Cove Centre, Inc. v. Westhafer Construction Co. - Superior Court - January 26, 2009
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a32023_08.pdf
Where a discovery sanction either terminates the action directly or would result in its termination by operation of law, the court must consider multiple factors balanced together with the necessity of the sanction.(1) the nature and severity of the discovery violation;(2) the defaulting party's willfulness or bad faith;(3) prejudice to the opposing party;(4) the ability to cure the prejudice; and(5) the importance of the precluded evidence in light of the failure to comply.
With few exceptions, there is no greater sanction in a civil case than a deemed admission of a Request for Admission, as well as preclusion of expert testimony and entry of judgment, so a balancing of the equities emphasizing the nature and motive of the non-compliant party’s conduct is mandatory.
The mere failure of an unrepresented party to comply with discovery rules does not amount to “willfulness or bad faith” as contemplated by case law.
As concerns potential prejudice occasioned by the failure to comply with discovery, the record discloses no hardship to the party seeking sanctions which is not readily remedied upon remand.
The party never filed a Motion to Compel Discovery so as to invoke the trial court’s authority in the interest of advancing the litigation and minimizing delay, which has now been extended by the necessity of this appeal. Moreover, the violations in question did not result in a loss of evidence favorable to the movant. Compliance with the discovery requests in question, even at this late date, would allow the matter to proceed to a full and fair resolution.Compared to the extraordinary prejudice of a sanction order that the trial court has since repudiated, the prejudice to the movant imposed by the failure to comply with discovery is minimal.
