Davis, T. v. Showell, V.
3806 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Davis sued Showell (as administratrix of Kilson's estate) for injuries from a July 9, 2013 premises incident; suit filed Dec 4, 2014.
- Showell served interrogatories and document requests on Feb 5, 2015; Davis did not timely respond.
- Court granted Showell’s motion to compel on Apr 23, 2015 and ordered responses within 20 days or sanctions could follow.
- After further noncompliance, Showell moved for sanctions; on July 14, 2015 the trial court precluded Davis from presenting any witnesses, testimony, or evidence relating to Showell’s discovery and the complaint allegations.
- Davis produced ~250 pages of discovery the day after the sanctions order and sought reconsideration; the trial court denied reconsideration and later granted Showell summary judgment, citing Davis’s inability to present necessary evidence.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed that sanctions were warranted but vacated the evidence-preclusion portion, reversed the summary judgment, and remanded for imposition of appropriate sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Showell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions were appropriate for failure to comply with discovery/order | Sanctions were improper; failure was an administrative oversight and responses were produced after the order | Sanctions appropriate because Davis failed to obey the court order and delayed discovery | Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding sanctions were warranted (sanctions appropriate in principle) |
| Whether preclusion of all evidence/witnesses was proper sanction | Preclusion was overly harsh, deprived Davis of due process, and did not fit the single, non-willful violation | Preclusion was justified by prejudice and need to prevent surprise; severe sanction necessary to enforce discovery rules | Preclusion was an abuse of discretion; court must select a sanction that fits the violation and consider prejudice, willfulness, importance of evidence, and number of violations |
| Whether denial of reconsideration was improper | Reconsideration denial ignored that discovery was promptly produced and the violation was not willful | Denial proper given alleged incomplete production and counsel’s broader pattern of noncompliance in other cases | Superior Court vacated denial to extent it sustained preclusion; remanded so trial court can impose appropriate sanctions after proper consideration |
| Whether grant of summary judgment (based on preclusion) was proper | Summary judgment improperly rested on exclusion of evidence; with less severe sanctions case should proceed | Summary judgment was justified because preclusion left Davis unable to meet her burden of proof | Summary judgment reversed and vacated because it flowed from improper preclusion; remand for appropriate sanctions and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- First Lehigh Bank v. Haviland Grille, 704 A.2d 135 (Pa. Super. 1997) (trial court has discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
- McGovern v. Hospital Serv. Ass’n of Northeastern Pa., 785 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2001) (purpose of discovery rules is to prevent surprise and unfairness)
- Estate of Ghaner v. Bindi, 779 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sanction must fit the violation; curable violations should not be met with total preclusion)
- Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v. Preet Allied Am. St., LP, 28 A.3d 916 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stringent review when discovery sanctions effectively dismiss a case)
- City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009) (dismissal or constructive dismissal via evidence exclusion is disfavored; courts must weigh multiple factors)
- Stewart v. Rossi, 681 A.2d 214 (Pa. Super. 1996) (dismissal only for extreme, willful violations causing prejudice)