J-A19019-23

2023 PA Super 218

LARRY SMITH AND KELLY SMITH, 

H/W 

Appellants

v.

CMS WEST, INC., CMS WEST LLC, 

CMS WEST PARENT LLC, STONEMOR 

PARTNERS LP, STONEMOR 

CEMETERY PRODUCTS LLC, 

STONEMORE GP LLC, STONEMOR, 

INC., STONEMOR HOLDING OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, STONEMOR 

OPERATING LLC, STONEMOR, 

PENNSYLVANIA LLC, STONEMOR 

PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY, LLC, 

CRETEX COMPANIES, INC., ELK 

RIVER MACHINE COMPANY, SQUARE 

D COMPANY, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC 

USA, INC., SAMPLE, INC., 

FREDERICK SAMPLE D/B/A SAMPLE, 

INC., MIDDLE DEPARTMENT 

INSPECTION AGENCY, INC. AND 

JOHN DOES (1-20)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1002 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 3, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division at No: 200702048

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2023

Appellants, Larry Smith (“Smith”) and Kelly Smith, his wife (collectively, 

“Appellants”), appeal from the March 7, 2022 order entered in the Court of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19019-23

- 2 -

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County transferring this case from Philadelphia 

County to Butler County based on forum non conveniens. Appellants contend 

that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the petition to transfer 

filed by several defendants named in Appellants’ suit for damages relating to 

a hand amputation sustained by Smith at a cement facility in Butler County.1

The trial court offered the following background, based on the 

allegations set forth in Appellants’ Amended Complaint:

On August 8, 2018, [Smith] was working as a lawful business 

invitee at the Semper Concrete facility owned and operated by 

[CMS West], located at 858 New Castle Road, Butler, PA 16001. 

On that day, [Smith] was operating a batching and mixing cement 

system (hereinafter “cement mixer”). As part of the cement 

mixer’s operation, users were required to intermittently use a 

hand scraper to remove concrete build-up from the mixing paddles 

inside the cement mixer while the mixer was energized and 

running. While following the facility’s approved cement mixer 

cleaning procedures, the cement mixer amputated [Smith’s] right 

hand.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 1-2 (citations to Amended Complaint omitted).

Appellants initiated the instant action by complaint filed on July 30, 2020 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging, inter alia, 

negligence and strict liability. Various defendants filed preliminary objections 

____________________________________________

1 The motion was filed by the following defendants named in Appellants’ suit: 

Middle Department Inspection Agency, Inc. (“MDIA”); StoneMor Operating, 

LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania, LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary, LLC, 

StoneMor, Inc., StoneMor Partners LP, StoneMor Cemetery Products, LLC, 

StoneMor GP, LLC, and StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, LLC (collectively 

“StoneMor”); and CMS West, Inc., CMS West Parent, LLC, and CMS West, LLC, 

(collectively “CMS West”). We refer to all of these parties collectively as 

“Appellees.”
J-A19019-23

- 3 -

challenging both personal jurisdiction and venue. By orders entered on 

February 9, 2021, the trial court sustained preliminary objections of just one 

defendant (Cretex Companies, Inc.) and dismissed that defendant based on 

lack of personal jurisdiction. All other preliminary objections were overruled.2 

On July 8, 2021, MDIA, StoneMar, and CMS West jointly filed a petition 

to transfer venue for forum non conveniens pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 

1006(d)(1), seeking transfer to Butler County. As the trial court recounted:

In [Appellees’] petition, [Appellees] included the 

affidavits/certifications of four (4) witnesses who all explained that 

traveling from Butler County to Philadelphia County would present 

hardships. During the pendency of the petition to transfer, this 

court also considered a separate discovery motion in which 

defense counsel sought a protective order to prohibit [Appellants’] 

counsel from taking “venue-related” depositions of a group of 

witnesses that [Appellants] sought to depose in order to counter 

the hardships presented in [Appellees’] petition to transfer. [On 

October 28, 2021, this] court denied [Appellees’] motion for 

protective order and further ordered that [Appellants] were 

allowed to submit, within thirty (30) days of the order, up to six 

(6) affidavits of witnesses of their choosing to present to the court 

in its consideration of the motion to transfer. [Appellants’] 

counsel, thereafter, submitted three (3) deposition transcripts and 

____________________________________________

2 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(1) authorizes the filing of 

preliminary objections based on, inter alia, improper venue. However, “[o]f 

the three grounds available to challenge venue, only improper venue may be 

raised by preliminary objection as provided by Rule 1006(e). Forum non

conveniens and inability to hold a fair and impartial trial are raised by petition 

as provided by Rule 1006(d)(1) and (2).” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028 (a)(1), Note. 

