WILLIAMSPORT – A federal judge recently denied a defendant’s request to compel discovery statements from some of his co-defendants who entered into a prior settlement, with the plaintiff parents of a Penn State University student who died at a fraternity chapter house in 2017.
James and Evelyn Piazza first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 31, 2019 versus St. Moritz Security Company, Inc. and 28 members of Beta Theta Pi’s Alpha Upsilon Chapter at Penn State.
The Piazzas argued that the defendant fraternity members were negligent when they failed to help their son, Timothy Piazza, who died not long after he fell down the stairs at the Beta Theta Pi fraternity’s chapter house during Bid Acceptance Night in February 2017.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann partially granted dismissal motions brought on behalf of many of the defendants on Aug. 27, 2019, but provided the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, which they proceeded to do.
As part of Brann’s prior ruling, he ordered that a stay of discovery be imposed as to defendants Brendan Young and Daniel Casey, since parallel criminal proceedings involving the pair were pending at that time.
Brann previously dismissed the Piazzas’ attempt to lift the discovery stay, in a memorandum opinion issued on Feb. 14, 2023.
“Although three-and-a-half years have transpired since the Court stayed discovery as to Young and Casey, there has been seemingly little progress in their respective criminal cases. Young and Casey obtained a favorable ruling on a motion to suppress certain cellphone evidence, and a circuitous series of appeals followed. As it currently stands, Young and Casey are awaiting a ruling by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,” Brann said.
“As Young and Casey note, since this Court issued the discovery stay in August 2019, nothing has changed ‘other than the passage of time.’ As such, all considerations justifying the initial stay remain: Young and Casey ‘are well past the indictment stage’ in their respective criminal prosecutions, and the civil and criminal cases are virtually identical, as ‘both cases seek to hold [Young and Casey] liable for the conduct they allegedly engaged in on Bid Acceptance Night.’ The question, then, is whether the prolonged delay of the criminal proceedings overrides those initial considerations. The Court finds it does not.”
Brann added that the Piazzas’ arguments for lifting the stay only serve to “reinforce the Court’s initial reservations.”
“According to the Piazzas, they ask only for permission to ‘seek written and oral discovery from defendants Young and Casey, while affording Young and Casey all privileges available to law.’ The Piazzas thus acknowledge that if the stay is lifted, Young and Casey will likely decline to provide discovery or sit for depositions, opting instead to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,” Brann said.
“Given the Piazzas’ contention that a failure to receive discovery from Young and Casey has ‘fundamentally changed the equitable relationship between the parties,’ resulting in ‘ongoing harm” that “grows every day,’ Young’s and Casey’s invocations of their respective rights under the Fifth Amendment will undoubtedly set off another round of discovery disputes. These disputes can be avoided altogether by simply staying discovery until the criminal proceedings have advanced. The Court deemed that preferable in 2019. It remains preferable today.”
While Brann offered sympathy to the plaintiffs, he contended that their attempt to lift the stay of discovery would cause “undue prejudice” to defendants Young and Casey.
“The Piazzas are understandably frustrated by the pace of Young’s and Casey’s criminal proceedings and the resultant delays in this parallel civil action. It has been six years since their son died at the Beta Theta Pi fraternity house on Penn State’s campus. And more than five-and-a-half years have passed since the Commonwealth first brought criminal charges against Young and Casey for their conduct related to Timothy Piazza’s death,” Brann stated.
“But neither Young nor Casey have faced trial for those charges. And given the overlap between this case and the ongoing criminal actions, requiring Young and Casey to provide discovery and sit for depositions in this matter creates a real risk of undue prejudice. The Piazzas’ frustrations over the delays, however justified, do not override this risk of prejudice to Young and Casey. Accordingly, their motion to lift the stay is denied.”
UPDATE
Through a letter (and not a formal motion) submitted by his counsel on Feb. 7, defendant Young sought to compel discovery of statements made by some of his co-defendants, in connection with settlement agreements entered into by those defendants (the “settled defendants”) and the Piazzas.
Brann issued a memorandum order on March 1 which denied Young’s presumptive motion, pending an in-camera review of the relevant documents he is seeking.
“As an initial matter, Young’s position that the Piazzas have waived any objections to the discovery requests due to their failure to respond is not well taken. As observed by my friend and colleague, the Honorable Christopher C. Connor, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 ‘does not by its terms provide that objections will be deemed waived’ based on an untimely response to a request for production of documents.’ ‘Instead, parties ‘may be held to have waived’ objections if they egregiously fail to comply with Rule 34’s 30-day time limit.’ As the Piazzas note, they did respond, and the Court agrees with them that the emails supplied to the Court by Young demonstrate a good faith attempt to respond to the request and resolve the issue without Court intervention. It may have been more procedurally proper for the Piazzas to formally respond to Young’s request with a stated objection in parallel, but the failure to do so is not an egregious violation of Rule 34,” Brann said.
“Also, the parties’ discussion regarding the confidentiality of the statements puts the cart before the horse. The relevant inquiry is whether the settlement agreements are relevant, not whether they implicate the confidentiality rights of the parties to those agreements. Turning to that issue, Young argues that the statements ‘could have been used to cross examine the settled defendants during their depositions’ and are relevant at trial where ‘the contents of the statements will go to the defendant’s credibility, for impeachment to the extent that the statement to plaintiffs differs from that provided previously to others or during their deposition.’ However, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 expressly prohibits the use of evidence of ‘conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim’ ‘either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.’ This also precludes Young’s proposed use of the statements during the depositions of the Piazzas to explore the conduct of the parties to the settlement negotiations and subsequent agreements.”
Though Young also argues that “the statements are clearly relevant at trial, as the settled defendants will all be listed on the verdict sheet”, Brann countered that “although the Fair Share Act allows for the apportionment of liability to a released party, ‘there is no absolute right to have settling co-defendants placed on a verdict slip.”
“As above, Young cannot rely on the settlement agreements to prove the validity of a claim. There is no principled reason to distinguish, under Rule 408, the validity of the Piazzas’ initial claim against any settled defendant from Young’s claim of contribution. To hold otherwise would, as a practical matter, give the non-settled defendants the benefit of both the opportunity to defend against the Piazzas’ claims at trial and the settlements of their co-defendants. Nevertheless, the Court is mindful that, aside from the potential use of the settlement agreements during their depositions, the Piazzas did not raise any substantive objection to the discoverability of the settlement agreements until their Feb. 28, 2024 letter.,” Brann said.
“Though the Court has found that they have not waived the objection and that there does not appear to be any permissible use for the agreements, the Court is cognizant that the Piazzas, who, unlike both Young and the Court, have access to the statements, were apparently willing to turn them over subject to a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, prior to denying Young’s request, the Court will require Piazza to submit the documents to the Court for in camera review. To that end, the Court notes that the Piazzas are apparently scheduled to be deposed on March 7 and March 11, 2024. Though the Court is skeptical that, even if the statements are discoverable, there is any permissible use for them during the Piazzas’ depositions, in the interest of judicial economy the Court respectfully requests that the Piazzas’ supply to the Court the relevant documents by March 5, 2024, to allow the Court time to review the documents and issue a ruling.”
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:19-cv-00180
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com