Ignelzi, P. v. Ogg, Cordes, Murphy and Ignelzi
160 A.3d 805
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Philip Ignelzi left the law firm Ogg, Cordes, Murphy & Ignelzi, LLP (OCMI) when elected judge in 2009; partners dissolved the firm and some formed a new firm OMP.
- Ignelzi sued in 2011 alleging breach of contract and violations of the Uniform Partnership Act seeking his partnership share of contingent-fee cases concluding after dissolution.
- Discovery sought included client lists, ledgers/records, and bookkeeping summaries for matters accepted or under review as of December 31, 2009.
- Appellants (former partners and OMP) moved for a protective order arguing prior appellate rulings, burden, privilege/confidentiality, and that unresolved contingent matters had no ascertainable value at the valuation date.
- Trial court granted the protective order in part (denied for broad client records request) and required redaction and confidentiality procedures for produced materials; it certified the order under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c).
- Appellants appealed; the Superior Court considered whether the discovery order was appealable and whether the collateral-order doctrine applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of the discovery order | Not addressed as primary; proceeds on merits | Order was final/appealable because trial court certified under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) | Order not appealable under Rule 341; certification insufficient because order did not dispose of any party or claim |
| Collateral-order jurisdiction (privilege/confidentiality) | Discovery sought is permissible and limited by court; confidentiality procedures suffice | Disclosure would force production of privileged/confidential client files and violate clients’ interests | Collateral-order doctrine inapplicable: issues raised are not separable from merits and appellants failed to meet strict Rule 313 requirements |
| Privilege assertion burden and procedure | N/A | Appellants claimed privilege generally and ethical concerns | Appellants failed to meet their burden: no facts or privilege log provided; trial court could not assess privilege; appeal not ripe |
| Scope/value of contingent-fee claims as of valuation date | Ignelzi claims entitlement to partnership share under UPA | Appellants contend contingent matters unresolved by Dec 31, 2009 had zero value and thus are excluded; public-policy arguments against recovery | Court did not decide merits here; held that resolving those questions would determine case outcome and thus shows non-separability from discovery dispute; appeal quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ignelzi v. Ogg, Cordes, Murphy and Ignelzi, LLP, 78 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior appeal addressing core dispute over post-dissolution contingent fees)
- In re Miscin, 885 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2005) (court may raise appealability sua sponte)
- Prelude, Inc. v. Jorcyk, 695 A.2d 422 (Pa. Super. 1997) (Rule 341 is fundamental to appellate jurisdiction)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006) (collateral-order doctrine interpreted narrowly; appellate review of collateral orders is plenary)
- Meyer-Chatfield Corp. v. Bank Fin. Servs. Grp., 143 A.3d 930 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discovery orders compelling privileged material may be appealable but requirements are strict)
- T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (party invoking attorney-client privilege must provide facts and a privilege log; in camera review may be appropriate)
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (an order is not appealable until docketed with required notice of entry)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass’n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (if Rule 313 test not met, no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory order)