# County of Fulton v. Sec. of Com., Aplt.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 19, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9387975

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 19, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Justice David Wecht
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9387975

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that an adverse inference may be drawn from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a witness in civil litigation, and stating that “the inference to be drawn from a party’s failure to testify serves to corroborate the evidence produced by the opposing party”

## Opinion text

[J-46-2022]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

COUNTY OF FULTON, FULTON COUNTY : No. 3 MAP 2022
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, STUART L. :
ULSH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS : Appeal from the Order of the
COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON : Commonwealth Court at No. 277
COUNTY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A : MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022.
RESIDENT, TAXPAYER AND ELECTOR IN :
FULTON COUNTY, AND RANDY H. : SUBMITTED: October 21, 2022
BUNCH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON :
COUNTY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A :
RESIDENT, TAXPAYER AND ELECTOR :
OF FULTON COUNTY, :
:
Appellees :
:
:
v. :
:
:
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, :
:
Appellant :

OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: April 19, 2023

This Opinion concerns a party’s defiance of an order issued by this Court. The

underlying litigation began well over a year ago, prompted by the Secretary of the

Commonwealth’s decertification of certain voting equipment that Fulton County acquired

from Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. (“Dominion”) in 2019 and used in the 2020 general
election. The Secretary 1 decertified the voting equipment after learning that, following

the 2020 election, Fulton County had allowed Wake Technology Services, Inc. (“Wake

TSI”), to perform a probing inspection of that equipment as well as the software and data

contained therein. The Secretary maintained that Wake TSI’s inspection had

compromised the integrity of the equipment. Fulton County and the other named

Petitioner-Appellees 2 filed a Petition for Review in the Commonwealth Court’s original

jurisdiction challenging the Secretary’s decertification authority generally and as applied

in this case.

During the pleading stage, the Secretary learned that Fulton County intended to

allow another entity, Envoy Sage, LLC, to inspect the allegedly compromised equipment.

The Secretary sought a protective order from the Commonwealth Court barring that

inspection and any other third-party inspection during the litigation. The court denied

relief. The Secretary appealed that ruling to this Court, and we entered a temporary order

on January 27, 2022, to prevent the inspection and to preserve the status quo during our

review of the Secretary’s appeal. Months later—and with no public consideration, official

proceedings, or notice to the courts or other parties to this litigation—the County allowed

still another party, Speckin Forensics, LLC (“Speckin”), to inspect the voting equipment

and electronic evidence at issue in this litigation. Upon learning of this alleged violation

1 Over the course of this litigation, various individuals have served and/or acted in
this capacity. Because the office’s litigation position has not varied, we refer to “the
Secretary” throughout this Opinion.
2 Throughout this Opinion we primarily use “Fulton County” or “the County” to refer
collectively to Petitioner-Appellees. However, especially later in this Opinion, particularly
where we detail our disposition of this matter, those terms sometimes will refer to Fulton
County strictly in its own right.

[J-46-2022] - 2
of our temporary order, the Secretary filed an “Application for an Order Holding [the

County] in Contempt and Imposing Sanctions” (“Sanctions Application”). That application

is the central concern of this Opinion.

After our preliminary review of the Secretary’s application for sanctions, this Court

appointed President Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer of the Commonwealth Court as Special

Master to make an evidentiary record and to provide proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and sanctions (if warranted) to aid in this Court’s resolution of the

allegations at issue. Notwithstanding a convoluted case, an expedited schedule, and the

remarkable obstinacy of Fulton County and its counsel, the Special Master performed her

task admirably. In her timely, painstaking “Report Containing Proposed Findings of Fact

and Recommendations” (“Special Master’s Report” or “SMR”), President Judge Cohn

Jubelirer recommended that this Court impose several sanctions upon Fulton County, but

did not impose sanctions upon the other Petitioner-Appellees or Thomas Carroll, the

attorney who represented them during the relevant period.

There can be no orderly and effective administration of justice if parties to litigation

do not comply with court orders. Our close review makes clear that Fulton County willfully

violated an order of this Court. As well, we find that Fulton County and its various

attorneys have engaged in a sustained, deliberate pattern of dilatory, obdurate, and

vexatious conduct and have acted in bad faith throughout these sanction proceedings.

Taken as a whole, this behavior prompts us to sanction both the County and Attorney

Carroll. The details follow.

[J-46-2022] - 3
I. The Original Action and Interlocutory Appeal to This Court 3

A. Wake TSI’s Inspection of Fulton County’s Dominion Voting
Equipment and the Secretary’s Consequent Decertification

Fulton County formerly utilized Dominion’s Democracy Suite 5.5A Election

Management System (“EMS”). 4 The County leased the EMS from Dominion in April 2019.

The County used it for the first time in that year’s municipal elections and used it again in

the 2020 primary and general elections.

