Case Name: David and Kristi GERROW, h/w, Respondents v. JOHN ROYLE & SONS and Shincor Silicones, Inc. Petition of Shincor Silicones, Inc
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2001-02-23
Citations: 564 Pa. 227
Docket Number: Petition No. 482 EAL 2000
Parties: David and Kristi GERROW, h/w, Respondents v. JOHN ROYLE & SONS and Shincor Silicones, Inc. Petition of Shincor Silicones, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 564
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
766 A.2d 346
David and Kristi GERROW, h/w, Respondents v. JOHN ROYLE & SONS and Shincor Silicones, Inc. Petition of Shincor Silicones, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb. 23, 2001.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 23nd day of February, 2001, the court grants the above-captioned matter, and requests that the parties address the following issues:
a. Whether Rule 1035.3(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to supplement the record with additional evidence, rather than limiting such evidence merely to that intended to supplement evidence already of record.
b. Whether the coordinate jurisdiction rule precludes the trial court's consideration of an expert report, appended to the answer to a motion for summary judgment, that was not filed before the deadline for discovery set by a different judge in the case management order.