Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02280/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JEWELL EDWARDS, et al PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 04-2280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 11), Defendant’s Supporting Brief (Doc.

12), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 15), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 16),

Defendant’s Supplemental Reply (Doc. 20). For the reasons that

follow, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as reflected herein.

I. Background 

On December 23, 2004, the above captioned case was filed pro se.

(Doc. 1.) On February 23, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel, John W.

Caldwell, Jr., entered his appearance. (Doc. 2.) On April 27, 2005,

an Order to Show Cause was entered directing the Plaintiff to show

cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute, as Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Rule 4(1),

Fed.R.Civ.P., requiring the person serving process to make proof of

service thereof to the court promptly or within the time during which

the person served must respond to the process, and requiring service

of the summons and complaint upon a defendant within 120 days after

the filing of the complaint. (Doc. 3.) On June 6, 2005, the case

was dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc. 4.) On June 27,

2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the order dismissing

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 5), which the Court granted and

reinstated the case (Doc. 6).

On August 1, 2005, the Initial Scheduling Order was issued,

requiring the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference and file

the Rule 26(f) Report by October 21, 2005. (Doc. 8.) On October 17,

2005, the Rule 26(F) Report was filed and provided that the parties

would make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a) by December 15, 2005. (Doc. 9.) Defendant provided

its initial disclosures to Plaintiff on December 1, 2005.

Plaintiff’s initial disclosures have not yet been provided (more than

five months after the December 15, 2005 deadline). (Doc. 12, p.1.)

On January 10, 2006, interrogatories and a request for

production of documents were mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel, along

with a request for the initial disclosures to be provided. Id. at

p. 2, Exhibits B, C, and D. On February 17, 2006, Defendant

contacted Plaintiff’s counsel by letter, requesting the initial

disclosures, answers to the interrogatories and the documents

previously requested. Id. at p. 2, Exhibit E. 

On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant,

advising that he had just received the February 17, 2006 letter and

that he would provide responses by approximately March 14, 2006.

Defendant then sent Plaintiff’s counsel copies of the interrogatories

and request for production of documents by e-mail. Id. at p. 2,

Exhibit F. On March 10, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant an

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

e-mail advising that he would provide the discovery by March 23,

2006. On March 14, 2006, Defendant responded to the March 10, 2006

e-mail, stating that he would agree with a March 23, 2006 due date,

but also advised that if the discovery was not received by that date,

he would be forced to take some action. Id. at p. 2, Exhibit G. As

of this date, neither the requested discovery nor the initial

disclosures have been provided by Plaintiff. See id. at p. 5.

II. Motion to dismiss standard

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a case to be

dismissed with prejudice “for failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or

comply with these rules or any order of court.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b). “Despite the breadth of this language, however, we have

recognized that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that

should be used only in cases of willful disobedience of a court order

or where a litigant exhibits a pattern of intentional delay.” Hunt

v. Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8 Cir. 2000) (citing Hutchins v. th

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1260 (8 Cir. 1997)). th

Willful disobedience does not require bad faith, but requires “only

that [one] acted intentionally as opposed to accidently or

involuntarily.” Id. (quoting Rodgers v. Univ. of Missouri, 135 F.3d

1216, 1219 (8 Cir. 1998)). th

“A district court should weigh its need to advance its burdened

docket against the consequence of irrevocably extinguishing the

litigant’s claim and consider whether a less severe sanction could

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

remedy the effect of the litigant’s transgressions on the court and

the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.” Hutchins, 116 F.3d

at 1260 (citing Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc., 539 F.2d

1191, 1193 (8 Cir. 1976)). th

III. Discussion

A. Failure to File Expert Affidavit.

Defendant initially contended that Plaintiff’s failure to file

an expert affidavit was a basis for dismissing the present case.

(Doc. 12, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff responded, stating that Ark. Code Ann.

§ 16-44-220(b) is not applicable to the case sub judice. (Doc. 15,

p. 1.) Upon further research, Defendant agrees with Defendant that

there is no requirement for Plaintiff to file an expert affidavit in

the present case. (Doc. 16, p.1.) 

B. Failure to Provide Initial Disclosures and Discovery.

It has been well established by Defendant that Plaintiff has

failed to provide the initial disclosures and discovery by the time

set by the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has responded that the

failures have occurred due to medical issues he has had to face (with

assurances that the medical issues have either been resolved or will

be resolved in the immediate future). (Doc. 15, p. 2.) The medical

issues resulted in Plaintiff’s counsel having difficulty reading.

Id. 

Although, we do not find that the nature of Plaintiff’s

counsel’s medical issues warrant the failures in this case, we also

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

do not find that the most severe sanction, dismissal with prejudice,

is warranted. 

IV. Conclusion

Without question, Plaintiff’s counsel’s actions have not met the

professional responsibility requirements for an attorney.

Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby reprimanded for failing to comply with

the this Court’s orders. While the Court is sympathetic to the

medical issues that Plaintiff’s counsel has been dealing with, the

medical issues are not of such a nature that he was unable to timely

notify opposing party and this Court regarding his reading

restrictions, as evidenced by the February 28, 2006 and March 10,

2006 e-mails he sent to Defendant. Furthermore, if Plaintiff’s

counsel was unable to meet the time limits placed by the Court, he

had a duty to properly request extensions of time, not simply ignore

the Court’s orders. If further failures to comply with Court orders

occur, Plaintiff with be further sanctioned with increased severity.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Plaintiff has ten (10) days from the date of this order to provide

Defendant with the initial disclosures and the requested discovery.

A failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice of the

present case. Discovery will be completed by July 5, 2006, and

dispositive motions will be filed by July 12, 2006. This matter

remains scheduled for trial the week of August 7, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6 day of June 2006. th

 /S/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02280-RTD Document 18 Filed 06/06/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>