Court Issues Sanctions When Defense Discloses 600 Pages of Documents on the Eve of Trial

In the case of McCready v. Re/Max Achievers, No. 2:24-CV-02226-JFM (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025 Murphy, J.), the court addressed a Motion for discovery sanctions against a defense counsel due to the defense counsel’s failure to produce discoverable documentation during the discovery phase of the case. Defense counsel produced 600 pages of the previously undisclosed documentation at issue days before the trial date.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants after he was allegedly placed at an allegedly unlicensed sober home, which allegedly improperly administered his medication, allegedly leading the Plaintiff to suffer a near fatal state of low blood pressure. The Plaintiff also claimed that he was wrongfully evicted from the facility. He sued various Defendants before settling with Re/Max, which was a property manager for the home.

While the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant at issue should be sanctioned with a default judgment for its late disclosure of relevant evidence, after reviewing the standards applicable to discovery sanctions, the court concluded that an alternative sanction would suffice.

The court awarded attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the discovery issues. The court also prohibited the Defendant from asserting that any negligence found was attributable to parties who had already settled out of the case. The court additionally permitted the Plaintiff to utilize the late-produced documents at trial, but prohibited the culpable Defendant from doing so.

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


Source: Article: “Marshall Dennehey, Re/Max Sanctioned For Delayed Discovery Disclosures Ahead of Trial,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 10, 2025).

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In its non-precedential decision in the case of Spigelmire v. Lehnhoff’s Landscaping, No. 1456 MDA 2024 (Pa.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.

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).

Discovery Sanctions Awarded

In the case of Hamilton Law Group P.C. v. Hardenstine, No. 1464-CV2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 22, 2024 C. Daniel Higgins, Jr., J.), the court granted a Motion for Discovery Sanctions after the Defendants failed to obey a court Order regarding the production of discoverable documents.

The court found that the Defendants’ continued and willful refusal to supply timely and full responses to discovery, even after being ordered to do so, demonstrated disdain towards the court. The court found that appropriate sanctions were authorized by Pa. R.C.P. 4019(a).

The court reaffirmed the general law of Pennsylvania that the imposition of discovery sanctions is a matter that falls under the broad discretion of a trial court judge. Judge Higgins noted that the factors to be considered were (1) the prejudice endured by the non-offending party and the ability of the opposing party to cure any prejudice; (2) the non-complying party’s willfulness or bad faith in failing to provide the requested discovery, (3) the importance of the excluded evidence in light of the failure to provide discovery, and (4) the number of discovery violations by the defending party.

Here, the court granted the Motion for Sanctions and ordered the Defendants to pay $750.00 in attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys. The Defendants were also ordered to provide full and complete Responses to the Request for Production of Documents at issue within thirty (30) days.

The court otherwise noted that, if the Defendants again fail to comply, the Plaintiffs were invited to apply for additional sanctions, including attorney’s fees and, possibly incarceration.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 16, 2025).

Trial Court Grants Discovery Sanctions After Med Mal Defendant Led Plaintiff on Wild Goose Chase

In the case of Lapteff v. Abington Mem. Hosp., No. 2021-CV-00536 (C.P. Montg. Co. Nov. 15, 2024 Saltz, J.), the court entered an Order in favor of a Plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim on issues regarding alleged spoliation of evidence and discovery sanctions.

In this medical malpractice case, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions relative to the Defendant hospital’s alleged spoliation of an audit trail for electronic medical records.

The court granted the motion in part by ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in seeking the production of an audit trail after the Defendant only belated explained that the discovery requested was unnecessary because pertinent medical record updates were reflected on the records themselves.

The court otherwise denied the Plaintiff’s request for an entry of judgment in its favor given that the spoliation committed by the Defendant did not serve to prejudice the Plaintiffs’ ability to prove their case. This was because the details of any after-the-fact changes to the Plaintiff’s medical records were confirmed to be in the medical records themselves.

Nonetheless, the court found that the Plaintiffs were prejudiced by being led on a wild goose chase by the Defendant which had originally simply maintained that it had no responsive documents in its possession when the Plaintiff originally requested the medical record audit trail. At no time did the Defendant, early on, inform the parties or the court that an audit trail was not required because any changes would be noted on the face of the medical records themselves. This revelation was only made after the court invited the Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Sanctions.

