Court Opinion

ID: 9394921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 16:08:27.573773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.120144
License: Public Domain

J-A08031-23

                                   2023 PA Super 84

    CARDINAL MIDSTREAM II, LLC,                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INDIVIDUALLY, AND PER                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
    MIDSTREAM, LLC, BY AND THROUGH             :
    CARDINAL MIDSTREAM II, LLC, ITS            :
    SELLERS REPRESENTATIVE                     :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :   No. 609 WDA 2022
                                               :
    ENERGY TRANSFER LP, F/K/A                  :
    ENERGY TRANSFER OPERATING,                 :
    L.P., F/K/A ENERGY TRANSFER                :
    PARTNERS, L.P., AND ETC                    :
    NORTHEAST PIPELINE, LLC, F/K/A             :
    ETC NORTHEAST MIDSTREAM, LLC,              :
    F/K/A ETC CARDINAL MIDSTREAM,              :
    LLC                                        :
                                               :
                       Appellants              :

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Civil Division at No(s):
                                 10523 of 2021

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

OPINION BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                          FILED: May 16, 2023

        The substantive issue in this appeal concerns whether engineering

reports required by governmental agencies are privileged work product when

prepared at the direction of corporate counsel.          The Appellants (Energy

Transfer LP, F/K/A Energy Transfer Operating, L.P., F/K/A Energy Transfer

Partners, L.P., and ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, F/K/A ETC Northeast

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08031-23

Midstream, LLC, F/K/A ETC Cardinal Midstream, LLC) (collectively, ETC), were

ordered to turn over to the Appellees (Cardinal Midstream II, LLC, individually,

and per Midstream, LLC, by and through Cardinal Midstream II, LLC, its sellers

representative (collectively, Cardinal), expert reports which ETC had, by

government mandate, created during an investigation of a gas pipeline

explosion.   The Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County (trial court)

determined that ETC’s expert reports were not privileged, making them

discoverable by Cardinal, the plaintiff in the underlying breach of contract

action which stems from the pipeline incident.     For the reasons below, we

affirm the trial court’s order.

                                       I.

      On September 10, 2018, a landslide in Beaver County caused the

Revolution Pipeline (the pipeline) to explode, resulting in a large fire that

caused significant property damage and pollution of the surrounding area.

Allegedly, pursuant to the 2017 Membership Interest Purchase Agreement

(MIPA) between ETC and Cardinal, ETC was responsible for the construction

and maintenance of the pipeline. The explosion occurred before the pipeline

was completed.

      Following the explosion, Cardinal filed a complaint against ETC, alleging

two counts of breach of contract and damages totaling $55,000,000.

According to the allegations in the complaint, ETC was obligated under the

MIPA to enable Cardinal and its affiliates to transport natural gas through the

                                     -2-
J-A08031-23

pipeline, but the explosion (allegedly caused by ETC’s faulty construction and

maintenance) prevented Cardinal from ever using the pipeline for that

purpose.    It was also alleged that ETC was contractually bound to tender

“earnout” payments to Cardinal if its subsidiaries were ready to use the

pipeline and meet certain delivery thresholds.         Cardinal’s most recent

complaint was filed on June 30, 2021, and it outlines in greater detail the finer

points of the natural gas delivery process, as well as the structure of the

earnout payments. See Amended Complaint, 6/30/2021, at paras. 22-33.1

       Separate and apart from Cardinal’s suit, state and federal statutes

allowed state and federal agencies to require ETC to retain experts to

investigate the cause of the pipeline accident and submit their findings to

government authorities.        To that end, ETC hired three consultants in the

aftermath of the pipeline explosion to identify what went wrong. The three

experts were GeoEngineers, Inc.; Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc.;

and Kiefner & Associates.

____________________________________________

1  While crucial to the contractual duties of the respective parties, the
intricacies of the pipeline system and the financial structure of the MIPA are
not germane to the dispositive issues in this appeal – whether ETC’s reports
are discoverable. It suffices to say that Cardinal would be due money
damages if ETC is found liable for a breach of contract, and that ETC’s reports
contain expert opinions which potentially bear on ETC’s contractual liability.
Whether ETC breached a contractual duty as Cardinal alleges is not before us
in this appeal.

