Michael Diehl, v. Markis A. Ratcliffe

Michael Diehl, v. Markis A. Ratcliffe

Civil Action-Law-Motor Vehicle Accident-Complaint-Discovery Upon Plaintiff-Failure to Respond-Motion for Sanctions-Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4019-Dismissal of Action-Extreme Circumstances-Willful-Prejudice-Motion for Summary Judgment-Completion of Discovery

Michael Diehl (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint on November 16, 2022 seeking recovery for damages following a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved with Markis A. Ratcliffe (“Defendant”) on December 9, 2020.  On June 5, 2023, Defendant served discovery requests upon Plaintiff.  At a case management conference in December of 2024, Defendant reported that Plaintiff had not responded to the discovery requests with the Court establishing February 19, 2025 as the deadline for discovery responses.  On February 21, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions and/or Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of the case due to the failure of Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests, after which Plaintiff’s counsel motioned to withdraw.   

1.  Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4019 provides that a party may motion the court for appropriate relief when a party fails to comply with the Rules relating to discovery.

2.  The decision whether to sanction a party for a discovery violation and the severity of the sanction is vested in the sound discretion of the court.

3.  In determining an appropriate sanction, the court must consider the following:  the nature and severity of the discovery violation, the defaulting party’s willfulness or bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, the ability to cure the prejudice and the importance of the precluded evidence. 

4.  Dismissal of an action as a sanction is appropriate only in extreme circumstances, necessitating the court to balance the equities carefully and to dismiss only where the violation of the discovery rules is willful and the opposing party has been prejudiced.

5.  Where information was received that Plaintiff had been incarcerated at some point and Plaintiff’s whereabouts are unknown to the Court and his counsel, the Court will not presume that failure to provide discovery is willful or Defendant has sustained incurable prejudice warranting dismissal with additional actions needed to attempt to locate Plaintiff and to notify him of the consequences of inactivity in the matter. 

6.  Since discovery is not completed, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is premature.   

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2022-01501, Opinion by Donna Long Brightbill, Judge, July 1, 2025.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW

MICHAEL DIEHL,      :        NO. 2022-01501

            Plaintiff              :

               :       

            v.            :       

               :

MARKIS A. RATCLIFFE,       :

            Defendant          :       

APPEARANCES:

Brandon A. Swartz, Esquire                                       For Plaintiff

Swartz Culleton Ferris Trial Attorneys

Seth T. Black, Esquire                                                            For Defendant

Summers, McDonnell, Hudock,

Guthrie & Rauch, P.C.

OPINION, LONG BRIGHTBILL, J., JULY 1, 2025

            Before this Court is Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 16, 2022, Michael Diehl (hereafter “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging that he and Markis Ratcliffe (hereafter “Defendant”) were involved in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on December 9, 2020, in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. On May 30, 2023, counsel for Defendant entered his appearance. One week later, on June 5, 2023, Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff.  On November 21, 2024, nearly one and a half years later, Defendant filed an Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s New Matter on December 16, 2024.

On December 19, 2024, a case management conference was held before this Court. Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant were present at the conference. This Court was informed by counsel that Plaintiff had been served with discovery approximately one and a half years ago and that the discovery had never been answered. The Court was further advised that Plaintiff had been incarcerated for several months and that Plaintiff’s counsel anticipated that an additional 6-8 months would be required to complete discovery.^[1] Ultimately, the Court entered a Status Conference Order setting various deadlines. The deadline for discovery and disclosure of Plaintiff’s experts was set for February 19, 2025.

On February 21, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter was listed for the April 2025 term of Argument Court, to be decided on the briefs. Defendant’s Brief was submitted on March 6, 2025. Plaintiff was ordered to submit a Brief by March 21, 2025. Instead, on March 21, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Subsequently, on March 24, 2025, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause directing Plaintiff and Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff’s counsel should not be allowed to withdraw. Copies of the Rule to Show Cause were distributed via mail to Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff, and Defendant. However, Plaintiff’s copy of the Rule to Show Cause was returned with no forwarding address. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel remains the counsel of record for Plaintiff in this matter. Therefore, the Court will consider Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment in conjunction with the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by counsel for Plaintiff.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Motion for Sanctions

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party fails to comply with the rules relating to discovery, the propounding party may motion the court for appropriate relief. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019. A court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if  a party fails to make discovery or to obey an order of court respecting discovery. Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019(a)(1)(viii). The Rule contains a non-exhaustive list of sanctions, including an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or an order entering a judgment against the disobedient party. Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019(c).

