Schmidt, R. v. LeBoon, S.
50 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- In 2009 Dr. Richard G. Schmidt performed a WC exam of Steven LeBoon; Steven later sued Schmidt but that claim was dismissed. In 2013 Schmidt filed suit against Steven and Cassandra LeBoon for harassment and wrongful use of civil proceedings.
- On November 24, 2014 the trial court ordered the LeBoons to respond to Schmidt’s interrogatories and document requests within 10 days; the LeBoons repeatedly failed to comply and unsuccessfully appealed that discovery order up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- After continued noncompliance, Schmidt moved for contempt and later for sanctions; the LeBoons repeatedly failed to appear at hearings and did not produce the ordered discovery.
- On December 12, 2016 the trial court (1) granted sanctions requiring compliance and precluding the LeBoons from presenting evidence or defenses under Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(2); (2) struck the LeBoons’ trial praecipes for noncompliance with local rules; and (3) awarded $2,500 in counsel fees as a discovery sanction and ordered limited relief against a third party (Goldflam).
- The LeBoons appealed pro se; the Superior Court treated only the portion of the sanctions order that effectively precluded defenses/evidence as appealable and either affirmed that ruling or quashed other interlocutory appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LeBoon) | Defendant's Argument (Schmidt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of striking trial praecipes | Strike violated right to trial readiness; court shouldn’t have removed praecipes | Praecipes violated local rule 261 (no 15‑day certification notice) and discovery was not complete | Striking praecipes was interlocutory and not appealable; LeBoons may refile when discovery complete |
| Award of $2,500 counsel fees as discovery sanction | Sanction improper / not authorized because of procedural issues and counsel’s conduct | Fees are appropriate discovery sanction for LeBoons’ long refusal to comply | Award is a discovery sanction and interlocutory; not ripe for appellate review now |
| Sanction precluding presentation of evidence and striking defenses | Due process violated; court failed to consider LeBoons’ submissions and denied opportunity to be heard | LeBoons willfully and intentionally disregarded discovery orders for years, prejudicing Schmidt; extreme sanction warranted | Order precluding defenses/evidence is appealable (effectively puts party out of court) and trial court did not abuse its discretion given egregious, prolonged noncompliance — sanction affirmed |
| Order requiring production from third party (tax returns/emails) | Production violates federal law / Due process | Production ordered as part of bench warrant/motion against third party who failed deposition | Trial court treated that portion as interlocutory; appeal on that issue is not properly before appellate court (quashed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruno v. Elitzky, 526 A.2d 781 (Pa. 1987) (discovery sanctions that exclude evidence are generally interlocutory)
- Weist v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 543 A.2d 142 (Pa. Super. 1988) (sanction excluding witnesses/evidence can be appealable where it effectively puts party out of court)
- Zarnecki v. Shearn, 532 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 1987) (order puts party out of court if it precludes proof that would provide a complete defense)
- Posternack v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 218 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1966) (definition of putting a party out of court for purposes of appealability)
- Baranowski v. American Multi‑Cinema, Inc., 688 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. 1997) (discovery sanction awards of expenses are interlocutory)
- Fox v. Gabler, 547 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1988) (policy against piecemeal appeals of discovery orders)