Therefore, forum non conveniens was not before the trial court when it ruled 

on the defendants’ preliminary objections. 
J-A19019-23

- 4 -

one (1) affidavit of witness to establish that Philadelphia was a 

more convenient forum. This court, considering the entire record, 

found that the witnesses presented by [Appellees] in the petition 

to transfer would suffer substantial hardships both monetary 

and/or hardships due to medical reasons. This court decided that 

Philadelphia County was, in fact, an oppressive and vexatious 

forum and entered an order on March [7], 2022, transferring the 

matter to Butler County.

Id. at 2-3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, proposing four alternative 

forms of relief as follows:

(1) to vacate the March [7], 2022 order and deny the petition to 

transfer, (2) to vacate the March [7], 2022 order and schedule oral 

arguments on the issue of forum non conveniens, (3) to vacate 

the March [7], 2022 order and allow [Appellants] to take 

additional depositions related to the issue of forum non 

conveniens, or (4) to vacate the March [7], 2022 order and order 

the matter transferred to Allegheny County.

Id. at 3. By order entered on April 5, 2022, the trial court denied 

reconsideration. In the interim, Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on 

April 1, 2022. Both Appellants and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925.

Appellants present two issues for our consideration, which we have 

reordered for ease of discussion:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred as a 

matter of law in granting [Appellees’] motion to transfer venue 

for forum non conveniens based on the inconvenience affidavits 

of a mere four individuals in a complex case certain to have 

dozens of witnesses, where [Appellants’] evidence in 

opposition – even in the absence of being able to engage in the 

discovery that is routinely allowed in these matters –

demonstrated that Philadelphia County was much more 
J-A19019-23

- 5 -

convenient than Butler County for far more than four other 

likely witnesses?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred as a 

matter of law in failing to allow [Appellants] to take the 

targeted forum non conveniens depositions that Pa.R.Civ.P. 

206.7(d) authorizes to create the factual record necessary to 

fully and fairly oppose [Appellees’] motion to transfer venue for 

forum non conveniens from [Appellants’] chosen forum of 

Philadelphia County to Butler County, Pennsylvania?

Appellants’ Brief at 6-7. 

As this Court reiterated in Powers v. Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, 230 

A.3d 492 (Pa. Super. 2020), “We review a trial court’s order transferring venue 

due to forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 496 

(citing Walls v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 847, 850 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2009)). 

“An abuse of discretion occurs if, inter alia, there was an error of law or the 

judgment was manifestly unreasonable. When reviewing for errors of law, the 

appellate standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” 

Wright v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982, 990 (Pa. Super. 2019) 

(citation omitted).

In Powers, we explained:

We will uphold a trial court’s order transferring venue based on 

forum non conveniens “[i]f there exists any proper basis” for the 

trial court’s determination. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health

Sys., 832 A.2d 1112, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal citation 

omitted). “[A] trial court’s order on venue will not be disturbed if 

the order is reasonable after a consideration of the relevant facts 

of the case.” See Mateu v. Stout, 819 A.2d 563, 565 (Pa. Super.

2003).
J-A19019-23

- 6 -

Powers, 230 A.3d at 496. We further acknowledged that “a plaintiff’s forum 

choice should be ‘rarely . . . disturbed,’ is entitled to great weight, and must 

be given deference by the trial court.” Id. (quoting Wood v. E.I. du Pont

de Nemours & Co., 829 A.2d 707, 711 (Pa. Super. 2003)). Nevertheless, “a 

plaintiff's choice of venue is not absolute or unassailable.” Id. at 496-97 

(quoting Connor, 832 A.2d at 1116) (internal citation omitted).

