Skip to content

menu

Open Legal Blog Archive logo
HomeAboutBlogsFAQsSubmit

Motion for Discovery Sanctions Denied — A Party Can’t Produce What Does Not Exist

By Daniel Cummins on April 28, 2020
https-1-bp-blogspot-com-roip6wpegqw-xppgj5gbeji-aaaaaaaacn4-bpdhgfjeywohmzf82vfmqqcennuql6ydwclcbgasyhq-s1600-cant%2bgive-jpg

In the case of Ebersole v. Schofield, No. 13-CV-2129 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 13, 2020 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Motion for Discovery Sanctions in a commercial litigation case.

After being convinced by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had produced all responsive materials in his possession and had further offered executed authorizations for the Defendant to obtain other records, the court found that the defense had not established grounds for the granting of the Motion for Sanctions. 
The court noted that it was convinced that the documents identified and demanded by the Defendant simply do not exist. As such, the court held that a party cannot be sanctioned for failing to produce non-existent materials. 
In the end, the Motion for Discovery Sanctions was denied. 
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

  • Posted in:
    Civil Litigation
  • Blog:
    Tort Talk
  • Organization:
    Foley, Comerford & Cummins
  • Article: View Original Source

Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. logo
Seattle, Washington
Copyright © 2026, Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo