Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Dismissal of a Matter as a Discovery Sanction

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Spigelmire v. Lehnhoff’s Landscaping, No. 1456 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court overruled a trial court decision dismissing a personal injury case as a sanction for the Plaintiff’s discovery violations.

This case arose out of a slip and fall incident.

The Superior Court held that, while Plaintiff’s conduct was improper, that misconduct did not warrant as extreme consequence as a dismissal of the case.

During the course of the matter, one of the Defendants secured an Order compelling the Plaintiffs to produce records. When the Plaintiff still did not respond to the discovery requests thereafter, that Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions. When Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the sanctions hearing, the court ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Several days later, the Plaintiff requested the trial court to reconsider the dismissal, claiming that the Plaintiff missed the discovery deadline and the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions because her attorney failed to proper record and communicate the dates. The court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the Plaintiff appealed. 

As noted, the Superior Court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the matter.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article “Cases’ Dismissal Was Too Extreme Sanction For Plaintiff’s Discovery Violations, Pa. Appeals Court Says,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (July 2, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on www.pexels.com.

Eastern Federal District Court Judge Issues Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff's Counsel

 In the case of Shelton v. Chaudhry, No. 24-5657 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2025 McHugh, J.), Eastern Federal District Court Judge Gerald A. McHugh ripped a scathing Opinion meting out Rule 11 sanctions against a Plaintiff's counsel for repeated violations.

According to the decision, in this case arisining out of a motor vehicle accident, the Court faulted the Plaintiff's attorney for repeatedly filing a federal court Complaint rooted in diversity jurisdiction while, at the same time, pleading facts that established that such jurisdiction did not exist.

In his decision, Judge Hughes provides a thorough review of the current status of federal law in the context mandates imposed on attorneys under Rule 11 as well as when sanctions are warranted under that Rule.

In the end, the Court's sanctions imposed included a reprimand addressed to Plaintiff's counsel, the imposition of a $7,500 fine on the attorney, and the issuance of a directive that the attorney circulate the Court's Opinion to the other members of the Plaintiff's law firm at issue.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Federal District Judge Crafts Sanction for Discovery Violations

In the case of Domus BWW Funding, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-00094-JDW (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2024 Wolson, J.), the court issued discovery sanctions against the Defendant insurance company related to discovery issues and “sloppy” discovery responses by the carrier. The court declined to impose a monetary sanction and instead decided to create jury instructions regarding the carrier’s actions.

More specifically, the court noted that the deletion of emails during discovery was considered troubling but was also procedural as the insurance company underwent a company wide transition.

In the end, the carrier was hit for sanctions due to his “cavalier attitude” towards its discovery obligations after the carrier was found to have failed to preserve evidence related to the lawsuit.

The judge imposed sanctions under FRCP 37(e)(1) after finding that the Plaintiff was prejudiced by the carrier’s deletion of emails by an underwriter of the policy at issue. As a remedy, the court noted that it was craft appropriate jury instruction regarding evidence of the insurance company’s failure to preserve the emails.

In his decision, the court also faulted the Plaintiff for not bringing the issues to the attention of the court until a summary judgment motion was filed. The court noted that a post-hoc Motion for Sanctions is not the appropriate vehicle to address the prejudice of the insurance company’s negligent approach towards the discovery obligations.

Judge Wolson noted that, although the discovery may, at times, amount to drudgery that lawyers may not enjoy, lawyers have an obligation to take their discovery duties seriously.

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


Source: Article - “Citing ‘Sloppy’ Discovery, Pa. Federal Judge Imposes Sanctions on Insurance Carrier, Calls Out Counsel,” By Marianna Wharry of the Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 15, 2024).

Sanctions Awarded For Unreasonable and Vexatious Litigation

 In the case of Chicka v. Hearing Health PA., LLC, No. 2:21-CV-1405 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2023 Horan, J.), the court found that a Plaintiff’s attorney was subject to sanctions for unreasonable and vexatious litigation where the Plaintiff’s attorney unnecessarily delayed the proceedings for over a year as the case remained mired in the pleadings given that defense counsel was required to prepare multiple Motions to Dismiss to address repeated substantive and procedural errors that should have been easily remedied through simple cooperation.   

The court noted that, under 28 U.S.C. §1927, an attorney who multiples the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously may be personally liable for the resulting costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred.   

The court found that the four (4) elements required to be shown for sanctions were met in this case, including the elements of (1) multiplied proceedings; (2) unreasonable and vexatious conduct; (3) increased costs of the proceedings; and (4) bad faith or intentional misconduct.   

The court noted that it would schedule a separate hearing to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 23, 2023). 

