• In re: Estate of W. McAleer

    Publication Date: 2021-04-19
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0422

    The high court split on whether the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect communications between a trustee and counsel from discovery by beneficiaries when the communications arose in the context of adversarial proceedings between those parties, but found that disclosure would nevertheless result from the competing positions set forth by a majority of justices. The high court affirmed the lower court's alternative ruling.

  • Virnelson v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-01
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Consulting | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0226

    Trial court properly found defendants' consulting firm report, prepared after employee died in an industrial accident, was discoverable because consulting firm was not hired, and their report was not prepared, in anticipation of litigation. Affirmed.

  • McCowan v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2021-02-01
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Marston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0106

    City defendants moved for reconsideration of order denying their motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena to law firm that city hired to investigate gender and sexual harassment complaints and court found defendants admitted they failed to satisfy their burden on the motion to quash and court declined to reconsider its previous ruling but court clarified nothing in the previous order prohibited attorney or law firm from raising attorney-client privilege as to specific documents. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Harkey v. Stojakovich

    Publication Date: 2020-12-21
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1306

    While defendants made a threshold showing that plaintiff's social media account information could be relevant, their request for all account postings lacked the requisite particularity necessary to avoid undue embarrassment and burden upon plaintiff and potential third parties. The trial court denied defendants' motion to compel discovery.

  • Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc

    Publication Date: 2020-11-30
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1298

    Defendant moved for sanctions, asserting plaintiff violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 30 and 26 in sending letters to potential fact witnesses and court found plaintiff interviewed various individuals with potential knowledge about the facts of the case and did not violate any court orders or procedural rules in doing so. Motion denied.

  • Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. v. Speer

    Publication Date: 2020-11-09
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Energy | Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1208

    The trial court properly exercised its discretion in issuing an "attorneys' eyes only" discovery order in this Dragonetti Act suit on the issue of punitive damages where the order accommodated defendants' privacy rights by limiting access to financial records to plaintiffs' attorneys and requiring counsel to destroy the records at the close of litigation. The superior court affirmed.

  • Delguericio v. Tio

    Publication Date: 2020-08-17
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0808

    Defendant hospital failed to meet its burden of showing that two patient safety event reports were immune from discovery, so the court granted plaintiff's motion to compel production of these documents.

  • Robert D. Mabe, Inc. v. Optum RX

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Insurance | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Mannion
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0856

    Discovery requests denied where plaintiffs, who alleged that they were in competition with defendant, requested defendant's confidential and proprietary business information, such that a protective order would be insufficient to protect defendant's interests. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery denied.

  • High Tech Nat'l, LLC v. Stead

    Publication Date: 2020-07-20
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pappert
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0773

    Plaintiff moved to compel compliance and for an order of contempt for defendants' failure to respond to subpoenas for documents and court found defendants were properly served, had refused to answer and ordered a daily civil fine with the future possibility of arrest for contempt. Motion granted.

  • McCowan v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2020-07-20
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Marston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0778

    Defendants filed for protective order precluding the deposition of city mayor in plaintiffs' discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment action against city and court found plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements necessary to overcome the limited immunity that high ranking government officials were entitled to when party sought to depose them. Motion granted.