Court Opinion

ID: 9693625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:53:09.957863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.011102
License: Public Domain

WATKINS, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order of the court below.
In this case counsel apparently did nothing in regard to the rule for filing interrogatories for over two years. The rule was patently violated. The pertinent part of Rule 4006 of Pa.R.Civ.Pro. reads as follows:
Rule 4006. Answers to Written Interrogatories by a Party.
(2) ... The answering party shall file and serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within thirty (30) days after the service of the interrogatories...
Sanctions to be taken by the court are provided in Rule 4019 of Pa.R.Civil Pro. and provide the following:
Rule 4019. Sanctions.
(a)(1) The court may,' on motion, make an appropriate order if
(i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005; ...
If the rules are not to be obeyed as written, then they should be either modified or stricken.
It is also apparent that the case in question was inordinately delayed at a time when our courts are under constant criticism for the time occasioned until finality of disposition. In this case the failure to file answers to interrogatories was delayed for over two years and it is conceivable that *331several more years may pass before a suit based upon an accident which occurred on October 3, 1977 is finally decided.