Federal Court Reviews Five Factor Test for Imposition of Discovery Sanctions

In the case of Garcia v. S&F Logistics, No. 5:21-CV-04062-JMG (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2022 Gallagher, J.), the court granted discovery sanctions against a Defendant in the form of a default judgment of liability against those Defendants where the Defendants had repeatedly failed to respond to discovery requests or appear for depositions despite Court Orders to do so.

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).

Source of image: Photo by Ekaterina Bolovtsova from www.pexels.com.

Sanctions Order Regarding Certificate of Merit Vacated on Appeal

In the case of Green v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 2021 Pa. Super. 2009 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2021 Bowes, J.), the court addressed the rules surrounding Certificate of Merit, the failure to produce one, and the possible sanctions as a result.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court described its opinion in this case as a “cautionary tale for attorneys or venture outside their area of expertise into unfamiliar specialized area of litigation without educating themselves on the applicable rules and law.”

This case arose out of a medical malpractice claim.

In its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the current status of the law on sanctions under Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1 Pa.R.C.P. 1023.4 and Pa.R.C.P. 1042.

In the end, the appellate court vacated the trial court's entry of sanctions in the amount of over $84,000 and remanded the case for further analysis of the request for sanctions under the standard of review outlined in this case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Daniel J. Siegel of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel in Havertown, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels.com.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Discusses Discovery Sanctions and the Code of Civility

In the case of Barbarevech v. Tomlinson, No. 18-CV-4821 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 29, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon provided lessons on the current law for deciding motions for sanctions on discovery issues and regarding civility amongst counsel.

This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident. During the course of discovery, a dispute arose over the Defendant’s apparent refusal to respond to discovery requests seeking liability insurance documents.

Despite the trial court issuing multiple Orders compelling the Defendant to respond to various discovery requests, the requested information was allegedly not forthcoming. As such, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions.

In reviewing the Motion for Sanctions, the court reviewed the current status of Pennsylvania law with regards to the imposition of sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 4019 when a trial court’s discovery Orders are not obeyed.

Judge Nealon noted that, under Pennsylvania law, while the trial court judges are afforded great discretion in fashion and remedies or sanctions for violations of discovery Rules and Orders, the law does require that the court select a punishment that “fits the crime.”

Judge Nealon reviewed the five (5) separate factors that are considered to be a necessary part of the consideration when reviewing a request for sanctions based upon a discovery violation.

Those five (5) factors are:

(1) the nature and severity of the discovery violation;


(2) the defaulting party’s willfulness or bad faith in failing to comply with discovery;


(3) the resulting prejudiced to the other party;


(4) the non-offending party’s ability to cure any prejudice; and,


(5) the number of discovery violations by the non-compliant party.

After applying these factors to the case before him, the judge confirmed that the Defendant had continuously ignored its discovery obligations, willfully disobeyed the discovery Orders of Court, and unnecessarily strained the limited judicial resources by the Defendant’s actions.

As such, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion and awarded counsel fees and reasonable expenses in connection with the preparation of the Motion for Sanctions. The court did grant the Defendant the right to contest the reasonableness and necessity of the fees that may be put forth by the Plaintiff.

The court also noted that the conduct at issue in this case was violative of the Pennsylvania Code of Civility’s aspirational provisions advocating civil, respectful, and courteous discourse, and also discouraging acrimonious speech and disparaging personal remarks.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Lukas from Pexels.com.

Award of Attorney's Fees Granted Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2503

In the case of Mariotti v. Mariotti Building Products, Inc., No. 12-CV-545 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 23, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Sanctions and a request for the defense for the recovery of counsel fees under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §2503 in a business dispute matter.

The court noted that, under §2503(7) of the Judicial Code, the court has the discretion to award attorney’s fees “as a sanction against another participant for dilatory, obdurate, vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter.”

It was also noted that, under §2503(9) of the Judicial Code, a court may award attorney’s fees against any party whose conduct was “arbitrary, vexatious, or in bad faith.”

After reviewing the definitions of all of the terms identified in the above Judicial Code provisions, the court found that the Plaintiff’s conduct during the course of the litigation warranted the entry of an award of attorney’s fees. As such, the defense motion in this regard was granted and a hearing was set up for a later date to determine the amount of such award.

This Opinion offers insight on the rarely addressed provisions of the sections noted in terms of request for attorney’s fees based upon improper conduct by an opposing party during the course of a litigation.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Med Mal Case Dismissed As a Discovery Sanction

In the case of Flanigan v. The Ellwood City Hosp., No. 30007 of 2017 (C.P. Lawr. Co. April 6, 2020 Cox, J.), the court dismissed a medical malpractice case as a sanction due to the Plaintiff's failure to abide by the discovery Orders of Court.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sue medical defendants relative to treatment rendered to the Plaintiff's foot.  After the Plaintiff's attorney withdrew and the Plaintiff had difficulty finding a new attorney, the Plaintiff elected to proceed with the matter on a pro se basis.