                                           -3-
J-A08031-23

      The experts’ analyses were documented in four different reports, all of

which ETC turned over to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection (PADEP); the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PPUC); the

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (POAG); and the U.S. Attorney for the

Western District of Pennsylvania (DOJ).

      ETC contends that these reports must be afforded the protections of

Pennsylvania Rule     of Civil Procedure    4003.5(a)(3),    which   limits the

discoverability of facts and opinions held by non-testifying experts retained by

a party in anticipation of litigation.   As to PADEP, PPUC and POAG – the

Pennsylvania government entities – ETC also sought to have the material in

the reports treated as confidential security information under 35 P.S.

§ 2141.1. As to the federal entity, the DOJ, the reports were designated by

ETC as strictly confidential under the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

      The reports were also a central focus of two civil matters.          In a

declaratory judgment action arising from the same pipeline explosion

(PennEnergy Resources, LLC v. ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, GD 19-

013445), Judge Christine Ward of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny

County ruled that the reports now at issue were not privileged as ETC had

contended. The reports were, rather, deemed discoverable to the plaintiff,

PennEnergy, which is an affiliate of Cardinal.     ETC sought review of that

discovery order, but the case (PennEnergy I) was settled while the appeal

on the discovery issue was still pending, rendering the appeal moot.

                                     -4-
J-A08031-23

      PennEnergy is also engaged in a separate arbitration with ETC that is

ongoing. After serving document subpoenas on ETC to obtain the reports,

PennEnergy moved to enforce its subpoenas in PennEnergy Resources, LLC

v. ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, and Energy Transfer, LP, GD 21-011043

(PennEnergy II). ETC objected, and in response, Judge Philip Ignelzi of the

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County ordered ETC to produce the

reports.     ETC appealed, but while the appeal was pending, Judge Ignelzi

entered a sanction order compelling ETC to produce the reports within two

hours of the order’s entry. The sanction order also imposed a potential fine

of $1,000,000 per day in the event of ETC’s non-compliance. While reserving

its appellate rights, ETC complied and produced the reports to PennEnergy.

However, this Court dismissed ETC’s appeal, and our Supreme Court denied

allocatur.

      The instant case brought by Cardinal against ETC has progressed amid

the above-described web of interconnected disputes over the discoverability

of the reports. Even though its affiliate, PennEnergy, already has possession

of the reports in a finalized case (PennEnergy II), Cardinal has filed

interrogatories and document requests seeking ETC’s disclosure of the

reports. Cardinal has also given notice of its intent to serve a subpoena on

one of ETC’s subsidiaries (ETC Northeast Field Services), again seeking the

disclosure of the materials now at issue. ETC objected to the subpoena and

all of Cardinal’s interrogatories on the grounds of privilege and confidentiality.

                                      -5-
J-A08031-23

       On March 24, 2022, Cardinal filed a “Motion to Compel Discovery

Directed to [ETC] and Overrule [ETC’s] Objections to Third Party Subpoena.”

ETC filed a response and a supplemental response. On April 22, 2022, the

trial court ruled that any privilege ETC may have had with respect to the

reports was waived as to all of ETC’s potential adversaries once the reports

were voluntarily disclosed to governmental agencies. The reasons for that

decision were stated in greater detail in the trial court’s 1925(a) opinion, which

substantially adopted the waiver-based approach of Judge Ward in the

PennEnergy I matter discussed above. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion,

7/7/2022, at 8-10 (employing work product waiver analysis based on the

reasoning of BouSamra v. Excela Health, 210 A.3d 967, 978 (Pa. 2019),

and Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414,

1429 (3d Cir. 1991).2

       ETC timely appealed, raising two main issues in its appellate brief

concerning issues of waiver:

       1. Did the [trial court] err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion
       in finding a blanket waiver of the protection under Rule 4003.5
       based on the disclosure of consulting reports in response to
       compulsory process and pursuant to confidentiality requirements?
____________________________________________

2 In yet another related case stemming from the explosion of the Revolution
Pipeline, a New York appellate court upheld the denial of ETC’s motion for a
protective order as to the reports. The New York Court found that ETC’s
privilege claim had been fully litigated in the two PennEnergy cases, where
the reports were found to be not privileged and discoverable. See GSCP VI
Edgemarc Holdings, LLC et al v. ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, 211
A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).