With these standards in mind, we turn to Appellants’ first issue in which 

they assert that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Appellees’ 

petition to transfer. They contend that the trial court’s ruling was “based on 

the inconvenience affidavits of a mere four individuals” despite Appellants’ 

evidence in opposition, which “demonstrated that Philadelphia County was 

much more convenient than Butler County for far more than four other likely 

witnesses.” Appellants’ Brief at 7. To put Appellants’ issue in context, we 

must begin with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006, which governs venue transfers and provides 

in relevant part:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses the court upon 

petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate 

court of any other county where the action could originally have 

been brought.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(d)(1).3 As this Court recognized in Powers, 

[i]n seeking forum transfer under Rule 1006(d)(1), “the 

defendant must show more than that the chosen forum is merely 

____________________________________________

3 There is no dispute that this action could have been initiated in Butler County 

as the county where the cause of action arose. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(a)(2). 
J-A19019-23

- 7 -

inconvenient to him[,]” Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator,

Inc., 549 Pa. 200, 701 A.2d 156, 162 (1997) (footnote omitted), 

as the rule permits transfers only if the chosen forum is oppressive 

and vexatious for the defendant. Bratic v. Rubendall, 626 Pa.

550, 99 A.3d 1 (2014).

Powers, 230 A.3d at 496.

In Bratic, our Supreme Court noted that in Cheeseman, decided 17 

years earlier, the Court had “clarified the factors on which a trial court may 

rely when ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, holding a petition to 

transfer venue should be granted only if the defendant ‘demonstrat[es], with 

detailed information on the record, that the plaintiff's chosen forum is 

oppressive or vexatious to the defendant.’” Bratic, 99 A.3d at 7 (quoting 

Cheeseman, 701 A.2d at 162). The Court recognized that 

the defendant may meet his burden by establishing . . . [that] trial 

in the chosen forum is oppressive to him; for instance, that trial 

in another county would provide easier access to witnesses or 

other sources of proof, or to the ability to conduct a view of 

premises involved in the dispute. But, we stress that the 

defendant must show more than that the chosen forum is merely 

inconvenient to him.

Id. (quoting Cheeseman, 701 A.2d at 162). Moreover, “while Rule

1006(d)(1) on its face allows transfer based on ‘the convenience of the 

parties[,]’ Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1), convenience or the lack thereof is not the 

test our case law has established: the moving party must show the chosen 

forum is either oppressive or vexatious.” Id. at 8. And, again, trial courts 

“are vested with considerable discretion when ruling on a such a motion, and 

‘[i]f there exists any proper basis for the trial court’s decision to transfer 
J-A19019-23

- 8 -

venue, the decision must stand.’” Id. (quoting Zappala v. Brandolini 

Property Management, Inc., 909 A.2d 1272, 1284 (Pa. 2006)). 

Here, although the trial court indicated that it considered the entire 

record, it specifically addressed the four affidavits submitted in support of 

Appellees’ petition to transfer. The affidavits were sworn out by Richard 

Round, John Donley, Daniel Rager, and Dale Robertson. 

Richard Round was a building code inspector for MDIA who conducted 

the inspection of the cement facility in 2005. He explained that traveling more 

than 300 miles from his Butler County residence would cause significant 

financial hardship and would interfere with family obligations. Trial Court 

Opinion, 9/2/22, at 4-5.

John Donley was the manager of the Semper Concrete facility at the 

time of Smith’s injury. In his affidavit, he explained that traveling to 

Philadelphia would present a hardship because he is the primary caregiver for 

his wife who suffers from coronary heart disease. Id. at 5.

Daniel Rager was the foreman at Semper Concrete on the day of Smith’s 

injury. Furloughed after that day, traveling to Philadelphia would present a 

financial hardship for him. Id. Moreover, as Appellees note, Donley and Rager 

“are central witnesses in the case. Indeed, both men were present when the 

accident occurred, the OSHA investigation worksheet refers only to them. 

[Smith’s] own handwritten statement submitted to OSHA identifies only 

them, and [Smith’s] own discovery responses identify Mr. Donley far more 
J-A19019-23

- 9 -

often than anyone else as a crucial witness.” Appellees’ Brief at 19 (emphasis 

in original) (references to reproduced record omitted). 