When the Plaintiff failed to fully respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, the Defendants filed a motion to compel.  The Court was not satisfied with the Plaintiff's responses that the information requested could be found in the medical records, particularly where the Plaintiff failed to provide copies of the records or sign authorizations.

At a later motion for sanctions hearing, the Plaintiff agreed to produce signed authorizations within 24 hours.  However, the Plaintiff then sent back 27 unsigned authorizations and, thereafter, continued to refuse to sign them.

The court review the law pertaining to dismissals of actions under Pa.R.C.P. 4019 for discovery violations.  After applying the law to the facts of this matter, and noting the prejudice resulting to the defense in the inability to move the matter forward, the Court granted the requested discovery sanction of a dismissal of the matter.  The court noted that a dismissal with prejudice was the appropriate remedy where the Plaintiff steadfastly refused to provide discovery and repeatedly refused to abide by the Court's discovery Orders.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  "Digests of Recent Opinions," Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 23, 2020)

Motion for Discovery Sanctions Denied -- A Party Can't Produce What Does Not Exist

In the case of Ebersole v. Schofield, No. 13-CV-2129 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 13, 2020 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Motion for Discovery Sanctions in a commercial litigation case.

After being convinced by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had produced all responsive materials in his possession and had further offered executed authorizations for the Defendant to obtain other records, the court found that the defense had not established grounds for the granting of the Motion for Sanctions. 

The court noted that it was convinced that the documents identified and demanded by the Defendant simply do not exist. As such, the court held that a party cannot be sanctioned for failing to produce non-existent materials. 

In the end, the Motion for Discovery Sanctions was denied. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Sanctions Issued in Pike County Case Due to Plaintiffs' Alleged Failure to Comply with Multiple Discovery Orders Compelling Completion of Depositions

Sanctions were granted against a Plaintiff in the Pike County Post-Koken auto accident case of Middaugh v. Horacek and State Farm Ins. Co., No. 691-2011 Civil (C.P. Pike Co. April 2, 2018 Miller, S.J.) due to the Plaintiff's alleged failure to cooperate with the defense efforts to complete the Plaintiff's deposition.  The motion for sanctions at issue was decided by visiting Judge Linda Wallach Miller of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas sitting by assignment in Pike County.

Due to the failure to complete depositions, each of the three named Plaintiffs were ordered to pay $1,000 each as a sanction and, as a further sanction, the Plaintiffs were additionally prohibited from providing any evidence at trial in support of a claim for damages.

According to the opinion, the case had been in litigation for six years over which the Pike County Court had issued two separate Orders compelling that depositions be completed within certain deadlines.  When such depositions were not completed, the defense filed the Motion for Sanctions at issue.

In her Opinion, Judge Miller reviewed the factors to be considered under Pa.R.C.P. 4019 when addressing a discovery motion for sanctions.

The court ultimately ruled that sanctions were warranted where the case had been pending for six years and where the Plaintiff's depositions had not been completed despite the issuance of two separate court orders compelling the same.

As the case makes for an interesting read, I provide this LINK to the Opinion.

Adverse Inference Sanction Granted Due to Spoliation of Fire Scene

In the case of Dyvex  Industry v. Agilex Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., No. 12 - CV - 0979 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2018 Mannion, J.), the court granted a defense Motion for an  Adverse Inference Spoliation Sanction under a finding that the Plaintiff had spoliated a fire scene in a products liability suit.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had identified the Defendant’s product as a likely cause but went ahead with the demolition of the fire scene without giving the Defendant an opportunity to inspect.   The court also noted that the Plaintiff had informed the Defendant that the scene was being preserved, at which point demolition had already begun.  

The court found that the Defendant was prejudice by the destruction of potential alternative cause evidence.  

While the court noted that there was no blanket rule that a Plaintiff must always preserve an entire fire scene, here, there were no exigent circumstances requiring any alteration of the scene, such as safety hazards.   The court therefore found that the fault on this issue largely lay with the Plaintiff for disturbing the fire scene without notice to the defense.  

The court found that dismissal was not appropriate as the prejudice to the Defendant was partially mitigated by photographs and preservation of some evidence from the scene.

As such, the court found that the Plaintiff’s partial failure to preserve evidence was punishable with an adverse inference instruction.  

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

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.  

Beware of Last-Minute Cancellation of Depositions

Last-minute cancellations of depositions are common, perhaps too common, in the practice of law.  Most of us have been the victim of such actions but, then again, most of us have also had occasion to make such last-minute requests for a rescheduling of a deposition.

Sometimes the cancellation of depositions is done nonchalantly by one or even all attorneys involved and without due consideration for the opposing counsel or the deponent.

