With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fairly have granted Appellants’ petition to open. However, under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to do so. Order affirmed. Gantman, J. concurs in the result. 1 . See Balk v. Ford Motor Co., 446 Pa. 137, 285 A.2d 128 (1971) (ruling that court did not abuse discretion in striking default judgment where insurer lost client's court papers and prejudice lacking); Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 251, 620 A.2d 1206 (1993) (deeming insurer’s delay reasonable excuse); Provident Credit Corp. v. Young, 300 Pa.Super. 117, 446 A.2d 257 (1982) (en banc) (forgiving delay when disadvantaged party was aban doned by multiple attorneys for want of ability to pay); cf. Jung v. St. Paul’s Parish, 522 Pa. 167, 560 A.2d 1356 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Manson v. First Nat'l Bank in Ind., 366 Pa.

A: holding that non pros should have been opened where parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and rule to file complaint was intermingled with discovery requests
B: holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline
C: holding that the trial court must ensure that the requests are tailored to the specific action and that discovery requests that reflect a mere fishing expedition should not be allowed
D: holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party
A.