PHILIP A. IGNELZI, INDIVIDUALLY, PHILIP A. IGNELZI AND MARIANNE IGNELZI, HUSBAND AND WIFE
OGG, CORDES, MURPHY AND IGNELZI, LLP; GARY J. OGG; SAMUEL J. CORDES; MICHAEL A. MURPHY, INDIVIDUALLY; MICHAEL A. MURPHY AND REBECCA MURPHY, HUSBAND AND WIFE; OGG, MURPHY, AND PERKOSKY, LLP; JOHN D. PERKOSKY; AND ESQUIRE REALTY ASSOCIATESAPPEAL OF: GARY J. OGG, MICHAEL A. MURPHY AND REBECCA MURPHY, OGG, MURPHY AND PERKOSKY, LLP, AND JOHN D. PERKOSKY
from the Order Entered May 20, 2016, in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): GD
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES, and STRASSBURGER,
Ogg, Michael A. Murphy, Rebecca Murphy, John D. Perkosky, and
Ogg, Murphy, and Perkosky, LLP (OMP) (collectively,
Appellants) appeal from the discovery order entered May 20,
2016, which granted in part and denied in part their motion
for protective order. After review, we quash this appeal.
litigation arises from a dispute among Phillip A. Ignelzi,
his former law firm, Ogg, Cordes, Murphy, and Ignelzi, LLP
(OCMI), and partners, Ogg, Cordes, and Michael Murphy. In
November of 2009, Ignelzi was elected as a judge of the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Accordingly, he could no
longer be a partner of OCMI and the law firm began
Murphy, and an associate, Perkosky, formed a new law firm,
OMP. Cordes formed his own, separate law firm. The parties
attempted to negotiate a settlement as to what the former
partners would pay Ignelzi, but they were unable to reach an
amicable resolution. Thus, on October 31, 2011, Ignelzi filed
the instant lawsuit alleging, inter alia, breach of
contract and violations of the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA),
15 Pa.C.S. §§ 8301-8365.
Court pointed out previously, "[t]he heart of the
parties' dispute in this case is Ignelzi's demand for
his partnership share of any contingent fee cases that
conclude after the dissolution of OCMI." Ignelzi v.
Ogg, Cordes, Murphy and Ignelzi, LLP, 78 A.3d 1111, 1114
(Pa. Super. 2013) (Ignelzi I). Ignelzi sought
discovery and requested the following, in relevant part.
1. Client lists for all claims or cases that the partnership
of [OCMI], or any of its partners, had accepted, or had begun
to review for acceptance, as of December 31, 2009.
2. Ledgers, books, records and client cards for any claims or
cases that the partnership of [OCMI] or any of its partners,
had accepted or begun to review for acceptance, as of
December 31, 2009.
3. Bookkeepers' summaries for 2006 through 2009.
Ignelzi's Brief at Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' First
Request for Production of Documents at 6-7).
response to the discovery request, Appellants filed a motion
for protective order. In that motion, Appellants argued that
based upon this Court's prior rulings, Ignelzi was not
entitled to the aforementioned information. Specifically,
they argued that this Court's "December 2014 [order]
essentially sets up a date-certain valuation being the date
[Ignelzi] left OCMI." Motion for Protective Order,
9/1/2015, at ¶ 18. Appellants went on to argue that
based on prior holdings of this Court,
the value of work performed by Judge Ignelzi had no
ascertainable value as of that date and discovery related to
such matters is not warranted as it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, not likely to lead to discoverable material,
violated the law of the case and would compel OMP to violate
the Rules of Ethics. Further given the confidential client
information at risk, [Appellants] simply cannot turn over all
files as [Ignelzi's] pending discovery requests demand.
Id. at ¶ 20.
argument, the trial court issued a ruling which granted in
part and denied in part Appellants' motion for protective
order. The order provided:
It is ORDERED that the motion[ is] granted in part and denied
in part as follows:
1. The motion[ is] denied to the extent that, to the extent
not provided previously, Ogg, Murphy and Cordes shall produce
to  Ignelzi, the documents identified in paragraphs [1 and
3], within 30 days after the date this order is entered.
2. Having concluded that, because of the breadth and
all-encompassing nature of the request contained in paragraph
2 , the motion[ is] granted with respect to the documents
requested in paragraph 2 .
3. To ensure confidentiality, Ignelzi shall redact the
documents to be produced pursuant to this order before being
shared with counsel. Ignelzi shall assign a number to each
client and substitute the number in place of the client's
name, with the number to be used in place of the client's
name in further proceedings. All documents and information
produced or disclosed shall remain confidential, shall be
used only as necessary in this litigation, will not be filed
of record without prior court approval, and will be disclosed
only to Ignelzi, Cordes, Murphy and their counsel, and to no
other person without prior court approval.
4. The court is of the opinion that this order involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is a
substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an
immediate appeal from this order will ...