The court noted that, whether the Defendant’s conduct was intentional or not, a timely disclosure would have saved the parties and the court from considerable needless effort.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. (Jan. 8, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Cottonbro Studios on www.pexels.com.

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).

Federal Court Finds Spoliation of Video Surveillance of Slip and Fall in Store

In the case of Heagy v. Burlington Stores, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-02447-CMR (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2023 Rufe, J.), the court denied a motion against a Defendant store that was based, in part, on the Defendant store’s alleged spoliation of video surveillance evidence regarding the subject slip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, on the day of the incident, a cleaning crew was cleaning the floors earlier that morning, as a result of which there was a wet mat near the entrance area.

About ten (10) minutes before the Plaintiff entered the store, the store employee nearly slipped and fell in the area. The Plaintiff then entered the store and slipped and fell on the tile floor after stepping from the mat, which the parties agreed was soaking wet.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff contacted a lawyer and, two (2) weeks after the fall, that attorney sent Burlington a letter confirming his representation of the Plaintiff and requesting the preservation of security/surveillance video of the incident. The Plaintiff’s attorney requested that the entire unedited video be preserved as recorded for a period of twenty-four (24) hours before and twenty-four (24) hours after the subject incident.

A few days thereafter, the adjuster for Burlington’s third party administrator contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the store cannot produce forty-eight (48) hours of footage, but that the footage would be preserved.

According to the Opinion, two (2) days before that communication, the adjuster had submitted a request to Burlington to save video from thirty (30) minutes before the incident to thirty (30) minutes after the incident.

Ultimately, Burlington’s loss prevention associate preserved the footage only of the customer, which amounted to three (3) minutes prior to the fall and seventeen (17) minutes after the fall.

In this regard, the court was addressing a Motion for Summary Judgment by Burlington relative to the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims along with Motion for Summary Judgment by the subcontractor Defendants who argued that Burlington’s negligence was an intervening and superseding cause of the Plaintiff’s fall and that Burlington’s spoliation of evidence warranty summary judgment in favor of the subcontractor Defendants.

The court denied all motions so that the issues could be addressed later in terms of what spoliation sanctions were warranted.

The court found that Burlington’s action of only preserving only a very limited amount of the video evidence constituted spoliation as there was no basis to conclude that Burlington’s failure to preserve the pertinent video evidence was the result of any inadvertence, routine practice, or accident. The court noted that the evidence in the record demonstrated that Burlington spoliated the pertinent video evidence for the purpose of undermining the integrity of the litigation and that Burlington could not now benefit from its own misconduct.

The court found that the Burlington spoliation did not require a dismissal of the claims against the subcontractor. The court also noted that the finding of the entitlement to a spoliation adverse inference or an award of litigation expenses was premature at the present juncture of the case. Accordingly, all arguments regarding spoliation sanctions were denied without prejudice. The court granted the party’s leave to file appropriate Motions for Sanctions.

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


Source: Article - “Major Slip-Up: Pa. Judge Rules Burlington Destroyed Relevant Evidence in Slip-and-Fall Suit, But Holds Off on Sanctions,” By: Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 8, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Alex Knight on www.unsplash.com.

Motions For Sanctions Are Not Designed to Test The Veracity of a Party's Discovery Responses

In the case of Morel v. Patt, No. 2021-C-0506 (C.P. Leh. Co. July 17, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the court found that the court granted in part and denied in part a Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions raising various alleged discovery violations by a Plaintiff.

In its decisions, the court found in at least one instance the Plaintiff failed to make a good faith effort to identify her treatment providers and to produce related treatment records during the course of discovery.  

As such, the court found that the Defendants were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in the effort to secure such information.

Otherwise, the Court found that sanctions were not warranted on other claims of discovery violations asserted by the defense.  In this regard, the court noted that the rules of discovery are not designed to allow a motion for sanctions to be utilized to test the veracity of a party's claims of a lack of information or documentation to produce in discovery.  Rather, the rules are designed to compel that parties make good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of discovery.    

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Etkaterina Bolovtsova on www.pexels.com.

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.

