Opinion
No. 09-1084-CV-W-FJG.
August 10, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is defendants' response (Doc. No. 27) to plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.
After considering defendants' response (Doc. No. 27), plaintiff's response (Doc. No. 25), and the issues raised in the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 23), the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Orders of this Court. The Court's Scheduling and Trial Order is clear, and plaintiff has failed to comply with (1) the deadlines set forth therein and (2) the Court's directive that the designation include "(a) abrief description of the incident or happening; (b) the date and place thereof; and (c) the identity of the persons involved." See Doc. No. 14, p. 6.
Plaintiff did not attempt, in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, to cure the deficiencies pointed out by the Court; instead, she merely re-iterates her incorrect belief that she complied with the Court's Orders. As discussed by defendants, her actions have hampered defendants' ability to prepare their defense in this case. The Court agrees that defendants should not be made to wade through hundreds of documents to determine the incidents upon which plaintiff bases her claims. "[A] district court's Scheduling Order `is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded . . . without peril.'" See Woods v. Sherwood Medical Co., 1996 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21919 at *20 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 2, 1996) (J. Sachs). Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Orders of the Court.