Verloic, G. v. Doe, J.
123 A.3d 781
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Gary and Nancy Veloric sued anonymous John/Jane Does for allegedly sending anonymous defamatory emails and a phone call to Nancy; claims included defamation and IIED.
- Velorics obtained court orders compelling depositions of the Does; the Does refused to appear, invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to reveal their identities.
- The trial court entered an order (Dec. 1, 2014) directing the Does to appear for depositions; the Does appealed that discovery order to the Superior Court.
- Appellants argued the Doe Order was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 because the compelled appearance would force them to relinquish Fifth Amendment protections and reveal identities, risking criminal prosecution (unlawful use of a computer).
- The Velorics argued the order was interlocutory and not collateral; the Superior Court held it lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veloric) | Defendant's Argument (Doe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery order compelling Does to appear is an appealable collateral order | Order is not collateral; discovery orders are interlocutory and not immediately appealable | Order is collateral under Pa.R.A.P. 313 because it implicates the Fifth Amendment and identity disclosure | Appeal is not collateral; Does failed to meet Rule 313 prongs; appeal quashed |
| Whether the Does properly invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid appearing (and thus preserve anonymity) | Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination only for testimonial communications; identity disclosure is not protected | Appearing would force disclosure of identity and risk criminal prosecution for computer-related crimes | Does did not properly invoke the privilege; identity/appearance is non-testimonial and not covered; no reasonable fear of prosecution shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. Heller, 97 A.3d 1257 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discovery orders are generally interlocutory; privileged material sometimes collateral)
- Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42 (Pa. 2003) (Rule 313 collateral-order doctrine must be narrowly applied)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Does, 81 A.3d 921 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no protectable interest in identity where defendants used another's identity online)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (Fifth Amendment protects testimonial, incriminating, compelled communications)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (no reasonable societal expectation of privacy in name and address)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) (burden on witness to show reasonable fear of incrimination; court may require answer if no real danger)
- United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) (Fifth Amendment privilege depends on reasonable belief that testimony could incriminate in future proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 324 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 1974) (Fifth Amendment does not protect noncommunicative acts like appearing for identification)