Court Opinion

ID: 9751447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:27:50.350411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.970136
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
STRASSBURGER, J.:
I join the majority opinion in all respects except the requirement imposed upon the trial court in resolving the outstanding discovery dispute. I respectfully dissent to the portion of the opinion mandating that *1180trial court review the documents in camera.
I believe that in camera inspection of disputed documents should be undertaken only in rare circumstances. As noted by the Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., the judge presiding over discovery matters in the Civil Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, “review of documents in camera is likely to raise more questions than it answers.” R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., The Operation of Our Discovery Rules in the Context of the Production of Documents, The BarRister, Summer 1990, at 86. Without the benefit of input from counsel, a trial judge is “frequently not in a position to make an informed judgment concerning the discoverability of a document.” Id. Further, if in camera inspection of documents is used regularly and frequently to resolve discovery disputes, the parties from whom documents are sought “are less likely to assume responsibility for compliance with the discovery rules[,]” and “may take the position that compliance has become the court’s responsibility^]” Id.
None of the cases cited by the majority supports our requiring the trial court to conduct a review of the documents in camera. See, e.g., Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of the Christian Charity, 32 A.3d 800, 812 (Pa.Super.2011) (acknowledging that in camera review may be necessary upon remand), T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050, 1063 (Pa.Super.2008) (noting that the case lacked any privilege log, and that if the responding party was able to identify privileged material upon remand, the trial court “may” conduct in camera review of those doeu-ments), In re Estate of Wood, 818 A.2d 568, 573 (Pa.Super.2003) (instructing the trial court to review material in camera only if the party is uncertain what is discoverable under the applicable order).
“Discovery rulings are ‘uniquely within the discretion of the trial judge[.]’ ” Rohm and Haas Co. v. Lin, 992 A.2d 132, 143 (Pa.Super.2010) (quoting George v. Schirra, 814 A.2d 202, 204 (Pa.Super.2002)). “The trial court is responsible for overseeing ‘discovery between the parties and therefore it is within that court’s discretion to determine the appropriate measures necessary to insure adequate and prompt discovery of matters allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.’ ” Id. (quoting Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117, 1125 (Pa.Super.2007)).
In the course of discovery in the instant case, the Bergs first requested a privilege log, then in camera review of the disputed documents. Majority Memorandum at 27. As the trial court noted, it never made any ruling on the merits of the Bergs’ requests. Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/2004, at 6. While I agree with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Bergs’ motion as untimely, upon remand I would allow the trial court its full range of discretion in determining how to assure that the Bergs get the documents to which they are entitled.1

. For example, when a party has withheld documents or portions thereof, Judge Wettick employs the practice of requiring counsel to file an affidavit which states that counsel has personally reviewed the withheld documents and details the factual and legal basis for withholding the information. Wettick, supra, at 36. "This affidavit assures me that counsel of record (rather than the client or in-house counsel) has assumed responsibility for the decision. Also, I believe that counsel will not *1181file such an affidavit without carefully reviewing the documents.” Id.