The Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that the trial court correctly applied Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming legal malpractice. Two days after the expired deadline for producing the plaintiff’s expert reports, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and the Superior Court affirmed. The plaintiff argued that imposition of summary judgment as a first response to its non-compliance with the Case Management discovery and expert report deadlines constituted an improper discovery sanction disproportional to both the violation at issue and the minimal, if any, prejudice experienced by the defendant. The Court ruled that summary judgment was not a sanction for discovery violations. Instead, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion because the plaintiff “failed to supply sufficient admissible evidence to support each element of its professional negligence claim.”
