Sindler v. Goldman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that compliance with Rule 4003.5 is critical to prevent unfair surprise
• Local Rule 212, which embodies the same rule codified in Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.5, “provides unconditionally that testimony will be precluded in the event of noncompliance.”
• four factors trial court should weigh in determining whether failure to comply with local rule of discovery justifies exclusion of expert testimony are: “(1) the extent of any actual prejudice or surprise suffered by the party against whom the expert testified; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).