Court Addresses Discovery Issues Including Issues With Plaintiff's Attorney Being a Deponent in the Case

In the case of Butler v. Scranton Manuf. Co., Inc., No. 18-CV-5167 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 28, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed discovery issues in a case involving an employee who was riding a garbage truck on its rear riding step when that step allegedly snapped and detached from the moving truck and caused the employee to fall and suffer head injuries and other injuries.

This case involves a products liability case against the manufacturers and distributors of the truck and the riding step.

With regards to the discovery dispute at issue before the court in this decision, the Defendant manufacturer subpoenaed several borough employees for depositions and demanded that the witnesses produce documents in conjunction with those depositions.

The manufacturing Defendant contended that the borough manager acted in bad faith by failing to produce the requested records at his deposition.

As such, the manufacturer filed a Motion to Compel a second deposition of the borough manager and also requested sanctions. The manufacturer also sought to depose the borough council president who happened to also be a member of the law firm that represented the Plaintiff in this case.

After a review of the records and applying Pennsylvania law regarding the liberal discovery standards applicable to civil litigation matters, the court ruled that the manufacturer may depose the borough council president regarding his post-accident conversations with the Plaintiff’s father and his knowledge of the borough council’s garbage truck maintenance decisions.   However, the court ruled that, currently, there was no basis for a finding that the borough council president was likely to be a necessary witness concerning the contested issues in the case such that the law firm he worked for would be precluded from representing the Plaintiff.

The court additionally ruled that no other discovery from the borough was warranted under the circumstances and that, as such, the request for sanctions was denied as being devoid or merit.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Jin Yang from www.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.

Summary Judgment Entered In Negligence Action Where Plaintiff Precluded From Offering Evidence Due to a Discovery Sanctions Order

In the case of Johnson v. Milewski Towing, No. 15 - CV - 1372, 2019 WL 1302459 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2019 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant after a discovery sanctions Order had been previously entered by another judge on the same bench barring the Plaintiff “from offering evidence at the trial of this matter.”   

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a single vehicle accident after which there was an altercation between the Plaintiff and the driver of the Defendant's tow truck.

The court reaffirmed the general rule that, in negligence matters, unless the causal connection between the Defendant’s alleged negligence and the Plaintiff’s alleged harm is so obvious as to be within the common knowledge of the average juror, expert medical testimony is required to establish causation.

Due to the sanctions Order and the Plaintiff’s continuous failure to respond to his attorney’s request for information, the Plaintiff was found to be unable to produce sufficient evidence to establish all of the elements of the negligence cause of action.  

As a result, the court ruled that the Defendant was entitled to judgment in its favor. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

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

Discovery Sanctions Result in Dismissal of Case

In the case of Rivera v. The City of Reading, No. 16-4957 (C.P. Berks Co. Jan. 8, 2019 Rawley, J.), Judge Timothy J. Rawley of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of his decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s case as a discovery sanction given the Plaintiff’s repeated failures to engage in the discovery process.   

Judge Rawley noted that the dismissal of the case followed multiple Motions to Compel and for Sanctions, as well as a prior Order of Court specifically warning the Plaintiff of severe sanctions for continued noncompliance.  

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a fatal motor vehicle accident.   The Plaintiff followed a wrongful death and survival action alleging that the City was responsible for a large pothole on a city street.  

In his Opinion, Judge Rawley outlined the various discovery violations by the Plaintiff particularly relative to the Plaintiff’s failure to appear at depositions and in other respects.  

Judge Rawley noted that, generally speaking, the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with discovery is subject to the discretion of the trial court as is the severity of this sanctions imposed.  

After reviewing the several factors to be considered in a sanctions motion, which included (1) the nature and the severity of the discovery violation, (2) the defaulting party’s willfulness or bad faith, (3) the prejudice to the opposing parties, (4) the ability to cure the prejudice, and, (5) the importance of the precluded evidence in light of the failure to comply, the trial court stated that the entry of a dismissal order was appropriate.   Judge Rawley noted that the Plaintiff’s discovery violations were severe, prolonged, and repeated.  

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

I send thanks to Attorney Barrie B. Gehrlein of the Wyomissing, PA law office of Johnson Duffie, Stewart & Weidner for bringing this case to my attention.  

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.