With respect to the deponents, most of whom are unfamiliar with the litigation process, they may have taken off of work and/or went through much trouble to make arrangements for the care of their children for the deposition. 

Moreover, a cancellation of a deposition surely must be frustrating and taxing upon the deponent who was likely extremely nervous and filled with dread for the extended period of time leading up to a long-scheduled deposition only to learn that at the last minute that it will be rescheduled and the nervousness and dread will continue for another cycle.

The issue of whether a last-minute cancellation of a deposition is sanction-worthy was recently addressed in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas.

In his recent Opinion in the case of Euceda v. Green, No. 2013-CV-3373 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 20, 2014 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed an appeal by a Defendant obstetrician and his counsel in a malpractice action from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas special trial master’s imposition of monetary sanctions of $1,000.00 as a result of the defense counsel’s allegedly late cancelation of the Plaintiffs’ depositions that were scheduled by defense counsel.   

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon noted that, once a party or lawyer notices a deposition pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1, that lawyer assumes a duty under Pa. R.C.P. 4019(e) to promptly notify all other counsel and parties of the cancellation of that deposition before those individuals have incurred travel and pre-deposition preparation expenses.

Rule 4019(e) provides that, if the party who schedules "a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another party attends in person or by attorney pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party given the notice to pay to such other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by such other party and his or her attorney in so attending, including attorney’s fees."

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon also sited to Article II (17) of the Pennsylvania Code of Civility which provides that "[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect for other lawyers, which requires that counsel be punctual in meeting appointments with other lawyers and considerate of the schedules of other participates in the legal process…."

In this matter, Philadelphia Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed by email late in the morning of April 29, 2014 that the Plaintiffs’ noticed depositions would proceed the following day in Scranton as scheduled by defense counsel. 

According to the Opinion, defense counsel unilaterally cancelled the depositions later in the afternoon of April 29, 2014 almost three (3) hours after receiving the email confirmation from Plaintiffs’ counsel that the depositions would go forward as planned.   Upon being notified of defense counsel’s cancellation of the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately contacted defense counsel’s office and requested that the depositions proceed as scheduled in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs and their counsel had already completed their travel and were already located in Scranton. Defense counsel declined to proceed with the depositions.  

Judge Nealon concluded that, since it was reasonably foreseeable to defense counsel that Plaintiffs’ counsel would travel to Scranton to prepare Plaintiffs for their depositions prior to the time that defense counsel notified the Plaintiffs of the cancellation of those depositions, the award of counsel fees and travel expenses to the Plaintiffs was warranted under Rule 4019(e).

Accordingly, the judge affirmed the special trial masters’ sanctions order but increased it to the amount of $1,347.30 to reflect the full amount of reasonable counsel’s fees and travel expenses incurred.

Judge Nealon concluded his Opinion by denying the Plaintiffs’ cross motion for additional sanctions relative to the appeal.
  Anyone wishing to review Judge Nealon's Opinion in the Euceda case may click this LINK.

Changes Being Considered to Federal Rules of Discovery

Here's a LINK to a post from the excellent Drug and Device Law Blog last week (9/26/13) outlining changes being considered to certain Federal Rules of Procedure pertaining to the scope of allowable discovery.  The blog post provides information on how interested parties may weigh in on the issue.

Judge Nealon Addresses IME Forfeiture Fees

In his recent decision in the case of Fratzola v. Klepadlo, No. 10 - CV -230 (C.P. Lacka. Co. August 7, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a request for sanctions against a Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case relative to the Plaintiff's failure to attend a scheduled independent medical examination (IME).

In this matter, the Plaintiff had been given the wrong address for the IME doctor by his own attorney.  The Plaintiff called his attorney and continued on to the IME doctor's office but arrived late for his appointment.  The doctor was allegedly unable to accommodate the Plaintiff and the IME did not take place.

When the Defendants were hit with a forfeiture fee by the IME doctor, the Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions requesting the sanction of having the Plaintiff pay the forfeiture fee.

In the meantime, during the pendency of the motion for sanctions, the IME had been rescheduled in the case.  However, when the Plaintiff arrived for the second scheduled IME he was told by the doctor that the IME had been cancelled.  The IME was again rescheduled for a third time and is currently set to take place in September.

The Lackawanna County Discovery Master first heard the issue and granted partial relief to the Defendants by ordering the Plaintiff to pay a portion of the IME forfeiture fee.  The Plaintiff filed a de novo appeal and the case was argued before Judge Nealon.

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon reviewed the issue under the factors pertinent to the analysis for discovery sanctions and found that sanctions were not warranted.  In his Opinion, Judge Nealon emphasized that the Plaintiff had not acted in bad faith and that there was no prejudice to the Defendant's defense since the IME was still in line to take place.  Accordingly, the court reversed the Order of sanctions issued by the Discovery Master and denied the Motion.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.