Martin, J. v. Villa, B.
Martin, J. v. Villa, B. No. 95 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 15, 2017Background
- James B. Martin (Lehigh County District Attorney) sued radio host Bill Villa and station owners for defamation/false light based on on-air criticism of Martin’s prosecution decisions in DUI homicide cases.
- Defendants served broad discovery seeking Martin’s prosecution files, disciplinary history, financial records, and documents about numerous specific criminal matters handled by the DA’s Office.
- Martin did not produce many requested materials and argued numerous items were not his personal records, were in the exclusive possession of the Office of the District Attorney, or were protected by statute or privilege (notably CHRIA and disciplinary confidentiality rules).
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion to compel, finding the material relevant, but did not perform in camera review or fully resolve privilege/statutory objections.
- Martin and the Office appealed; the Superior Court exercised interlocutory (collateral order) jurisdiction over orders compelling potentially confidential discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could compel Martin to produce DA Office case files (CHRIA) | Martin: files are Office property; disclosure would violate CHRIA and expose him to civil/criminal liability | Defs: files are relevant to truth of broadcast and defense; need access to prepare trial defense | Trial court abused discretion by compelling without in camera review; remanded for hearing and in camera review to determine CHRIA/privilege applicability |
| Whether disciplinary complaints/confidential discipline records must be produced | Martin: disciplinary complaints are confidential under Pa.R.D.E.; no public discipline was imposed so records remain confidential | Defs: Martin’s ethics are relevant to reputation and credibility | Superior Court reversed trial court as to disciplinary records—confidential complaints not discoverable where no public discipline or filed charges |
| Whether Martin must produce tax returns/financial records when not claiming economic damages | Martin: financials irrelevant to reputational damages claim; he is not asserting lost wages | Defs: financials relevant to measuring damage to reputation | Court reversed trial court as to tax/financial discovery; income records not discoverable for non-economic reputational claim |
| Whether interlocutory order compelling confidential materials is appealable | Martin/Office: order involves important confidentiality interests and irreparable harm | Defs: procedural finality not required | Court found order (re: Office files, disciplinary history, tax returns) appealable under collateral-order doctrine and reviewed merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Ind. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (collateral-order doctrine permitting immediate appeal of some non-final orders)
- Rae v. Pa. Funeral Dir. Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (Pa.R.A.P. 313 test for collateral orders)
- Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (CHRIA and Right‑to‑Know Law; investigative material analysis; redaction of investigative audio)
- Coley v. Phila. Dist. Attorney's Office, 77 A.3d 694 (Pa. Commw. 2013) (witness statements and investigative materials protected from dissemination under CHRIA)
- Barros v. Martin, 92 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Commw. 2014) (criminal investigative records relating to investigations are exempt under RTKL and CHRIA)
- Attorney T. v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 547 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1988) (confidentiality of attorney disciplinary proceedings; rationale for keeping nonpublic disciplinary records sealed)
- Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 890 (Pa. Super. 1995) (tax returns held irrelevant where plaintiff did not seek economic damages for income loss)
- J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2004) (order compelling tax records is collateral and appealable where privacy interest and irreparable harm exist)