Motion to Extend Discovery in Pennsylvania

What Is a Motion to Extend Discovery?

Background

“Local courts have the power to formulate their own rules of practice and procedure.” (Anthony Biddle Contractors v. Preet Allied American St. (2011) 28 A.3d 916, 922-23 citing Sanders v. Allegheny Hospital-Parkview Din (2003) 833 A.2d 179, 183 citing Murphy v. Armstrong (1993) 424 Pa.Super. 424, 622 A.2d 992.)

“These rules have equal weight to those rules established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided that the local rules ‘do not abridge, enlarge or modify’ the substantive rights of a party.” (Anthony Biddle Contractors v. Preet Allied American St. (2011) 28 A.3d 916, 922-23 citing id., quoting Pennridge Electric, Inc. v. Souderton Area Joint School (1992) 419 Pa.Super. 201; see Pa.R.C.P. 239(b)(1) [providing that “[l]ocal rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.”])

For example, “Philadelphia's case management system is designed to ‘implement[] and enforce[] discovery deadlines as an essential means for controlling [the trial courts'] overcrowded dockets.” (Gerrow v. John Royle Sons (2002) 572 Pa. 134, 813 A.2d 778, 783.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

The case management order, issued pursuant to the local rules of [a local] County, sets forth all the applicable discovery deadlines for a given case. The only mechanism to extend such deadlines is through filing a petition for extraordinary relief. (Anthony Biddle Contractors v. Preet Allied American St. (2011) 28 A.3d 916, 922-23 citing Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Gen. Court Reg. No. 95-2; see also Phila. Civ.R. 208.3(b)(H).)

Importance of Court Deadlines

“When [case management] deadlines are violated with impunity ... the abusing party must be prepared to pay the consequences.” (Id.) “Even an order effectively dismissing a lawsuit ‘is in accordance with Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure’ when a party suffers sufficient prejudice stemming from an unjustified delay.” (Id.)

Courts Favoring Extension

“[I]n situations where the circumstances support extending the discovery deadlines, a denial of a party's motion for extraordinary relief may constitute ‘an unreasonable decision’ on the part of the trial court and a ‘manifest injustice.’” (Id., [internal citations omitted].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[The Court of Appeals will] review a trial court's order regarding discovery deadlines for an abuse of discretion.” (Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC (2020) 241 A.3d 1122, 1138 citing Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v. Preet Allied Am. St., LP (2011) 28 A.3d 916, 922.)

“A finding of an abuse of discretion requires ‘a showing of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will, or such lack of support in the law or record for the award to be clearly erroneous.’” (Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC (2020) 241 A.3d 1122, 1138 citing Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. (2011) 613 Pa. 371, 34 A.3d 1, 51.)

“To the extent such discovery issues exist, it ‘is self-evident that such issues, which arise while the parties are independently conducting discovery, require the filing of a motion in order to obtain the court's attention.’” (Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC (2020) 241 A.3d 1122, 1138 citing Kurian v. Anisman (2004) 851 A.2d 152, 160.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

Within the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Courts may require compliance with local rules such as the following for Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(e).

The local rule states, in relevant part:

“Any motion relating to discovery must include a certification by counsel for the moving party that counsel has conferred or attempted to confer with all interested parties in order to resolve the matter without court action. This certification language is included on the cover sheet of moving party required by Local Rule 208.3 (b). By checking the appropriate box on the cover sheet of the moving party, and signing the certification section of the cover sheet, counsel for the moving party will satisfy the certification requirement under this Rule.”

(Madlyn & Leonard Abramson Ctr. for Jewish Life v. Novitsky, J-A13024-17, at *14 [Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2017] citing Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(e).)

The Court’s Decision

“[T]rial courts should not rigidly enforce case management deadlines without adequately considering the basis of a party's motion for extraordinary relief, specifically the reasons cited in support of extending discovery.” (Anthony Biddle Contractors, supra, 28 A.3d at 923.)

“[Pennsylvania Courts] recognize that multiple delays ‘would disrupt the efficient and just administration of justice and would send a blatant message that case management deadlines are meaningless.’” (Anthony Biddle Contractors v. Preet Allied American St. (2011) 28 A.3d 916, 922-23 citing Kurian ex rel. Kurian v. Anisman (2004) 851 A.2d 152, 162 [internal quotations omitted].)

Documents for Motion to Extend Discovery in Pennsylvania

Sort By

Order-Court hereby Awards Ownership of one 2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport…

1 page

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 236 Terry Avinger, Plaintiff v. No. CV-2023-001279 Tayon Darnell Jackson, Defendant. NOTICE IS GIVEN UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 236 THAT AN ORDER IN THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ENTERED ON 07-27-2023. …