In a warning that parties to a lawsuit must take their discovery obligations seriously, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion on January 7, 2013 in Universal Health Group v. Allstate Ins. Co. upholding the district court's dismissal of an insurance action as a sanction for the plaintiff's repetitive and pervasive violations of the district court's discovery orders.

The plaintiff, Universal Health Group, filed suit against Allstate Insurance Company in Michigan state court. After removing the case to federal court, Allstate served Universal with requests for production of documents and interrogatories, to which Universal failed to respond. After receiving several extensions to its discovery deadline from the magistrate, Universal still failed to provide complete responses to the defendant's discovery requests, and further failed to comply with a court order to coordinate with Allstate's counsel on deposition scheduling. Based on Universal's violation of the court order, Allstate moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Sixth Circuit considers four factors when reviewing a district court's decision to dismiss an action under FRCP 37(b). Dismissal is proper if:

(United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2002).)

The court found all of these factors present and granted Allstate's motion to dismiss. Although the plaintiff argued that the district court did not provide explicit warning of dismissal, the Sixth Circuit responded that Universal, which had received lesser sanctions for previous violations of court orders regarding discovery, was on clear notice of the possibility of that sanction.