Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Michael Korns and Anna Hosack)

In a recent case, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court found that the use of an attestation may negate the need for a full privilege log when responding to a Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. §§ 67.701 et seq., (“RTKL”) request where there are redacted privileged documents and an attestation providing context for the privilege.  In Bergere v. Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, No. 269-CD-2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. Jan. 30, 2025) the Commonwealth Court reviewed an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) Final Determination relating to a RTKL request filed by the requester with the Department of Community and Economic Development (the “Department”) which sought records relating to communications and post decisional deliberations between board members and staff members regarding a Board of Property decision in favor of the applicant on April 24, 2023 and its subsequent vacation a day later on April 25, 2023.

The Department’s Open Records Officer (“ORO”) provided 163 pages of records in response to the request with a certification attesting that a good faith search has occurred in addition to the following language:

9. Certain emails included with the responsive records were redacted per the attorney-client privilege.
10. As to the claim of attorney-client privilege in the responsive records:
    (a) the asserted holders of the attorney-client privilege, namely the Board of Property and its administrators, are clients of legal counsel, Thomas Blackburn, Esquire;
    (b) the people to whom the referenced email communications were made are (1) Thomas Blackburn, Esquire, (2) the Board Members of the Board of Property; and (3) administrators of the Board of Property;
    (c) the referenced email communications relate to facts of which legal counsel was informed by his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing assistance in a legal matter (specifically, the drafting and finalization of an Order);

…

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(by Nikolas Tysiak)

Our update is West Virginia heavy this time. Here are the cases since our last update:

Kaess v. BB Land, LLC, —S.E.2d—, 2024 WL 4784609 (November 14, 2024). Certified question to Supreme Court from U.S. District Court for Northern District of West Virginia, inquiring whether the deduction of certain costs from the delivery of royalties were allowable under West Virginia law when the lease calls for “in kind” royalty delivery After extensive analysis, the Supreme Court likened an “in kind” royalty provision as being similar to a “flat” royalty provision, and ultimately held that lessor under a lease with an in kind royalty provision where the lessor elects NOT to take oil and gas in kind is not subject to the deduction of post-production costs as a matter of West Virginia law.

Venable Royalty Ltd. v. EQT Production Company, 908 S.E.2d 501 (W. Va. I. C., 2024). The Intermediate Court was presented with the problem of determining whether non-participating royalty interests (“NPRIs”) should be classified as “real estate” or “personal property” as a matter of West Virginia law. The NPRI at issue was conveyed by a tax deed following a delinquent tax sale concerning the interest. One side argued that the tax deed was void because an NPRI is personal property. The other side claimed that the tax deed was successful because an NPRI is assessable as real estate, rendering the tax deed effective as to the reserved NPRI. After reviewing the available authorities, the Intermediate Court determined that NPRIs should be classified as real estate interests because they are vested real property.

Romeo v. Antero Resources Corporation, —S.E.2d—, 2024 WL 4784706 (November 14, 2024). Another certified question from the U.S. …

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

GO-WV

(by Ben Clapp, Gary Steinbauer, Mackenzie Moyer, Christina Puhnaty and Alexandra Graf)

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued a suite of Executive Orders and memoranda signaling a dramatic shift in American energy and environmental policy. Collectively these actions, among a historically large array of “Day One” orders issued by the administration, aim to stimulate domestic energy production (with a focus on oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals, and nuclear energy resources), expand energy transmission infrastructure, enlarge refining capacity, and streamline environmental permitting and review requirements for energy production and infrastructure projects while canceling Biden-era domestic climate policies, disengaging from international climate agreements, and curtailing leasing and permitting for offshore and onshore wind energy projects.

In conjunction with these Executive Orders and memoranda, the Trump administration carried out a sweeping revocation of Biden-era Executive Orders, including orders relating to energy policy and environmental regulation, climate initiatives, promoting electric vehicles, environmental justice, the withdrawal of areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas leasing, and the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

President Trump also issued a Day One memorandum implementing a regulatory freeze requiring agencies to refrain from proposing or issuing any new rule and withdraw rules that have been finalized but not yet been published in the Federal Register, until those rules are approved by the new agency head. The memorandum also directs agency heads to consider postponing for 60 days the effective date of any rules that have been published or issued but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.  …

Harrisburg, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle)

Inspired by the Charli XCX album, the “brat summer” trend took the country by storm in the summer of 2024.  From the radio to fashion to TikTok to even Vice President Harris’s campaign, “brat” was everywhere.  The Collins Dictionary even declared “brat” its 2024 word of the year, defining it as “characterized by a confident, independent, and hedonistic attitude.”  This spring, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is poised to hear oral argument in Chilutti v. Uber, 58 EAP 2024.  The case concerns, among other things, whether an order staying a case pending arbitration is immediately appealable as a collateral order—a question that asks the Court to not only disregard the text of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure but also upend four decades of contrary precedent.  With the argument fast approaching, everyone is asking the same question: Is the collateral order doctrine about to have a “brat summer”?

