Where a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, that motion should be allowed because of the plaintiff’s pattern of failing to satisfy discovery obligations and failing to comply with court orders.
“Plaintiff Justin Clayton—through his attorney Jason Daniel Wine—has repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage in discovery with Defendant. This is true despite multiple discovery extensions, court orders compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery material to Defendant, and even sanctions imposed on Plaintiff’s counsel. So—for the second time—Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Civil Rules 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b). As explained below, given Plaintiff’s pattern of failing to satisfy discovery obligations and failing to comply with Court orders, this Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. …
“Here, Attorney Wine’s continued disregard of the discovery rules and this Court’s orders has been unquestionably willful. Indeed, this disregard has continued despite numerous admonishments and lesser sanctions. …
“But as is particularly relevant to this case, the Sixth Circuit ‘has expressed reluctance to uphold a dismissal “merely to discipline an errant attorney” to the detriment of an innocent client.’ …
“The Sixth Circuit’s warning of caution is the primary reason this Court directed Clayton himself to attend a status conference on May 7, 2026: so that Clayton would be on notice regarding the severity of Attorney Wine’s willful failures to obey court orders and engage in discovery. … Admirably, throughout the last year, Attorney Wine has repeatedly fallen on his sword and represented to this Court that all the discovery failures are attributable to him, and not his client. … Yet even after the May 7 status conference, Clayton elected to continue with Attorney Wine as his representative, and expressed that he is just ‘along for the ride’ and ‘hopeful [that] it works out.’ … In this way, it appears Clayton himself is a willful participant in the ongoing failures to engage in discovery and obey court orders.
“At bottom, it appears both Clayton and Attorney Wine have willfully failed to engage in discovery and obey court orders, especially during the last year of discovery. Although much of the fault for this lies with Attorney Wine, some fault also lies with Clayton himself, as Clayton is aware of these ongoing failures. …
“The second factor favors dismissal because Fowlerville has been prejudiced by Clayton’s ongoing, years-long failure to meaningfully engage in discovery and comply with this Court’s discovery orders. …
“At bottom, this Court has imposed lesser sanctions, but still Clayton and Attorney Wine continued to disregard court orders and discovery obligations. Thus, this fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. …
“Having considered all four factors, they all weigh in favor of dismissal. Thus, this Court will dismiss Clayton’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 29, with prejudice as a sanction under both Civil Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and Civil Rule 41(b).”