                                           -6-
J-A08031-23

       2. Did the [trial court] err as a matter of law and/or abuse its
       discretion by failing to find that even if the privilege and/or
       protection were waivable, [ETC] did not waive the privilege and/or
       protection here?

Appellant’s Brief, at 6 (suggested answers omitted). Because the reports have

been disclosed in the other cases, ETC also sought a “claw back” of those

reports so that Cardinal could not use them against ETC in subsequent

litigation.

       Cardinal, for its part, contends that this appeal should be quashed for

lack of jurisdiction because ETC has sought review of a collateral order that is

not appealable.      Alternatively, Cardinal argues that the appeal should be

dismissed as moot because the reports at issue have already been disclosed

to Cardinal.3    In the event that the appeal is not quashed or found moot,

Cardinal seeks affirmance of the trial court’s order on the grounds that ETC is

collaterally estopped from relitigating whether the reports are discoverable

because the identical issue was fully litigated in the PennEnergy cases; the

reports are not privileged; and ETC waived its present challenge by previously

disclosing the reports to governmental agencies without being compelled to

do so by a subpoena or court order.

____________________________________________

3Prior to briefing, Cardinal raised its jurisdictional and mootness grounds in
an application to dismiss ETC’s instant appeal, and ETC filed a response. The
application was deferred to the panel assigned to determine the merits of the
appeal.

                                           -7-
J-A08031-23

      ETC responded in its reply brief that this Court has jurisdiction because,

in short, discovery orders are immediately reviewable.       The appeal is not

moot, according to ETC, because it is entitled to “claw back” discovery material

that it had been erroneously compelled to produce where, as here, its

adversary would otherwise be able to exploit that material in subsequent

proceedings to the detriment of ETC.

      As to collateral estoppel, ETC argues that the doctrine does not apply

because the prior cases in which the reports were ordered to be disclosed

(PennEnergy I and II) were resolved before a court made a final

adjudication, and the issue of the reports’ discoverability was not essential to

the underlying disputes in the cases. Moreover, ETC asserts that it did not

waive any privileges in disclosing the reports in other cases because ETC

disclosed them involuntarily while invoking its right to keep the material

confidential.

                                       II.

      We begin by addressing Cardinal’s various contentions that ETC is

procedurally barred from appealing the trial court’s order. First, contrary to

Cardinal’s claim that this Court lacks jurisdiction, the discovery order on

review is immediately reviewable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.

See generally Pa.R.A.P. 313(b); Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243,

248 (Pa. 2011) (“orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring

disclosures [are] immediately appealable.”). Under Pa.R.A.P. 313(b), which

                                     -8-
J-A08031-23

codifies the doctrine, an appeal may be taken from an otherwise unappealable

order if (1) the order is separable from and collateral to the main cause of

action; the right involved is too important to be denied review; and (3) the

claim will be irreparably lost if review is postponed until after the final

judgment. See Harris, 32 A.3d at 248.

      The more specific jurisdictional point Cardinal raises as to the third

prong – that the subject discovery order is not appealable because ETC’s

reports have already been turned over – is unavailing. Cardinal highlights

language in Harris which suggests that once privileged material “is in the

open, the bell has been rung, and cannot be unrung by a later appeal.” Id.

at 249.   Apparently recognizing that this comment was dicta because the

putatively privileged material in Harris was not disclosed to the party seeking

disclosure, see 32 A.3d at 250-51, Cardinal also emphasizes the non-

precedential decision in Commonwealth v. Buttolph, 1471 MDA 2012 (Pa.

Super. November 26, 2013) (unpublished memorandum).

      In that latter case, a criminal defendant sought to exclude inculpatory

statements he made to his wife, invoking the marital privilege to bar admission

of those statements at trial. Yet, in a later preliminary hearing, the defendant

elicited those same statements from his wife while she was on the witness

stand.    On appeal, the Buttolph Court found that, “under the specific

circumstances” of the case, the third prong of Rule 313(b) could not be met

                                     -9-
J-A08031-23

because “the bell has already been rung . . . [and] it was [the party asserting

privilege] who rung it.” Buttolph, 1471 MDA 2012, at *8.

