Commonwealth v. Sellers
169 A.3d 43
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Steve Rice, Esq. (former trial counsel) withdrew before his client Sean Sellers’ direct appeal; Sellers’ appeal is pending and current counsel is the Franklin County Public Defender.
- Rice intended to send Sellers a copy of pretrial discovery (including cell‑phone materials) after withdrawal and asked the Commonwealth if any materials were sensitive.
- The Commonwealth filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 motion for a protective order, asserting the discovery contained "sensitive materials," and asked Rice not to transmit the file.
- The trial court entered an interim order prohibiting Rice from transferring discovery and later granted the Commonwealth’s protective‑order motion without a hearing or in camera review, relying on the fact Sellers’ current counsel had access to materials.
- Rice appealed, arguing the Commonwealth failed to make a "sufficient showing" under Rule 573(F) and that the court erred by issuing the protective order without a hearing or particularized in camera submission.
- The Superior Court held Rice had standing as an aggrieved party because the order directly constrained him and defeated his professional duties to a former client, reversed the protective order, and remanded for a hearing or detailed in camera submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rice) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting a Rule 573 protective order without a sufficient showing | Commonwealth made no particularized showing; court must hold hearing or review in camera; vague allegation of "sensitive materials" insufficient | Protective order proper because current counsel (Public Defender) has access; Rice no longer represents client and lacks standing | Reversed: movant must make a sufficient showing; court must hold hearing or require detailed in camera statement before entering protective order |
| Whether Rice has standing to appeal the order | Rice is an aggrieved party: order directly restrains him and prevents compliance with professional duties to a former client | Trial court: Rice lacks standing because he no longer represents Sellers and is not the real party with interest in discovery | Held Rice has standing: he demonstrated a substantial, direct, immediate interest in complying with professional obligations to his former client |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Dark, 844 F. Supp. 210 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (discussed regarding defendant access to discovery through counsel)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (articulates requirements for aggrieved‑party standing)
- Maleski v. Corporate Life Ins. Co., 641 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (discusses client entitlement to counsel’s file upon termination of representation)