J-A06038- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KEVIN C. TIERNEY AND IRENE M. TIERNEY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, INC., DANELLA LINE COMPANY, MELCAR, LTD., INC., TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

APPEAL OF: THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY No. 1675 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Order Dated April 10 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division at No(s): 12

- 4399

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. FILED JULY 29, 2014 The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company (Trave lers) appeals from an order entered on April 10, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, directing Travelers to respo nd to written discovery requests. After careful review, we remand for the trial court to hold a hearing regarding the disputed requests. On November 24, 2011, raw sewage was forced into the home of Kevin C. and Irene M. Tierney, causing property damag e. See Complaint, 5/24/12, at ¶ 6. The Tierneys instituted suit on May 24, 2012, against Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Danella Line Co., and Mel car, Ltd. for negligently causing the damage while excavating, installing, repai ring, or constructingJ-A06038- 14

- 2 -

utility, communication, or data lines near their home. The Tierneys held a homeowners’ insurance policy with Travelers at the time the damage occurred. In the complaint, the Tierneys included Tra velers as a defendant, asserting breach of contract, bad faith, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 1 based upon Travelers’ alleged failure to pay the fair and reasonable costs associated with the damage to the Tierneys’ home. On August 17, 2012, the Tierneys served discovery req uests on Travelers, including 87 interrogatories and 19 document requests. Travelers responded, but objected to some of the requests. 2 The Tierneys were dissatisfied with the response, and on October 12, 2012, they filed a motion to compel Travelers to answer all of the written discov ery. Travelers filed a response in opposition to the motion to compel on Novem ber 1, 2012, requesting oral argument on the motion. On April 10 , 2013, without hearing argument or providing an explanation, the trial cour t issued an order granting the motion to compel and ordered Travelers to provide the

____________________________________________

1 73 P.S. §§ 201 -1

– 201-9.2.

2 Travelers objected to discovery requests in several broad categories: (1) document requests for all of Travelers’ internal rule s, regulations, policies, and guidelines; (2) interrogatories seeking detailed i nformation about every case for bad faith brought against Travelers within th e last 10 years, including providing names and addresses of the plaintiff s; and (3) interrogatories seeking information about every gover nmental investigation in the company’s history throughout th e United States.J-A06038- 14

- 3 -

discovery requested within ten days of the order. Trav elers filed a motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2013, asserting that the discovery requests sought privileged and confidential information. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the instant timely ap peal followed. We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the order granting the motion to compel discovery. “[T]he appealability of an order goes directly to the jurisdiction of the Court asked to review the

order.” Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations , 936 A.2d 1117, 1123 (Pa. Super . 2007) (citations omitted). “[G]enerally, appellate courts can review only final orders.” Id. at 1122. Discovery orders are interlocutory and, therefore, typically unappealable. Jones v. Faust , 852 A.2d 1201, 1203 (Pa. Super. 2004). However, interlocutory coll ateral orders are immediately appealable as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 3 13 if the following criteria are met: “(1) the matter is separable from an d collateral to the main cause of action; (2) it involves a right too impo rtant to be denied review; and (3) is such that the claimed right would be irreparably lost if review is postponed until final judgment in the case.” Pugar v. Greco , 394 A.2d 542 (Pa. 1978) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). Discovery orders involving potentially confidential and privileged material have been held to be appealable collateral orders satisfying the three prongs set forth in Pugar and codified in Pa.R.A.P. 313. Berkyheiser , 936 A.2d at 1123-24 (citing Ben v. Schwartz , 729 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1999)); see also T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc. , 950 A.2d 1050, 1056 (Pa.J-A06038- 14

- 4 -

Super. 2008). Such discovery orders are separable from the main cause of action because privilege and confidentiality issues can be considered without analyzing the merits of the underlying cause of action. See Ben , 729 A.2d

at 551- 52. The “importance” prong is satisfied because privacy con cerns “implicate rights deeply rooted in public policy, especially where the

disclosure of such information affects individuals other t han those involved in this particular ca se.” Berkeyheiser , 936 A.2d at 1124. Finally, rights would be irreparably lost through disclosure of privil eged or confidential information, since “[s]uch disclosure could not be undon e in a subsequent appeal.” T.M. , 950 A.2d at 1058. Here, the discovery order requires the production of allegedly privileged and confidential i nformation related to individuals who are not parties to the instant action. Thus, the order in the instant matter is appealable as collateral to the main cause of action, and we have jurisdiction. Throughout the trial court proceedings and this appea l, Travelers has consistently requested a hearing on the motion to compe l under Pa.R.C.P. 211, which states that “[a] ny party or the party’s attorney shall have the right to argue any motion.” Pa.R.C.P. 211. This Court has interpreted Rule 211 as clearly and unambiguously establishing a party’ s right to oral argument. Tessier v. Pietrangelo , 522 A.2d 88 (Pa. Super. 1987). An exception is where the parties have briefed the issues su ch that oral argument would be redundant and the lack of oral arg ument would not result in prejudice to either party. See Gerace v. Holmes Protection ofJ-A06038- 14

- 5 -

Phila. , 516 A.2d 354, 359 (Pa. Super. 1986). Instantly, t he parties have never briefed discovery issues, and the trial court faile d to discuss its rationale for granting the motion to compel. Indee d, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court exclusively analyzed whether the order granting the motion to compel is an appealable collateral order and did not discuss the merits of the motion. Likewise, the order itself does not provide any

discussion of the merits

— it simply grants the motion without explanation. The discovery ordered in this matter is quite broad and involves potentially privileged and confidential information. Accordingly, a remand is necessary so that the trial court may hold a hearing and analyze the privilege and confidentiality issues raised. T.M. , supra

. Order vacated. Remanded with direction to the trial court to conduct a hearing regarding the motion to compel discovery. J urisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/29/2014