True RR Realty, Inc. v. McNees Wallace & Nurick
2022 Pa. Super. 70
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2022Background
- True Railroad sued McNees (law firm) for legal malpractice based on McNees’ handling of a declaratory judgment action that resulted in adverse rulings, fees, sanctions, and a land sale; action filed in 2018 with certificates of merit.
- Court Case Management Order set discovery cutoff July 13, 2020 and plaintiff expert-report deadline August 24, 2020; dispositive motions due October 26, 2020.
- McNees moved for summary judgment August 26, 2020, arguing True Railroad had not produced the expert report necessary to prove legal malpractice (and raising other defenses).
- True Railroad filed a nonconforming brief (not a formal Rule 1035.3 response), had produced no expert report by the deadline, and later offered to cure the deficiency within 30 days.
- Trial court granted summary judgment November 20, 2020, concluding that without an expert report True Railroad could not make a prima facie malpractice case; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal/summary judgment was an improper discovery sanction for a first-time discovery deficiency | Steinfurth four-factor test applies; dismissal disproportionate; delay excusable (pandemic, deference to depositions) | This was not a discovery-sanctions case; McNees sought summary judgment on merits under Rule 1035.2 | Steinfurth inapplicable; court treated motion as Rule 1035.2 summary judgment, not a Rule 4019 sanction; affirmed |
| Whether failure to produce an expert report precludes a prima facie legal-malpractice claim | Plaintiff could cure delay; expert evidence could be produced; minimal prejudice to McNees | Legal-malpractice claims require expert proof; missed deadline left no admissible evidence of essential elements | Expert testimony required; failure to timely produce it after ample time meant no prima facie case; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the court abused discretion in denying a continuance/allowing post-motion cure | Offered to complete discovery and expert reports within 30 days; pandemic mitigated prejudice | Plaintiff had over two years and failed to show diligence; no good cause for extension | Court did not abuse discretion; denial of continuance affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 2000) (distinguishes discovery sanctions from Rule 1035.2 summary judgment; summary judgment aimed at substantive failure to make a prima facie case after discovery)
- Steinfurth v. LaManna, 590 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Super. 1991) (sets four-factor test for imposing discovery sanctions under Rule 4019)
- Storm v. Golden, 538 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. 1988) (expert testimony required to establish professional negligence)
- Kerns v. Methodist Hosp., 574 A.2d 1068 (Pa. Super. 1990) (denial of continuance after summary judgment upheld where party lacked diligence)
- Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summarizes summary judgment standard under Rule 1035.2)
- City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009) (courts disfavor dismissal as a discovery sanction except in extreme cases)