Tullytown Borough v. Armstrong, 129 A.3d 619

Plaintiffs (Armstrong, Campanaro, Czyzyk, Fox) filed a praecipe for a writ of summons asserting a § 1983 claim against Tullytown Borough and sought pre-complaint depositions of nine Borough officials (including police officers and a councilman) to investigate alleged police surveillance of their 2013 political campaigns.
Plaintiffs served a September 30, 2014 letter requesting the depositions but did not specify detailed reasons in the letter; they later filed a Reply and memorandum asserting witnesses had informed them officers were ordered to follow their campaign activities.
Borough moved for a protective order arguing the request was a fishing expedition, frivolous, and that Plaintiffs failed to show the depositions were material and necessary under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8; Borough also relied on Bucks County Rule 208.3(b) to resolve the motion.
Plaintiffs replied and the trial court issued a rule to show cause; Borough filed a praecipe under Bucks County Rule 208.3(b) without taking depositions or requesting a hearing, which—under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7—led the court to treat Plaintiffs’ factual averments as admitted.
On January 15, 2015 the trial court denied the protective order; the trial court opinion concluded the requested depositions were material and necessary under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8 and their burden was not unreasonable. Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-complaint discovery is permissible under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8 (material/necessary + not unreasonably burdensome)	Depositions are material and necessary to identify who surveilled plaintiffs and to formulate a complaint	Request is a fishing expedition, not shown to be material/necessary and imposes undue burden	Court held plaintiffs met the two‑prong Rule 4003.8 test; depositions allowed
Whether court must require particularized showing under Rule 4003.8(b) before allowing discovery	Plaintiffs argued they provided sufficient detail and identified witnesses/timeframe to show materiality/necessity	Borough argued the court erred by not demanding particularized proof of materiality/necessity and probable cause	Court held Rule 4003.8(b) is discretionary (may require particularity); here admissions and pleadings sufficed so no error
Effect of procedural default under Bucks County Rule 208.3(b) / Pa. R.C.P. 206.7	Plaintiffs relied on borough’s failure to pursue depositions/hearing; treated plaintiffs’ averments as admitted	Borough contended facts were not established and movant needed to be required to show specifics	Court treated Borough’s praecipe as admitting factual averments in Plaintiffs’ Reply per 206.7, supporting denial of protective order

Pelzer v. Wrestle, 49 A.3d 926 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006) (articulated the pre‑complaint discovery standards and the Supreme Court’s prior probable‑cause formulation)
Luckett v. Blaine, 850 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (confirms appellate abuse‑of‑discretion standard for discovery rulings)