Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dougherty v. Heller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 14, 2014Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

MUNDY, J.

I join the Majority insofar that it decides the order at issue is appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. However, I disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that Appellant failed to establish good cause for protective relief pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4012. After thoroughly reviewing the certified record, I believe that good cause exists for the minimal protection requested by Appellant, to wit, restricting the pretrial use of his videotaped deposition to litigation purposes. In my view, the trial court abused…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. John A. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg Harold A. Bentzoni Kathryn Mikels John W. Osborne, II William Reber Mary Jean Knapik Maryann West Kowalshyn Richard F. Osswald Carl R. Rogers v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. T/a Pocono Record, Ronald F. Bouchard Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, Intervenors/appellantsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  3. PETOW v. WarehimeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. McNeil v. JordanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Middletown Township v. Lands of StoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API