Court Opinion

ID: 9893803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 17:09:19.575257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:49.859717
License: Public Domain

J-A19019-23

                                  2023 PA Super 218

  LARRY SMITH AND KELLY SMITH,                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  H/W                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellants              :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1002 EDA 2022
  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)                             :

                   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

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.”

                                           -2-
J-A19019-23

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.

                                           -3-
J-A19019-23

        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

                                       -4-
J-A19019-23

         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).

                                     -5-
J-A19019-23

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).

                                           -6-
J-A19019-23

      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

                                     -7-
J-A19019-23

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

                                     -8-
J-A19019-23

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 Bing-

Zaremba, testified that traveling to Philadelphia would not be a hardship for

him. Id. Finally, by affidavit, StoneMor executive Mark Miller, who is expected

                                      -9-
J-A19019-23

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

                                     - 10 -
J-A19019-23

      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

                                     - 11 -
J-A19019-23

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.”

                                          - 12 -
J-A19019-23

      (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;

                                     - 13 -
J-A19019-23

            (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

                                     - 14 -
J-A19019-23

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.

                                          - 15 -
J-A19019-23

      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] co-
      workers, 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 middle-
      ground 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.

                                    - 16 -
J-A19019-23

     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

                                       - 17 -