Cases are rarely directly dismissed for discovery failures. Generally, discovery failures manifest themselves in a bad outcome at trial, in a bad outcome on summary judgment, or in a flameout prior to trial, with attorneys withdrawing and the case sputtering to a finish. Here, in Cascardo v Dratel 2021 NY Slip Op 30667(U) March 4, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101055/2017 Judge: Erika M. Edwards discovery failures led directly to dismissal.
“Over the past three years, Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to comply with Defendants’ numerous requests and multiple court orders to provide Defendants with authorizations for copies of the flies from Plaintiff’s previous ERISA attorney and forensic accountant which is
relevant to her claim that Defendants copied documents from those files, duplicated research performed by prior counsel, and billed for the work.
Where a party “willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed,” the court may strike pleadings or parts thereof, dismiss the action or any part thereof or enter a default judgment against the insubordinate party (CPLR 3126). Although actions should be disposed of on the merits whenever possible, the court may strike a pleading as a sanction against a party who refuses to obey an order for disclosure (Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170, 171 [1st Dept 2004]). A Plaintiff’s long continued pattern of noncompliance with with orders and discovery demands give rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct (Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260, 261 1st Dept 2006] citing Goldstein v CIHC World Markets C01p., 30 AD3d 217 [1st Dept 2006]; see Perez v City of New York, 95 AD3d 675, 676 [181 Dept 2012])”
“However, the court grants Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiff s A1mmded Verified Complaint and strikes Plaintiffs pleadings for Plaintiffs continued failure to provide the authorizations for Defendants to obtain the files from her previous ERISA attorney and forensic