United States District Court, D. New Jersey
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for a determination of whether the Poulis factors support dismissal of this case. For the reasons explained below, dismissal is warranted and appropriate.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The full background of this case is known to the parties and recited in numerous Orders and Opinions of this Court and, therefore, will not be repeated here.
By Order dated June 7, 2013, the Court dismissed this matter. Plaintiff appealed and the Third Circuit affirmed the underlying decision to order discovery, but remanded on grounds that the Court did not expressly outline the Poulis factors in its decision to dismiss for a willful failure to provide that discovery. Therefore, the limited issue before the Court is whether the Poulis factors support dismissal of this case.
The Court invited the parties to submit written briefs in support of their position on whether this case should be dismissed under the Poulis factors. The parties submitted their briefs and the Court held oral argument on May 13, 2014. At the hearing, the Court went through each of the Poulis factors and concluded that dismissal is warranted and appropriate. The Court now outlines in fuller detail those reasons in this Opinion.
In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. , 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the Third Circuit outlined the following factors that should be considered prior to dismissing a case:
(1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility;
(2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery;
(3) a history of dilatoriness;
(4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith;
(5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of ...