Finally, Dale Robertson was a laborer at Semper Concrete on the date 

of the accident. His affidavit reflected that he had been unemployed due to 

COVID-19 and that traveling to Philadelphia would present a financial hardship 

to him and would cause him to incur costs that would put undue financial 

strain on him. Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 5. 

The trial court indicated that, based on the four affidavits, “it was clear” 

that all four defense witnesses would “experience undue hardships if required 

to travel to Philadelphia County for trial instead of Butler County.” Id. 

However, the court also considered three deposition transcripts and an 

affidavit presented by Appellants in opposition to Appellees’ assertion of 

hardship. The first deposition was of James Kuntz, an Area Vice-President for 

StoneMor, who testified that despite living about two miles from the Butler 

County line, traveling to Philadelphia for trial would not present a hardship 

because he travels to Philadelphia on a regular basis. Id. (citation to 

deposition testimony omitted). Amy Green, Director of Safety and Compliance 

for StoneMor, testified that traveling to Philadelphia would not create a 

hardship for her, but later indicated she did not care whether she testified in 

Philadelphia or Butler County. Id. at 6. StoneMor employee, Marc BingZaremba, testified that traveling to Philadelphia would not be a hardship for 

him. Id. Finally, by affidavit, StoneMor executive Mark Miller, who is expected 
J-A19019-23

- 10 -

to testify about various StoneMor entities and the manner in which they 

conduct business, see Appellants’ Supplemental Response in Opposition to 

Petition to Transfer, 10/21/21 (R. 860a), indicated that it would be 

“oppressive, vexatious, and inconvenient” for him to appear in Butler County. 

Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 6. 

Although the trial court considered the representations by various 

potential StoneMor witnesses who indicated that traveling to Philadelphia 

would not be a hardship, the court concluded that “the hardships presented 

by [Appellees’] witnesses formed a sufficient basis to transfer the matter to 

Butler County.” Id. While all four of Appellees’ witnesses presented sufficient 

information for the court to “determine the veracity and weight of the financial 

and/or personal hardships that traveling from Butler County to Philadelphia 

would present to each witness,” Appellants’ supplemental deposition 

transcripts and the Miller affidavit “did little to convince this court that 

[Appellants’] selected witnesses would encounter hardships if required to 

travel to Butler County.” Id. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s grant of Appellees’ 

petition to transfer. In fact, we find it consistent with our Supreme Court’s 

decision in Bratic, which recognized that “distance alone is not dispositive, 

but it is inherently part of the equation.” Bratic, 99 A.3d at 9. As our 

Supreme Court observed:

While typically the fact that the site of the precipitating event was 

outside of plaintiff’s choice of forum is not dispositive, it is 
J-A19019-23

- 11 -

axiomatic that when the case involves a transfer from Philadelphia 

to a more distant county . . ., factors such as the burden of travel, 

time out of the office, disruption to business operations, and the 

greater difficulty involved in obtaining witnesses and sources of 

proof are more significant.

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). While Bratic involved a 

transfer from Philadelphia County to Dauphin County, a distance of 

approximately 100 miles, the instant case involves a transfer from 

Philadelphia County to Butler County, “the site of the precipitating event,” id., 

a distance of approximately 300 miles. As the Court noted in Bratic, “As 

between Philadelphia and adjoining Bucks County, the situation 

in Cheeseman, we speak of mere inconvenience; as between Philadelphia 

and counties 100 miles away, simple inconvenience fades in the mirror and 

we near oppressiveness with every milepost of the turnpike and Schuylkill 

Expressway.” Id. at 10. 

If inconvenience fades in the mirror and oppressiveness nears in that 

100-mile stretch between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, oppressiveness is 

certainly reached before someone embarks on a 300-mile journey leaving 

from Bulter, traveling past Bedford, Breezewood, and through the turnpike’s 

tunnels, before reaching Harrisburg, with another 100 miles still to go before 

arriving in Philadelphia.

We find that the trial court properly exercised its considerable discretion 

when, after considering the entire record, it determined that Appellees carried 

their burden of demonstrating oppressiveness warranting the transfer of this 
J-A19019-23

- 12 -

case to Butler County.4 Because a proper basis exists for the trial court’s 

decision to transfer venue, that decision must stand. Bratic, 99 A.3d at 8. 

