Deitrick v. Costa et al

Filing 478

ORDER on Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 453)(memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry). See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle on 2/5/19. (ch1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONNA DEITRICK
Plaintiff
v.
MARK A. COSTA, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.: 4:06-CV-1556
(BRANN, D.J.)
(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

ORDER
Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 453).
In accordance with the Memorandum filed today the following is ordered.
1.

Proposed Sanction 10(a) in Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion
(Doc. 453) is DENIED.

2.

Proposed Sanction 10(b) in Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion
(Doc. 453) shall be GRANTED as follows:
Plaintiff shall be precluded from testifying or presenting
evidence during her case in chief regarding any item of damages
which is related to the documentation and records which she
failed to produce.

3.

Proposed Sanction 10(c) in Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion
(Doc. 453) shall be GRANTED as follows:
Plaintiff shall be precluded from testifying or presenting
evidence during her case in chief regarding the value of
items based upon alleged receipts, appraisals, or any other
documents which have been requested in discovery and not
produced by Plaintiff. Defendants should be prepared with a
complete list of those requests and where they appear in the
record to efficiently raise any objection during the trial. I suggest
that the parties work on a stipulated list to avoid unnecessary
delay at trial.

Page 1 of 2

4.

Proposed Sanction 10(d) in Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion
(Doc. 453) is DENIED as premature, and without prejudice.
Defendant T. Yoncuski may include such instruction in his
proposed jury instruction at the appropriate time.

5.

Proposed Sanction 10(e) in Defendant T. Yoncuski’s Motion
(Doc. 453) is DENIED as premature, and without prejudice.
Defendant T. Yoncuski may include such instruction in his
proposed jury instruction at the appropriate time. However, I
note that the parties have not briefed or argued the
appropriateness of a jury instruction on tax fraud being used in
this case. The application of Fed. R. Evid. 404 & 405 is beyond
the scope of this motion.

6.

Proposed Sanction 10(f) is DENIED at this time. Defendant T.
Yoncuski may renew his request for financial sanctions
regarding this discovery motion (Doc. 453) after the trial. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) will apply.

Date: February 5, 2019

BY THE COURT
s/William I. Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2