Salata v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution plaintiff’s personal injury action after plaintiff had failed to comply with certain discovery orders. Record showed clear pattern of delay, where, after series of extensions of time to serve discovery requests, plaintiff failed to comply with court-ordered deadline to serve said responses and failed to appear at either subsequent status hearing or hearing to argue defendant’s motion to dismiss. Moreover, while plaintiff eventually tendered some, but not all of requested discovery responses in conjunction with her motion to reinstate case, Dist. Ct. was not required to grant plaintiff’s motion, where plaintiff’s belated tender of responses was simply too late to warrant reinstatement of her case.