J-A07013-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

STACEY HANEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF 

HARLEY HANEY, A MINOR AND PAIGE 

HANEY, A MINOR, AND BETH VOYLES 

AND JOHN VOYLES, HUSBAND AND 

WIFE, ASHLEY VOYLES, INDIVIDUALLY, 

LOREN KISKADDEN, INDIVIDUALLY, 

GRACE KISKADDEN, INDIVIDUALLY 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

v. 

RANGE RESOURCES-APPALACHIA, INC., 

NEW DOMINON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

TERRAFIX ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY, 

INC., SKAPPS INDUSTRIES, INC., 

ENGINEERED SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS, 

INC., RED OAK WATER TRANSFER NE, 

LLC, MICROBAC LABORATORIES, INC., 

MULTI-CHEM GROUP, LLC, UNIVERSAL 

WELL SERVICES, INC., HALIBURTON 

ENERGY SERVICES, INC., SAXON 

DRILLING, L.P., HIGHLAND 

ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, EAP 

INDUSTRIES, INC., AND TEST AMERICA, 

INC. 

APPEAL OF: RANGE RESOURCESAPPALACHIA, INC. 

 No. 1130 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order June 11, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2012-3534 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J. 

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2015 

I concur, because like the majority, I believe that this appeal should 

be quashed. However, I reach this result for different reasons. 
J-A07013-15 

- 2 - 

The majority concludes that Range Resources lacks standing to 

challenge the trial court’s order. In general, “the core of the concept of 

standing is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the 

matter he seeks to challenge is not aggrieved thereby and has no right to 

obtain a judicial resolution of his challenge.” Pa. Game Comm'n v. Dep't 

of Envtl. Res., 555 A.2d 812, 815 (Pa. 1989) (citations omitted). 

Here, the trial court order directs Range Resources to: 

obtain from Aqua-Clear and any other manufacturer/supplier 

who is not a party to this action and raises objection to this 

Court’s Order of November 4, 2013, the names of all Aqua-Clear, 

and any other manufacturer/supplier products used at or 

brought to the Yeager Drill Site, as well as every chemical and/or 

substance that is contained in each and every product 

manufactured by Aqua-Clear and any other manufacturer or 

supplier who objects to this Court’s Order of November 4, 2013, 

including all information and chemicals/substances deemed to be 

proprietary by Aqua-Clear or any other manufacturers or 

suppliers subject to this Order. 

Order, 6/11/14, at 1-2. 

 The majority is correct that the June 11, 2014 “order does not identify 

sanctions resulting from noncompliance.” Memorandum, at 7 n.5. 

Nevertheless, this discovery order, which places significant obligations on 

Range Resources, may subject Range Resources to sanctions under 

Pa.R.C.P. 4019, in the event of noncompliance. Recognizing the broad 

nature of those potential sanctions, which include striking out pleadings, see

Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3), and imposing punishment for contempt, see Pa.R.C.P. 
J-A07013-15 

- 3 - 

4019(c)(4), I believe that Range Resources has standing now to seek to 

establish that the trial court’s order is appealable as a collateral order. 

 Pa.R.A.P. 313(b) defines collateral orders as follows: 

(b) Definition. A collateral order is an order separable from 

and collateral to the main cause of action where the right 

involved is too important to be denied review and the question 

presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment 

in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost. 

Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). 

 Although I believe Range Resources has standing, I do not believe that 

it has met its burden of establishing that the order in question is a collateral 

order. Here, the factual issues addressed by the discovery order are so 

enmeshed with the underlying causes of action that the order is not 

separable from the main cause of action. See Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). Secondly, 

the order does not meet the importance prong because it focuses on the 

rather standard issue that the party who caused a product to be used bears 

the burden of presenting evidence about that product. Id. Thirdly, if review 

is postponed the claim will not be irreparably lost, id., because Range 

Resources or the manufacturers may seek a protective order under Pa.R.C.P. 

4012(a)(9) to prevent the dissemination of trade secrets or confidential 

information. 

 Because the June 11, 2014 order is not a collateral order, it may not 

be appealed at this juncture.