       We find that Buttolph does not apply. The unpublished decision is not

controlling,4 and regardless, its outcome resulted from distinguishable facts.

Unlike the defendant in Buttolph, the party invoking privilege here (ETC) was

compelled to make its disclosure, at which time ETC turned over its material

subject to its continuous assertions of privilege and confidentiality. ETC also

produced its reports in the course of regulatory compliance, or in response to

court orders, not haphazardly on the witness stand.          Thus, the “specific

circumstances” of Buttolph are simply not present here, and we see no

compelling reason to quash ETC’s appeal and thereby limit its ability to secure

the confidentiality of its reports as its case against Cardinal unfolds.

       Second, we find that ETC is not collaterally estopped from asserting a

work product privilege in this case despite its prior disclosure of the reports.

For collateral estoppel to apply, there had to be a final adjudication on the

merits in the prior PennEnergy cases in which the reports were made

discoverable; the discovery orders in those case also had to be “essential to

the judgment.” See City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of

____________________________________________

4Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) provides that an unpublished or “non-precedential decision”
of the Superior Court may at most be cited for its persuasive value. Further,
the rule only allows this Court to consider the persuasive value of unpublished
decisions filed on or after May 1, 2019. Buttolph was filed prior to that date.

                                          - 10 -
J-A08031-23

City of Pittsburgh, 559 A.2d 896, 901 (Pa. 1989).                However, ETC

discontinued its then-pending appeal of the discovery order in PennEnergy I

when the case was settled, and ETC was denied appellate review of the order

in PennEnergy II.      In neither case was there a final adjudication of the

underlying issue on the merits, nor was an issue essential to the judgment

ever resolved. The discovery orders in the PennEnergy cases, therefore, do

not collaterally stop ETC from having this Court consider the merits of its work

product claim. See Commonwealth v. Hude, 425 A.2d 313, 319 (Pa. 1980).

      Third, the present appeal is not moot as Cardinal contends.          “As a

general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of the

judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as moot.” In re M.B., 101 A.3d

124, 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.

Super. 2002)).    “An issue before a court is moot when a determination is

sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect

on the existing controversy.” Printed Image of York, Inc. v. Mifflin Press,

Ltd., 133 A.3d 55, 59 (Pa. Super. 2016).

      Despite that Cardinal has already received ETC’s reports through its

affiliate, PennEnergy, ETC has identified ways in which it could be prejudiced

by the subject discovery order during the remainder of the underlying case.

The reports, for example, could be used against ETC at the summary judgment

stage or at trial. Were this Court to decline consideration of the merits of this

appeal, it would deprive ETC of the opportunity to seek appellate relief from

                                     - 11 -
J-A08031-23

that prejudice, as it was afforded no appellate merits consideration in either

of the PennEnergy cases. Accordingly, Cardinal’s possession of the subject

material, if erroneously granted, does not necessarily render the discovery

issue moot because Cardinal’s continued possession could still have a practical

effect on the existing controversy.

                                           III.

       Turning to the merits of ETC’s appeal, we find that no relief is due

because the trial court did not err in directing ETC to disclose the subject

reports to Cardinal. Although the trial court resolved the parties’ discovery

dispute by finding a waiver of privilege on the part of ETC, we hold that the

order on review must be affirmed because none of the reports were privileged

work product in the first place.5

       “A party may not discover facts known or opinions held by an expert

who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation

of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a

____________________________________________

5 “Generally, in reviewing the propriety of a discovery order, our standard of
review is whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. However,
to the extent that we are faced with questions of law, our scope of review is
plenary.” Gormley v. Edgar, 995 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2010). This
Court may uphold a trial court’s order for any valid reason appearing in the
record, even if the reason is different from the one given by the trial court.
See Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2009).

                                          - 12 -
J-A08031-23

witness at trial[.]” Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.5(a)(3).6 The critical question, then,

is whether ETC retained or specially employed those experts “in anticipation

of litigation or preparation for trial.” We find that because ETC was required

to prepare those expert reports, ETC did not retain its experts or commission

their reports for purposes that would bar them from Cardinal’s discovery as

privileged work product under Rule 4003.5(a)(3).

