According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a trucking accident.
In entering its Order, the court additionally noted that defense counsel had trouble establishing contact with the Defendants.
In the Opinion, the Court reviewed the Federal Court standard of review for the imposition of discovery sanctions, which includes an analysis of five factors set forth in the decision, and also noted that the trial court judge had wide discretion in this regard.
The court found that the Plaintiff had been materially prejudiced by the Defendants’ discovery violations. Because the court anticipated that there would be no change in the Defendants’ behavior, the court concluded that the most effective sanction would be to bar the Defendants from contesting liability at trial.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 10, 2022).
The court found that the Plaintiff had been materially prejudiced by the Defendants’ discovery violations. Because the court anticipated that there would be no change in the Defendants’ behavior, the court concluded that the most effective sanction would be to bar the Defendants from contesting liability at trial.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 10, 2022).
Source of image: Photo by Ekaterina Bolovtsova from www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.