Pennsylvania Court Issued Discovery Sanction Against Defendants for Late Production of Evidence, Opening Door to Questioning Regarding the Company’s Driver Oversight Process at Trial

This matter involved a motor vehicle accident between the plaintiff and a laundry truck driver, and it illustrates the danger of errors during discovery. 

During discovery, there was conflicting information and deposition testimony as to whether the defendant driver, Brooks, had a valid license at the time of the accident. Ultimately, it was determined Brooks did have a license; however, his employer, Mayflower, had failed to verify this information and produced a copy of his driver’s license after the close of discovery. 

The court sanctioned the defendants by prohibiting them from offering the license as evidence in the matter. While the court precluded the plaintiff from arguing Brooks was unlicensed, the plaintiff was permitted to question Mayflower witnesses as to their process for verifying that Brooks was licensed. 

This clearly opens the door for a reptile theory-style strategy to portray the defendant company as failing to properly supervise their employees. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}