Close Menu
Scranton Personal Injury Lawyer

Free Consultation 570-344-1266

Hablamos Español

Pennsylvania Court Reverses Dismissal of Negligence Lawsuit for Discovery Sanction

In a recent case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed a lower court’s dismissal of a negligence action for discovery violations. The court examined the four factors applied to discovery violations in order to determine the severity of the sanctions.  In this particular lawsuit, following a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff allegedly failed to appear for a deposition and, according to the defendants, provided late discovery responses. The court examined the imposition of sanctions for the plaintiff’s failure to comply.

Paul Legrande was a passenger in a vehicle owned by Fernando Vega, Jr. when it was involved in an accident with a car driven by Carl Anoka, Jr. Mr. Legrande brought a negligence claim against the drivers to recover damages for his injuries suffered in the accident.

Mr. Legrande had a deposition scheduled, and then it was rescheduled. Due to his alleged failure to receive the original notice, he and his counsel failed to appear.  Mr. Vega filed a motion for sanctions, and the court issued a ruling to Mr. Legrande to show cause why sanctions should not be granted. The trial court then scheduled a conference at which neither Mr. Legrande nor his attorneys appeared.  His case was dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Legrande timely appealed.

The court stated that the severity and the imposition of sanctions for a failure to comply is a decision within the trial court’s discretion.  However, sanctions that terminate the litigation are reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard of review.  There are factors that courts apply to determine the severity and vitality of a discovery sanction.  First, there is the degree of prejudice suffered by the non-offending party and the ability the opposing party has to cure the prejudice.  Next, there is the willfulness or degree of bad faith on the part of the non-complying party in failing to provide the required materials.  The importance of the excluded evidence is also considered, as is the number of discovery violations by the offending party. The Court stated the rule that when a discovery sanction terminates an action, the court specifically examines the prejudice to the non-offending party and the non-complying party’s willfulness or failure to provide the requested materials.

Turning to the local rules, the court addressed Mr. Legrande’s contention that by dismissing his action, the punishment did not fit the crime.  Mr. Vega, one of the defendants, alleged that the discovery misconduct was a pattern that began with the “inception” of the case.  He then stated numerous instances of alleged misconduct.  Mr. Legrande filed responses to interrogatories late, failed to propound written discovery, and failed to correspond with defense counsel.

The court rejected this “pattern of abuse” notion.  It is not considered misconduct for a plaintiff not to “avail himself of discovery tools.”  While Mr. Vega did file a notice of intent to seek sanctions when Mr. Legrande’s answers to interrogatories were overdue, they were only overdue by four days, and within a week, he had provided responses.  These examples, according to the court, were not instances for which sanctions would be appropriate.

Regarding Mr. Legrande’s failure to appear at the deposition and failure to offer an excuse for non-attendance, the court held that even assuming it was willful and unjustified, the circumstances required to dismiss an action for a discovery violation were not present.  There was no evidence of bad faith, and there was ample time to reschedule the deposition and cure any prejudice.  Dismissal was too severe a sanction for Mr. Legrande’s failure to attend his deposition.

Reasonable sanctions in this case might consist of attorney fees and costs related to attending the deposition for which Mr. Legrande failed to appear and the costs of prosecuting the motion for sanctions.

The court reversed and remanded the matter for the imposition of reasonable sanctions.

The personal injury attorneys at Needle Law represent Pennsylvania accident victims seeking legal representation and guidance. We offer a free consultation and can be reached by calling our office at 570-344-1266.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google Plus
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2018 Needle Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website is managed by MileMark Media.