Collateral Order Doctrine

Generally, an appellate court’s jurisdiction extends only to review of final orders.  Final orders are those that dispose of all claims and all parties, are explicitly defined as final orders by statute, or are certified as final orders by the trial court or other reviewing body.  Pa.R.A.P. 341.  There are, however, limited exceptions to the final order rule—specifically, interlocutory appeals as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); interlocutory appeals by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312); and collateral orders (Pa.R.A.P. 313).  The collateral order doctrine is derived from U.S. Supreme Court case law and codified in Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313.  It is the narrowest of the three exceptions because the rules already allow a party to seek permission to appeal an interlocutory order not enumerated in Rule 311 and that discretionary process would be undermined by an overly permissive interpretation of Rule 313’s limited grant of collateral appeals as of right.  …

Harrisburg, PA

Federal Lawyer

(by Stefanie Pitcavage Mekilo)

In modern litigation, written submissions are not just a lawyer’s first opportunity to make an impression with the court; they’re also often our last. Cases increasingly are won or lost on the papers, and trials, for better or worse, are largely a thing of the past. These trends exhibit no signs of reverting. To be effective litigators, we must learn to embrace them.

A crucial component of effective written advocacy is knowing your audience. Judges, obviously, are our ultimate audience. But most often, the first person to read a pleading, motion, brief, or letter filed with the court will be the judge’s law clerk. Though their roles and degree of influence vary from one judge to the next, law clerks usually are the front line in chambers—studying briefs and the record, conducting research, and relaying initial impressions on the outcome to the judge.

During my dozen years as a federal judicial clerk, I consumed tens of thousands of pages of legal writing—some exceptional, some decidedly less so, most falling somewhere in between. In this article, I’ll share writing insights and practical tips gleaned during my time in chambers to help you get and keep the judge’s law clerk on your side.

Start with a plan. The real work of good writing occurs before any actual writing happens at all. After you’ve done your research but before you start drafting, think about which issues to raise and the order in which to raise them. Always start with your strongest argument. The lone exception would be if you have a jurisdictional argument, even if novel or only moderately compelling, because the court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction before turning to the merits. …

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA eWeekly

(by Chris Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

In recent weeks, significant developments have unfolded regarding the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which remain subject to a nationwide injunction.

As discussed in our previous Alert, on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., temporarily halting enforcement of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements, including the January 1, 2025, filing deadline. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed, requesting a stay of the injunction or, alternatively, a narrowing of the injunction to apply only to the named plaintiffs and members of the National Federation of Independent Business.

In a flurry of year-end decisions, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted DOJ’s emergency motion on December 23, 2024, lifting the injunction. Three days later, a separate Fifth Circuit panel reversed the earlier decision, vacating the stay and reinstating the nationwide injunction. As a result, FinCEN again updated its guidance, stating that reporting companies may voluntarily submit BOI filings but are not required to do so during the pendency of the injunction.

On December 31, 2024, DOJ filed an emergency “Application for a Stay of the Injunction” with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to stay the injunction pending the Fifth Circuit’s review of the matter. Alternatively, DOJ invited the Court to “treat this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment presenting the question whether the district court erred in entering preliminary relief on a universal basis.”

The ongoing legal challenges have left the status of the BOI reporting requirement in flux. …

Charleston, WV

GO-WV 

(by Kip Power)

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to approve the application of the State of West Virginia (through its Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP)) to obtain primary authority (a.k.a., “primacy”) over the issuance of permits for Class VI underground injection wells located within its borders. 89 Fed. Reg. 93538 (Nov. 27, 2024). The federal rulemaking proposal may be found here.  Comments on the proposed approval are due on or before December 30, 2024. On the same day, EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposal at the Charleston Marriott Town Center, 200 Lee Street East, in Charleston, West Virginia. Details regarding public participation in the rulemaking may be found here.

Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells are those wells used for injecting carbon dioxide for the purpose of permanent geologic storage or “sequestration.” WVDEP’s rules for such permits are largely modeled on EPA’s detailed “Class VI” UIC regulations promulgated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  If approved, West Virginia will be just the fourth state to receive primacy over the Class VI UIC permitting program (joining North Dakota, Wyoming and Louisiana).

Should it be granted primacy over Class VI well permitting, the WVDEP will be able to issue such permits without following the lengthy (and oftentimes litigated) procedures required under the federal National Environmental Policy Act that applies to EPA-issued UIC permits. The WVDEP would also be in a better position to coordinate the issuance of such Class VI UIC wells with other West Virginia regulatory requirements for carbon dioxide injection projects, including the West Virginia Underground Carbon Dioxide Sequestration and Storage Act (W.Va. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Technology Council

(by Chris Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

As discussed in our previous Alert, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., temporarily halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements, including the January 1, 2025, filing deadline. The ruling provided temporary relief to affected businesses, but a pending Department of Justice (DOJ) emergency motion to stay the injunction pending appeal has created further uncertainty.

On December 11 and December 13, 2024, the DOJ filed emergency motions with the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit respectively, requesting a stay of the District Court’s nationwide injunction. In its motion to the Court of Appeals, the government proposed an expedited briefing schedule, requesting “a ruling on this motion as soon as possible, but in any event no later than December 27, 2024, to ensure that regulated entities can be made aware of their obligation to comply before January 1, 2025.”

On December 17, 2024, the District Court denied the government’s motion, while the Court of Appeals decision remains pending and could be issued as early as December 20, 2024. If the Fifth Circuit grants the stay or narrows the scope of the injunction, the CTA’s reporting requirements, including the January 1, 2025 filing deadline, could be reinstated (unless the court or the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issues a deadline extension). FinCEN has already clarified that businesses are not required to file BOI reports while the injunction is in effect, but that they may voluntarily submit reports during this time. …