## Facts

- Todd McKeague alleged he suffered hand injuries while using a table saw and brought a Massachusetts product-liability design-defect action against the saw’s corporate designer/manufacturer and the retailer.
- Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The district court entered a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) scheduling order adopting the parties’ discovery plan.
- McKeague’s counsel served no discovery by the discovery deadline and did not timely retain an expert, despite the practical necessity of expert testimony for a design-defect claim.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the lack of expert evidence was fatal.
- The district court granted McKeague relief by reopening discovery and extending expert-disclosure and briefing deadlines without imposing sanctions.
- Counsel nonetheless missed the extended expert deadline and filed no opposition to the pending summary-judgment motion by the extended due date.
- The district court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with scheduling orders.
- McKeague moved for reconsideration, asserting a newly retained expert needed additional time and blaming a one-day-late document production; the district court denied reconsideration.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Rule 16(b) scheduling orders after granting extensions and reopening discovery.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case after repeated noncompliance, including the failure to oppose a pending dispositive motion despite extended deadlines.
- The court also upheld the denial of reconsideration, concluding the proffered justification did not warrant yet another extension.

## Legal Principles

- Dismissal for failure to prosecute and for noncompliance with scheduling orders is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Rule 16(b) scheduling orders are binding case-management directives; repeated disregard may justify dismissal.
- Although decisions on the merits are preferred, a persistent pattern of missed deadlines and inaction—especially after prior judicial leniency—can warrant dismissal, including when a dispositive motion remains unopposed.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld dismissal where plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly failed to conduct discovery, meet expert-disclosure obligations, or respond to summary judgment, and where the district court had already provided extensions and reopened discovery without sanctions.


McKeague v. One World Techs., Inc., 858 F.3d 703 (1st Cir. 2017)