Price v. Simakas Co., 133 A.3d 751

On Feb 8, 2005 Tracy Price was injured when her hair became entangled in a lab mixer at Advance Polymer Technology (APT); she sued several contractors for negligence, alleging lack of guards and accessible shut-off controls.
The week before the injury, IUP employees Gregory Sipos (1/31/05) and Dane Sprankle (2/1/05) performed OSHA consultation inspections at APT under a federal/state cooperative program (29 C.F.R. § 1908); each produced written consultation reports.
APT (or IUP) voluntarily disclosed the written consultation reports in discovery; the Simakas Defendants’ expert relied on those reports and implied the mixer had been inspected and found safe.
Plaintiff subpoenaed Sipos and Sprankle for deposition testimony to clarify whether they inspected the mixer; IUP moved to quash, arguing federal regulations bar their testimony and that the order was immediately appealable.
Trial court denied the motions to quash; IUP appealed, asserting (1) the order is a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 and (2) federal confidentiality and Department of Labor subpoena rules preclude testimony.
The appellate court affirmed: it found the order appealable under Rule 313 and rejected IUP’s statutory/regulatory arguments because the consultation reports were voluntarily disclosed and the cited federal rules did not bar oral testimony or did not apply to IUP employees acting as state consultants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s denial of motions to quash is immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313 (collateral order)	The privilege/privacy asserted is important and would be irreparably lost if depositions occur	Order is separable but appeal should be deferred until final judgment	Court: Order is an appealable collateral order (separable, important federal confidentiality interest, and testimony cannot be undone)
Whether 29 C.F.R. § 1908 (OSHA consultation confidentiality) and 29 C.F.R. §§ 2.20–2.22 (DoL subpoena procedures) bar deposition testimony of Sipos and Sprankle	IUP: regulations protect consultation information and/or require DoL approval before testimony; Sipos/Sprankle acted as DoL employees	Plaintiff/Defendants: reports were voluntarily disclosed; §1908 protects written reports/trade secrets and identities unless undisclosed; §2.20–2.22 do not apply because consultants were state personnel and no DoL waiver/notice was shown	Court: §1908 does not bar depositions once the written report was voluntarily disclosed and does not apply to oral testimony here; §§2.20–2.22 inapplicable because consultants acted as state employees and no evidence DoL procedures were followed or DoL forbade testimony

Melvin v. Doe, 575 Pa. 264, 836 A.2d 42 (discusses narrow application of collateral order doctrine)
Ben v. Schwartz, 556 Pa. 475, 729 A.2d 547 (discovery orders compelling disclosure of privileged materials can be appealable under Rule 313)
Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P., 598 Pa. 283, 956 A.2d 937 (privilege issues separable from underlying merits may justify immediate review)
Geniviva v. Frisk, 555 Pa. 589, 725 A.2d 1209 (describes importance test for collateral order review)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (executive privilege does not automatically supplant judicial authority over evidence; cited in briefing)