       When a natural gas pipeline explodes, federal and state statutes permit

governmental regulatory bodies to not only compel the production of failed

sections of the pipeline, but also to mandate the creation of documents by

expert witnesses as to the cause of the accident. See 58 Pa.C.S. § 3258(c)

(statute authorizing PADEP to subpoena documents and pipeline materials for

inspection); 66 Pa.C.S. § 309 (Pennsylvania Public Utility Code authorizing

Commonwealth to compel production of witnesses and documents); see also

C.F.R. § 192.617 (similar federal statute authorizing investigation of pipeline

____________________________________________

6 We note that that Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.5(a)(3) is an exception to Rule 4003.3
which generally “permits discovery of work product, so long as the work
product does not reflect or include mental impressions of a party’s attorney or
his or her conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal
research or legal theories.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.3. Work product that does
not reflect or include these items is discoverable “even though” prepared in
anticipation of litigation. Id. Thus, the Rule does not limit work product
protection to materials prepared in anticipation. Rather, materials prepared
in anticipation are not automatically protected. Nowhere does the Rule limit
its protection of “mental impressions of a party’s attorney or his or her
conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or
legal theories to materials prepared in anticipation.” Est. of Paterno v. Nat'l
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (NCAA), 168 A.3d 187, 200 (Pa. Super. 2017).

                                          - 13 -
J-A08031-23

failures). Pursuant to those provisions, ETC was directed to retain experts to

compile reports assessing why a section of its pipeline exploded in Beaver

County in 2018. These directives required ETC to compile reports analyzing

the cause of the incident regardless of the prospect of litigation.

      Such corporate conduct – addressing a pipeline explosion in accordance

with the directives of government regulators and binding law – is necessarily

within ETC’s regular course of business.       What makes this all the more

apparent is that the reports created and submitted by ETC to the

governmental agencies were identical to the reports it created in response to

the agencies’ directives. These experts did not, insofar as the record reflects,

generate separate analyses for ETC to use in potential litigation.         This

undercuts ETC’s claim that it had independently generated the reports in

preparation for litigation because, if that were completely true, the reports

would not have been perfectly responsive to government demands for such

disclosures.

      It follows that ETC’s primary purpose in creating those reports was not

merely its anticipation of litigation. Even assuming that ETC invoked statutory

confidentiality protections when disclosing the reports to government

agencies, which would not somehow transform the character of the reports or

                                     - 14 -
J-A08031-23

the conditions in which their creation was mandated, such that they would

have to be treated as work product.7

       Thus, because the reports were produced by experts retained by ETC in

response to government directives, the reports were not privileged work

product under Rule 4003.5(a)(3). See e.g., Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern,

664 A.2d 525, 531–32 (Pa. 1995) (holding that, because county coroner

formed opinions as to time of death and cause of death in the performance of

his official duties, these opinions “were not acquired or developed with an eye

toward litigation, [and so] Rule 4003.5 is inapplicable[.]”); see also Ziegler

v. Easton Suburban Water Auth., 43 A.3d 553, 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)

(same): Jahanshahi v. Centura Dev. Co., Inc., 816 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super.

2003) (same).

____________________________________________

7 The statutory confidentiality provisions invoked by ETC would seem to, at
most, bar government agencies from disclosing the reports to third parties.
See e.g., 35 P.S. § 2141.5(a) (precluding an agency from disclosing “a public
utility record or portion thereof which contains confidential security
information[.]”). However, these confidentiality provisions do not speak to
whether the reports must then be treated as work product as ETC suggests.
Although there appear to be no cases directly on point as to this question, we
note that ETC’s interpretation of 35 P.S. § 2141.5(a) is somewhat inconsistent
with the statute’s stated purpose, which is to limit public disclosure of sensitive
“security information.” ETC has not specified what sensitive information would
be revealed by the discovery of the reports. In any event, the pipeline in this
case has already exploded, so it is unclear how affording ETC an advantageous
privilege in a private contract dispute would implicate the public security
interests advanced by the statute.

                                          - 15 -
J-A08031-23

        In affirming the trial court’s discovery order on the ground that ETC’s

reports are not privileged, it is not necessary for this Court to resolve the

remaining waiver issues argued by the parties on appeal.

        Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date:    5/16/2023

                                     - 16 -