The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLaughlin, J.
The plaintiff, Natasha Wilcox, instituted an action against her former employer, the Geo Group, Inc., alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act. The defendant moved for sanctions against the plaintiff for failure to comply with discovery requests. The Court initially denied the defendant's motion for sanctions and provided the plaintiff with opportunities to comply with discovery. The plaintiff has continued to fail to comply with the defendant's discovery requests and with the Court's orders regarding discovery and the status of the case. The defendant has twice written to the Court requesting the Court to reconsider the defendant's motion for sanctions. The Court will grant the defendant's request and dismiss this action.
The plaintiff brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, and she filed a complaint on or around April 29, 2009, alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act. The defendant removed the action on May 18, 2009. The Court held a Rule 16 status conference with the parties on July 9, 2009. Following that conference, the Court issued an Order that discovery shall proceed forthwith and continue in such manner as will assure that all requests for, and responses to, discovery will be served, noticed and completed by February 1, 2010. The Court also set dates for dispositive motions, a settlement conference, and a telephone conference to discuss scheduling the remainder of the case.
On October 19, 2009, the defendant moved to compel discovery. The defendant explained that it had sent the plaintiff interrogatories and requests for documents on June 23, 2009, and, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the responses were due July 23, 2009. Although the defendant contacted the plaintiff's counsel multiple times regarding the outstanding discovery, the plaintiff failed to respond or object. On October 20, 2009, pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(g), the Court granted the defendant's motion to compel and gave the plaintiff ten days to respond to the discovery requests.
On November 11, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for sanctions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff's counsel filed a brief in opposition on November 17, 2009, asking the Court to deny the defendant's motion for sanctions so that the plaintiff may have time to hire a new attorney,*fn1 and on November 18, he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. He explained in his motion that he and the plaintiff began to have personality conflicts and that the facts underlying the action were different from what the plaintiff explained during her client interview. He stated that he and the plaintiff had a "substantial difference of agreement... concerning the facts and their views as to the merits of the case." Pl.'s Counsel's M. for Withdrawal 4-5.*fn2
The Court ordered a hearing on the parties' motions and stated that counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff herself shall attend the hearing. The hearing was held on December 4, 2009, and although counsel for the parties appeared, the plaintiff did not. The Court granted the plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw and ordered a case status conference and hearing on the defendant's motion for sanctions to take place on January 15, 2010, providing the plaintiff with time to seek new counsel.
On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff failed to attend the court-ordered hearing and case status conference. The Court called the plaintiff, and the plaintiff participated in the hearing and conference telephonically. During the hearing, the plaintiff explained that she had or could obtain certain discoverable paperwork related to her claim.*fn3 She also provided the Court with her current address, which was different from that noted on the docket.
Following the hearing and case status conference, the Court denied the defendant's motion for sanctions. It ordered the defendant to send to the plaintiff, copying the Court, a letter detailing its discovery requests. It ordered the plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests within fourteen days.
The defendant sent its discovery requests in a letter to the plaintiff on January 18, 2010. On February 9, 2010, the defendant wrote a letter to the Court explaining that, although two weeks had passed, the plaintiff had not responded to the discovery requests, and it renewed its motion for sanctions. On February 9, 2010, the Court issued an order that the plaintiff shall respond to the defendant's discovery requests by February 16, 2010. In the Order, the Court explained that if the plaintiff had any objections to the requested discovery, she should explain these objections in a letter to the Court. The Order provided the Court's fax number and address.
On February 23, 2010, the defendant wrote another letter to the Court explaining that the plaintiff had still failed to satisfy the defendant's discovery requests. The defendant again renewed its motion for sanctions. The Court issued an Order on February 26, 2010, requiring the plaintiff to show cause by March 8, 2010, as to why the defendant's motion for sanctions should not be granted. As of March 11, 2010, the plaintiff has failed to send any response to the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit developed the following six factors for a district court to consider when deciding whether a sanction of dismissal is justified: (1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) whether the party has a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 867-68 (3d Cir. 1984).
The Court need not find all of the Poulis factors satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992). Instead, the decision must be made in the context of the district court's extended contact with the litigant. Id. The factors are to be "weighed by the district courts in order to assure that the 'extreme' sanction of dismissal ...