The decision whether to sanction a party for a discovery violation and the severity of such a sanction are matters vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. Judge Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Clancy, 813 A.2d 879, 889 (Pa.Super. 2002). In determining an appropriate sanction, the trial court must consider the following factors:  (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. Id. The trial court can impose no more “severe sanction” than dismissing the lawsuit. Croydon Plastics, Inc. v. Lower Bucks Cooling & Heating, 698 A.2d 625, 629 (Pa.Super. 1997). Therefore, dismissal is only appropriate in extreme circumstances, and a trial court is required to balance the equities carefully and dismiss only where the violation of the discovery rules is willful and the opposing party has been prejudiced. Hoss Land Co. v. Thorson, 324 A.3d 508, 512 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citations omitted).

1. Motion for Summary Judgment

After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2. Summary judgment is proper where, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2(2). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Jones v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 435, 438 (Pa. 2001). The court may grant summary judgment only where the right to such a judgment is clear and free from doubt. Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205, 206 (Pa. 1991).

DISCUSSION

            Defendant has filed a Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, both seeking dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Motions. However, counsel for Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Withdraw from this case, citing “irreconcilable differences between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.” Specifically, counsel for Plaintiff states that he has made multiple attempts to contact Plaintiff to no avail. Counsel for Plaintiff does not know Plaintiff’s whereabouts; an investigator was sent to locate Plaintiff, but was unsuccessful. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to withdraw from this case, and further requests that all proceedings in this case be stayed so as not to prejudice Plaintiff.

1. Motion for Sanctions

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery for approximately one and a half years warrants the severe sanction of dismissal. According to Defendant, this “seemingly willful” delay has significantly prejudiced Defendant, and “may not be able to be cured as any evidence has slowly eroded in the four years since the accident.” Thus, Defendant concludes that the appropriate sanction is to dismiss Plaintiff’s case.

To impose the extreme sanction of dismissal, the Court must conclude that Plaintiff has willfully violated the discovery rules, and that Defendant has been prejudiced as a result. In this case, Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff in June of 2023. When the Case Management Conference was held on December 19, 2024, Defendant had not received any discovery responses from Plaintiff. However, counsel for Plaintiff advised the Court that there had been some difficulties in answering discovery, as Plaintiff had been incarcerated for several months. At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel anticipated that an additional 6-8 months would be required to complete discovery. Subsequently, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, stating that he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Plaintiff. These attempts included sending an investigator to find Plaintiff. When the Court issued a Rule to Show Cause on the Motion to Withdraw, the copy mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, with no forwarding address.

Under these circumstances, where Plaintiff’s whereabouts are unknown both to the Court and to counsel, the Court is reluctant to assume that Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery is willful. In addition, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s speculations of potentially incurable prejudice. While the Court sympathizes with Defendant’s frustration and recognizes that it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute his case, the Court believes the balance of equites requires that Plaintiff be granted some additional time before this matter is dismissed. Plaintiff was, and may still be, incarcerated. The Court does not know when Plaintiff began his term of incarceration or when he was released, assuming he has been released. Likewise, the Court does not know when the breakdown in communication occurred between Plaintiff and his counsel, when counsel for Plaintiff sent the investigator to locate Plaintiff, or the scope of that investigation. In short, this Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s case without greater assurance that reasonable efforts have been made to locate and notify Plaintiff of the consequences of his inactivity in this matter.

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions shall be held in abeyance pending a Status Conference. The Status Conference shall be set for August 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4. In the interim, counsel for Plaintiff shall make reasonable efforts to contact and/or locate Plaintiff. Such efforts should include a determination of whether Plaintiff is still incarcerated and, if not, whether Plaintiff was placed on parole or probation upon his release. If so, the officer supervising Plaintiff may be helpful in assisting counsel in locating Plaintiff. At the Status Conference, counsel for Plaintiff shall describe the specific measures undertaken to contact and/or locate Plaintiff, as well as the results. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s counsel may submit an Affidavit regarding the same no later than August 24, 2025. The Court will rule on Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions subsequent to the Status Conference.

1. Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2(2). Rule 1035.2(2) states that summary judgment is appropriate where, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence of his alleged injuries, summary judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

Defendant’s argument for summary judgment overlooks the basis of his argument for sanctions: namely, the fact that no discovery whatsoever has been completed in this matter. Rule 1035.2(2) clearly requires “the completion of discovery relevant to the motion” before the moving party may be entitled to summary judgment. As the parties have not engaged in discovery thus far, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2(2) is respectfully denied.

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions shall be held in abeyance pending a Status Conference, which shall be scheduled on August 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4. At the Status Conference, Plaintiff’s counsel shall describe the specific measures undertaken to contact and/or locate Plaintiff, as well as the results. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s counsel may submit an Affidavit regarding the same no later than August 24, 2025.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, but without prejudice to his ability to refile the motion after August 25, 2025.

A concomitant Order will be entered consistent with the foregoing.    

---

[1] There is no official record of the proceedings at the Case Management Conference on December 19, 2024. The details of the representations made by counsel are derived from notes this Court took at the Case Management Conference on December 19, 2024, and are substantiated by the allegations in Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment.