A professional negligence case against Schmidt Ronca & Kramer and attorney James R. Ronca was properly dismissed as part of a sanction against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.
In Papadoplos v. Schmidt Ronca & Kramer, a three-judge panel ruled Schmidt Ronca clearly sought dismissal of the action because of the alleged spoliation of computer hard drives by plaintiff Peter Papadoplos, despite claims by Papadoplos and his wife Judith that the law firm never sought such dismissal.