Appellants’ first issue fails.

Appellants next ask whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

failing to permit Appellants to undertake additional discovery. Specifically, 

Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion or committed error 

of law by failing to issue a rule to show cause in response to Appellees’ petition 

to transfer venue and by “failing to allow [Appellants] to take the targeted 

forum non conveniens depositions that Pa.R.Civ.P. 206.7(d)[5] authorizes to 

create a factual record necessary” to oppose Appellees’ petition to transfer 

venue. Appellants’ Brief at 6. Appellants’ argument is premised on its 

erroneous interpretation of Rule 206.1 as a rule applicable to a petition to 

transfer venue.

Rule 206.1(a) provides as follows: 

(a) As used in this chapter, “petition” means

(1) an application to strike and/or open a default judgment or a 

judgment of non pros, and

____________________________________________

4

In the Conclusion to its opinion, the court reiterated the deference granted 

to trial courts in ordering a transfer; noted that Appellees satisfied their 

burden of demonstrating oppressiveness; and indicated it considered the 

entire record in rendering its decision. Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 8. 

5 Pa.R.Civ.P. 206.7(d) provides that “[t]he respondent may take depositions, 

or other such discovery as the court allows.” 
J-A19019-23

- 13 -

(2) any other application which is designated by local rule, 

numbered Local Rule 206.1(a), to be governed by Rule 

206.1 et seq.

Note: A petition for relief from a judgment by confession is 

governed by Rule 2959.

Motions are governed by Rule 208.1 et seq.

Rule 206.1(a)(2) authorizes each court of common 

pleas to designate applications which are to proceed 

in the manner of a petition under Rule 206.1 et seq. 

Rule 239.2(a) requires each court which has made 

that designation to promulgate a local rule, numbered 

Local Rule 206.1(a), listing the applications to be 

determined pursuant to Rule 206.1 et seq.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 206.1(a) (emphasis added). The petition at issue here is clearly

not an application to strike and/or open a default judgment or a judgment of

non pros under Rule 206.1(a)(1). Therefore, we consider whether the Court

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County has designated a petition to transfer

venue as a “petition” under Rule 206.1(a)(2). If so, then Rule 206.6(a)

dictates that “[a] rule to show cause shall be issued as of course upon the

filing of the petition.” 

In accordance with Rule 239.2(a), Philadelphia County has promulgated

Local Rule 206.1(a) (Designation of Petitions), which provides:

(1) In addition to petitions to open default judgment and petitions 

to open judgment of non pros, the following applications are 

designated “petitions” and are governed by the procedures set 

forth in Pa.R.C.P. 206.1 et seq.: 

(i) Petition to Appoint Arbitrator; 

(ii) Petition to Appoint A Receiver; 

(iii) Petition to Compel Arbitration; 

(iv) Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; 
J-A19019-23

- 14 -

(v) Petition to Confirm Settlement; 

(vi) Petition for Contempt; 

(vii) Petition to Set Aside Arbitration Award; 

(viii) Statutory Petitions; and 

(ix) Petition to Appoint a Sequestrator[.]

Phila. Civ. R. 206.1(a)(1). Because a petition to transfer venue is not included 

in Philadelphia County’s definition of “petition,” Pa.R.Civ.P. 206.6(a) and 

206.7(d) do not apply. 

Even though the trial court was not under any obligation to issue a rule 

to show cause or to permit Appellants to undertake additional discovery, the 

court nevertheless did authorize Appellants to submit additional affidavits 

limited to the issue of forum non conveniens. The trial court appropriately 

rejected Appellants’ assertions regarding the court’s October 28, 2021 order 

that authorized additional discovery, stating:

[Appellants] also make a bald assertion that this court did not 

afford the parties an opportunity to take full and complete 

discovery on the limited issue of forum non conveniens. To the 

contrary, this court specifically allowed [Appellants] to cherry pick 

six (6) witnesses of their choosing and provide this court with 

affidavits limited to the issue of forum non conveniens in its 

October 28, 2021 order. Accordingly, this court did not commit 

an error of law or abuse of discretion when it specifically allowed 

[Appellants] to take additional discovery and provide the court 

with affidavits on the issue of forum non conveniens.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

Appellants suggest that the court’s explanation “fails to persuade, and 

indeed confirms that the trial court abused its discretion,” because “the only 

potential witnesses from whom [Appellants] could obtain affidavits—without 
J-A19019-23

- 15 -

running afoul of ethical rules prohibiting ex parte contacts . . . were witnesses 

under Appellants’ control.” Appellants’ Brief at 22. 

