Plaintiff North Jersey Hip & Knee Center sued defendants Janet Quevedo and her attorney Amy Peterson based upon a letter of protection, claiming $183,107 of medical bills allegedly owed for services rendered by plaintiff to Quevedo after an automobile accident. Plaintiff had treated Quevedo for her injuries from the accident based upon a letter of protection sent by Peterson, her personal injury attorney. Due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The issue in North Jersey Hip & Knee Center v. Quevedo, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 171 (App. Div. Feb. 5, 2024), was whether the trial court erred in entering the ultimate sanction of dismissal versus other less drastic sanctions available.
While Rule 4:23-2(b) does permit the court to strike a pleading or dismiss the action with prejudice when a party fails to comply with a court order or permit discovery, the case law is well settled that the ultimate sanction of dismissal is to be used sparingly and only when a lesser sanction will not suffice. See, e.g., Abtrax Pharmaceuticals v. Elkins-Sinn, 139 N.J. 499, 514 (1995). Although dismissal is an extreme sanction, the Supreme Court has upheld a dismissal with prejudice where there has been a finding of “willful, deliberate disregard of discovery orders.” Abtrax, 139 N.J. at 520.
