Discovery Sanctions Entered Against Defendant Who Was Not Cooperating With Discovery Requirements

In the case of Jones v. STR8 FROM US, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05370-GJP (E.D. Pa. April 23, 2025 Pappert, J.), the court entered a sanctions Order against the defense in a motor vehicle accident matter where the Defendant driver refused to speak with his defense counsel that were hired by the Defendant’s insurance carrier, refused to respond to the discovery requests and deadlines, and refused the efforts to complete his deposition.

After discovery Orders were entered, the Plaintiffs moved for sanctions pursuant to F.R.C. 37(b) related to the Defendant’s continued failure to obey the court’s discovery Orders.

In assessing the justification of any discovery sanctions, the court applied what is known as the Poulis factors, which are a series of six (6) separate factors that a trial court should review and apply before granting an award for sanctions. In this regard, the court cited the case of Poulis v. State Farm, 647 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

Judge Pappert noted that Rule 37 authorizes courts to sanction conduct that obstructs the completion of discovery. After reviewing the matter before him, Judge Pappert granted sanctions and precluded the Defendant from testifying at trial or offering evidence concerning how the car accident involving the Plaintiff occurred and/or who was at fault. 

The court also noted that, after reviewing the Poulis factors, it was also appropriate to strike all of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses that did not pertain to the issues of causation or damages.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Judge Hobbles Trial Defense After Client Refuses To Cooperate With His Lawyers” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (April 24, 2025).