Dougherty v. Heller
97 A.3d 1257
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Dougherty, a public figure and union official, was defamed by Appellee journalist in a 2009 Philadelphia Inquirer column about his philanthropy with outdoor lights.
- A retraction and apology were published, but an uncorrected version remained online briefly and later on a third-party site for about two years.
- Dougherty sued for defamation in December 2009; a videotaped deposition of Dougherty was scheduled for March 2012.
- Appellee sought to take the deposition by video; Dougherty feared dissemination of embarrassing portions to media.
- Appellee moved to compel the deposition and sought costs; Dougherty cross-moved for protective relief to prevent dissemination.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel, denied costs, and denied protective relief; the order was appealed as collateral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly recognized a privacy interest to sustain collateral review. | Dougherty asserts a compelling privacy interest in pretrial discovery. | Appellee argues no such recognized right exists and argues collateral review is inappropriate. | Collateral review is appropriate; privacy interest recognized. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying protective relief for good cause. | Dougherty argues good cause exists to limit dissemination of the video. | Appellee contends no specific, substantiated harm shown; good cause not proven. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no good cause shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (no First Amendment right to pretrial discovery information; good cause required for protective orders)
- Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Ctr., 382 Pa. Super. 75 (Pa. Super. 1989) (protective orders allowed for privacy interests in discovery)
- Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. 2011) (collateral review of discovery orders under narrow doctrine)
- MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Res., LLC v. Clean Air Council, 71 A.3d 337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (disclosure of private documents; protective order context)
- Stenger I, 554 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1989) (protective order standard balancing privacy and discovery interests)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) (seven-factor test for good cause in 26(c) protective orders (persuasive authority))