond to the dismissal motion and counsel’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to blame defendant for any incomplete record, noting that plaintiff could not shift his “self-advocacy responsibility” to opposing counsel. Finally, the trial court considered lesser sanctions, including striking portions of the claim or issuing another order to compel, but reasonably found them insufficient. Affirmed.