In Re:Trust of Trust of Scaife, S. Appeal of: Trib
In Re:Trust of Trust of Scaife, S. Appeal of: Trib No. 243 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 28, 2017Background
- Petitioners (Jennie and David Scaife) sued for an accounting of the 1935 Sarah Mellon Scaife trust, alleging trustees improperly funded Trib Total Media, Inc. (TTM) with trust corpus.
- Petitioners served notice and then a subpoena on non-party TTM for financial and business records; Trustees filed no objections to the notice.
- TTM moved to quash the subpoena, arguing irrelevance and undue burden/embarrassment; in a reply (filed <48 hours before argument) TTM first asserted the documents were confidential and proprietary.
- Orphans’ Court held argument, denied TTM’s motion to quash, later denied TTM’s motion for partial reconsideration, and deemed some confidentiality and temporal objections waived as untimely.
- TTM appealed; the Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the Orphans’ Court, adopting its reasoning on waiver, relevance, and preservation of issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scaife) | Defendant's Argument (TTM) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preservation of confidentiality claim | The subpoena was proper; any confidentiality objection must have been raised timely | TTM says it preserved confidentiality claim in motion/briefs and at argument | Court held TTM waived confidentiality claim by raising it first in a late reply; not preserved for appeal |
| 2. Whether Berkeyheiser balancing required (privacy vs. need) | Discovery should be allowed; Petitioners need TTM records to show trustees’ state of mind | TTM: Berkeyheiser requires court to weigh privacy and limit discovery of proprietary/trade-secret info | Court held Berkeyheiser balancing inapplicable because TTM waived the confidentiality claim; discovery rules otherwise favor broad relevance |
| 3. Relevance of TTM records to trustees’ state of mind | Scaife: TTM financials are relevant to show what trustees knew or should have known and reasonableness of distributions | TTM: Records are irrelevant because only materials actually considered by trustees show their state of mind; discovery should come from trustees first | Court held TTM records are relevant to Petitioners’ breach/waste claims and possible trustee defenses; denial of quash not abuse of discretion |
| 4. Temporal scope — documents post-dating challenged distributions | Scaife: broader timeframe may be relevant to understand ongoing funding and trustee knowledge | TTM: Documents after October 2011 (or after July 2014) are irrelevant; raised late and therefore preserved only in reconsideration/1925(b) | Court held temporal objections waived for being raised too late; denial of quash as to post-date documents not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses balancing privacy interests against discovery need when confidential materials may be disclosed)
- Leber v. Stretton, 928 A.2d 262 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for motions to quash subpoena is abuse of discretion)
- Hutchison v. Luddy, 606 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 1992) (motions for protective orders lie within court’s broad discretion)
- Octave v. Walker, 103 A.3d 1255 (Pa. 2014) (evidentiary privileges are disfavored and narrowly construed)
- PECO Energy Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 852 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court has discretion to manage discovery scope and protections)
- Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 44 A.3d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discovery is liberally allowed as to non-privileged relevant matters)