We first note that Appellants seem to have lost sight of the fact that a 

defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of demonstrating that a 

plaintiff’s choice of forum is oppressive or vexatious. If Appellants were 

challenging venue in Butler County, attempting to move the case to 

Philadelphia County, Appellants’ claimed inability to secure affidavits might 

come into play. However, here, it was Appellees’ burden to demonstrate 

oppressiveness or vexatiousness, not Appellants’ burden to defend its choice 

of venue initially or demonstrate oppressiveness to themselves or their 

witnesses. See Moody v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., 179 A.3d 496, 508 (Pa. 

Super. 2018) (plaintiff did not have burden to prove that transferee county 

“was oppressive to certain individuals, and such evidence was irrelevant to 

the inquiry herein.”).6

____________________________________________

6

In Tranter v. Z&D Tour, Inc., No. 1746 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed October 

11, 2023), a panel of this Court reversed a trial court’s transfer from 

Philadelphia County based on forum non conveniens after concluding that 

ambulance drivers, firefighters, paramedics, and a coroner who responded to 

a fatal bus crash in Westmoreland County were not key witnesses for the 

defense and that the defense failed to establish how their testimony would be 

relevant to or necessary to the appellees’ defense. By contrast, in the instant 

case, the defense established, inter alia, that Appellant’s co-workers—plant 

manager Donley and foreman Rager—were “central” or “critical” witnesses 

whose testimony would be relevant and necessary in this hand amputation 

case involving a cement mixer located in the Semper Concrete facility located 

in Butler County. Therefore, we find Tranter distinguishable. 
J-A19019-23

- 16 -

It is also important to recognize that, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, 

Appellants were not foreclosed from conducting forum non conveniens 

depositions. See Appellants’ Brief at 12. As Appellees observe:

Over many months, the parties engaged in extensive forum non 

conveniens discovery, and counsel cooperated to schedule the 

seven depositions that [Appellants] took. [Appellees’] counsel 

also offered other depositions that [Appellants] refused. Thus, the 

trial court neither precluded nor expressly allowed depositions or 

other discovery because they were already ongoing.

In particular, . . . [Appellants] deposed three of [Smith’s] coworkers, John Donley, Dan Rager, and Dale Robertson, he 

deposed the building code inspector, Richard Round, and he 

rejected offers to depose [Smith’s] other two co-workers, Floyd 

Fisher and Jason Palmer. Having either deposed or refused to 

depose witnesses who are, by any reasonable measure, highly 

relevant to this case, [Appellants] chose to depose three 

additional StoneMor employees [i.e., James Kuntz, Amy Green, 

and Marc Bing-Zaremba].

Appellees’ Brief at 48.

Appellees suggest that “the numerous affidavits, depositions, and briefs 

submitted in this case went far beyond what is routine.” Appellees’ Brief at 

51 (referencing review of case law on pages 35-38). They further note: 

The trial court simply placed reasonable limitations on additional 

burdensome and largely irrelevant venue discovery. This middleground approach was especially necessary and appropriate after 

it because apparent that—as illustrated by [Appellants’] 

submission of an affidavit from Deborah Lasky, who had no 

relevant information and left StoneMor’s employ nine years before 

the accident—[Appellants] were seeking discovery from Appellees’ 

former and current employees based on their proximity to 

Philadelphia, not based on whether they had relevant information.

Id. 
J-A19019-23

- 17 -

We find no abuse of discretion or error of law with respect to the scope 

of discovery authorized by the trial court. Appellants’ second issue lacks 

merit. 

Finding no merit in either of Appellants’ issues, we shall not disturb the 

trial court’s March 7, 2022 order transferring venue from Philadelphia County 

to Butler County. 

Order affirmed. 

Date: 10/30/2023