Opinion
J-A16011-17 No. 1158 WDA 2016
10-20-2017
JOHN R. FREY, H. ELAINE FREY, ROBERT G. FREY, SUE FREY, JAMES MILLER, AND ROBIN MILLER v. BONNY GOLD, DENNIS GOLD, SLURRY TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING, LLC, SLURRY TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING, INC., PILGRIM ENERGY COMPANY, PILGRIM COAL COMPANY, CHARLES MUSE, A.C. MUSE, ENSUM PARTNERSHIP NO. 2, SLURRY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AGGREGATE SOLUTIONS, INC., ALBERT C. MUSE/REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES H. MUSE, JR., DECEASED, ALBERT C. MUSE/REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES HOWARD MUSE, JR. APPEAL OF: BONNY GOLD, DENNIS GOLD AND SLURRY TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING, LLC
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 6, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Civil Division at No: 2002-00232 BEFORE: , STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellants, Bonny Gold, Dennis Gold, and Slurry Technologies Operating, Inc (collectively, "Appellants"), appeal from the July 6, 2016 judgment in favor of Appellees John R. Frey, Elaine Frey, Robert G. Frey, James Miller, and Robin Miller. We affirm.
The trial court's opinion, which we quoted at length in the companion case (1120 WDA 2016) sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. At this docket number, Appellants challenge the trial court's discovery sanctions. The trial court issued a series of sanctions against Appellants during the course of this litigation, culminating in an order preventing Appellants from contesting liability. As set forth at docket number 1120 of 2016, the jury returned a substantial award of damages in favor of Appellees. Here, Appellants challenge several of the trial court's pre-trial orders imposing discovery sanctions.
In essence, Appellants argue that they consistently attempted to comply with Appellees' discovery requests; that certain documents were never in their possession and that Appellees were aware of that fact; and that the trial court's various sanctions against them were excessive and not warranted under applicable law. Before its final sanction—precluding Appellants from contesting liability—the trial court conducted a lengthy hearing, after which it rejected the factual bases for Appellants' arguments. In particular, the trial court found that the "Gold Defendants have attempted numerous times to fabricate documents or utilize documents already in existence in order to prove they have purged themselves of contempt." Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/16, at 21. In essence, the trial court concluded that Appellants were dishonest, and that they led Appellees on a wild goose chase throughout years of unnecessarily protracted discovery.
We recognize that appellate review of an order terminating litigation for discovery sanctions is "stringent." Cove Centre , Inc. v. Westhafer Const., Inc., 965 A.2d 259, 261 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Generally, imposition of sanctions for a party's failure to comply with discovery is subject to the discretion of the trial court as is the severity of the sanctions imposed. Nevertheless, the court's discretion is not unfettered; since dismissal is the most severe sanction, it should be imposed only 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. Consequently, 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.Id.
Mindful, of course, that each factor represents a necessary consideration and not a necessary prerequisite, this Court has outlined 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.
We have reviewed the record, the applicable law, the trial court's opinions and the parties' briefs. We conclude that the trial court's opinions of October 7, 2016, at pages 27-35, and the trial court's entire opinion of November 26, 2012, thoroughly analyze the applicable law and the evidence of record. We affirm the judgment on the basis of those opinions, and order that a copy of each be filed along with this memorandum.
Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.