LOOKING TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE?
LIMITED SLOTS AVAILABLE
PLEASE CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT
570-319-5899
dancummins@cumminslaw.net
Friday, October 2, 2026
Superior Court Rules that Carrier Must Produce Documents in Discovery in Bad Faith Action
According to the Opinion, the Defendant insurance company asserted the client-attorney privilege and the work product doctrine in seeking to avoid to produce certain documents in discovery in this bad faith case.
The carrier had offered up a generalized privilege log that referenced 2,000 pages of withheld documents into five (5) broad categories. None of the documents were individually described in the privilege log.
The trial court, after an in camera review of the discovery at issue, ordered that the withheld documents be disclosed after finding the documents to be relevant, discoverable and not privileged.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed. The appellate court emphasized that, on appeal, the Defendant carrier did not address any particular document, or specify any documents or the contents of any such documents.
The appellate court additionally noted that the Defendant carrier did not adequately explain why either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine applied to any particular document.
Given that the carrier only broadly presented the issues on appeal and failed to produce sufficient facts to show that the privileges asserted were properly invoked, the lower court’s decision was upheld.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA.
Given that the carrier only broadly presented the issues on appeal and failed to produce sufficient facts to show that the privileges asserted were properly invoked, the lower court’s decision was upheld.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA.
Eastern District Federal Court Issues Sanctions For Discovery Misconduct
In the case of Malone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2026 Wolfson, J.), the court ordered UPS to pay nearly $500,000.00 in attorney’s fees and more than $16,000.00 in costs as a sanction for discovery misconduct.
According to the Opinion, this matter arises from a proposed class action in which the Plaintiff accused UPS of failing to compensate Pennsylvania warehouse employees for certain time at work.
The court found that UPS’s delayed disclosure of a key defense forced Plaintiffs’ counsel to reopen discovery and incur hundreds of hours of additional work. The court found that this warrented the entry of sanctions.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
The court found that UPS’s delayed disclosure of a key defense forced Plaintiffs’ counsel to reopen discovery and incur hundreds of hours of additional work. The court found that this warrented the entry of sanctions.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
