47 Pa. D. & C.5th 214
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Wells Fargo appeals a special trial master’s March 12, 2015 order requiring three out-of-state Wells Fargo employees to appear for discovery depositions in Lackawanna County.
- The dispute centers on whether these individuals are parties under Pa.R.C.P. 4007.1(a) or nonparties who must be served with subpoenas.
- Healeys sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, UTPCPL violations, and promissory estoppel related to a failed permanent loan modification after a trial period under HAMP.
- Discovery plan set a July 31, 2015 deadline for discovery, August 31 for expert reports for Healeys and September 30 for Wells Fargo.
- The identified deponents are Bosier, DeCaro (employees in Iowa and New York), and Kreis, a Wells Fargo official, with Healeys proposing videoconference depositions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bosier, DeCaro, and Kreis are parties under Rule 4007.1(a). | Healeys treat them as Wells Fargo’s parties for 4007.1(a). | Wells Fargo argues they are nonparties; subpoenas are required. | No subpoenas required; they are treated as parties for 4007.1(a). |
| Whether officers or managing agents may be deposed without subpoenas under 4007.1(e). | Bosier and DeCaro are officers; Kreis is a managing agent, thus exempt from subpoenas. | Even as officers/managing agents, proper deposition procedures must be followed. | Bosier, DeCaro, and Kreis may be deposed without subpoenas based on status. |
| Situs and method of deposition given out-of-state witnesses. | Videoconference is acceptable to avoid travel. | Deposition location should be the corporate principal absent unusual circumstances. | Depositions may proceed by videoconference; no travel required. |
| Whether the trial master’s order was properly denied in part and granted in part. | Order should compel depositions without subpoena. | Appeal challenges the master’s ruling as de novo. | Denied as to appeal; granted to compel depositions via videoconference. |
| Rule 4020 relevance of deposition usage at trial. | Depositions of officers/managing agents may be used at trial. | Depositions must meet Rule 4020 prerequisites. | Rule 4020 applicable to permitted use of these deponents’ deposition testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barley v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 820 A.2d 740 (Pa. Super. 2003) (deposition notice and subpoena implications under 4007.1(a))
- Mecca El v. Murzyn, 831 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2003) (managing agent concept judged pragmatically)
- Rivera v. Philadelphia Theological Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, Inc., 326 Pa. Super. 509, 474 A.2d 605 (Pa. Super. 1984) (definition of managing agent for deposition purposes)
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Federal Insurance Company, 215 F.R.D. 492 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (corporate officers may be deposed without a subpoena)
- Spivak, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Spivak, 104 A.3d 7 (Pa. Super. 2014) (context of corporate representation in foreclosure actions)