In December 2020, the County’s Board of Commissioners, whose members also

constituted the County’s Board of Elections, retained Wake TSI to analyze aspects of the

November 2020 election in Fulton County. 5 Wake TSI personnel visited the County

offices containing the voting equipment, where they “collected electronic copies of EMS

application log files, directory information, digital images of the scanned ballots, Operating

System (OS) directory and file information, OS log files and pictures of the paper Mail-In

ballots.”6 The company claimed that an “IT Support Technician, or an Election

3 Much of the account that follows is based upon matters over which we may take
judicial notice, and/or undisputed assertions of fact substantiated by the parties’ pleadings
and attachments in the underlying litigation, the interlocutory appeal, and these sanction
proceedings. Our recitation finds further support in the Special Master’s Report. For ease
of reference, we attach a copy of the Special Master’s Report to this decision.
4 “EMS” is a term that covers all devices and software involved in running an
election. Depending on context, we refer to it primarily as “voting equipment.” The United
States Department of Homeland Security broadly has identified electronic voting systems
as “critical infrastructure.” See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Statement by Sec. Jeh
Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure
Subsector (Jan. 6, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-
secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical.
5 See Fulton Cty. Pa. Election Sys. Analysis, Amended Pet. for Review, 9/17/2021,
Ex. E (“Wake TSI Report”).
6 Wake TSI Report at 8-9.

[J-46-2022] - 4
Commissioner, remained with the technical team during the assessment of the voting

systems and was the only person to access, copy or download information from the

EMS.” 7

Wake TSI claimed to have identified “five issues of note,” including a ballot

scanning error rate of 0.005%, which exceeded the error rate set by the federal

government (.0004%), 8 and Dominion’s installation on the EMS server of what Wake TSI

described as a “software toolbox [that] allows any user with access to change and

manipulate the EMS databases without logging (recording) to the Database, EMS or OS

logfiles.” 9 Wake TSI asserted that this software “makes the system certification invalid.” 10

Wake TSI also opined “that the [2020] election [in Fulton County] was well run, was

conducted in a diligent and effective manner[,] and followed the directions of the

Commonwealth.”11

On July 8, 2021, having learned that Fulton County had provided third-party access

to the County’s voting equipment and that other counties had considered retaining outside

parties to review and digitally copy their voting systems, the Secretary issued

“Directive 1,” invoking the Secretary’s authority under the Pennsylvania Election Code. 12

7 Id. at 9.
8 Id. at 11-12.
9 Id. at 26.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 5.
12 Pet. for Review, Ex. F (invoking 25 P.S. § 3031.5(a)) (“Directive 1”). The full title
of Directive 1 is “Directive Concerning Access to Electronic Voting Systems, Including but
Not Limited to the Imaging of Software and Memory Files, Access to Related Internal
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 5
The Secretary determined that third-party access to election-related electronic

infrastructure “undermines chain of custody requirements and strict access limitations

necessary to prevent both intentional and inadvertent tampering”; “jeopardizes the

security and integrity of those systems”; and “negate[s] the ability of electronic voting

system vendors to affirmatively state that such systems continue to meet Commonwealth

Security standards, are validated as not posing security risks, and are able to be certified

to perform as designed by” the vendor. 13

Directive 1 limits third-party access to “Electronic Voting Systems” as follows:

a. County Boards of Elections shall not provide physical, electronic, or
internal access to third parties seeking to copy and/or conduct an
examination of state-certified electronic voting systems, or any components
of such systems . . . .

b. If access described in Paragraph 3.a. occurs, those pieces of voting
equipment will be considered no longer secure or reliable to use in
subsequent elections. As a result, the Department of State will withdraw
the certification or use authority for those pieces of the county voting
system. . . .

c. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will not reimburse any cost of
replacement voting equipment for which certification or use authority has
been withdrawn pursuant to this directive. 14

Directive 1 also requires boards of elections to “notify the Secretary immediately upon

receipt of any written or verbal request for third-party access to an electronic voting

Components, and the Consequences to County Boards of Allowing Such Access.”
Section 3031.5(a) authorizes the Secretary to “issue directives or instructions for
implementation of electronic voting procedures and for the operation of electronic voting
systems.” Exhibit F is attached to the County’s original Petition for Review but missing
from its Amended Petition.
13 Directive 1 at 2-3 ¶2.
14 Id. at 2 ¶3.

[J-46-2022] - 6
system, or any component thereof,” and directs both elections boards and “voting system

vendors . . . to notify the Secretary immediately of any breach or attempted breach in the

chain of custody of its voting system components.”15

According to the Secretary, Fulton County election officials “confirmed” that the

County had “allowed Wake TSI . . . access to certain key components,” including the

“election database, results files, and Windows system logs,” and had also allowed the

company to use a “‘system imaging tool to take complete hard drive images of [certain

election-related] computers’ and ‘complete images of two USB thumb drives’ used to

transfer results files from their voting system computers to the computers used to upload

results to the state’s voter registration and election results reporting system.” 16 The

Secretary determined that the County’s system had been “compromised” and that “neither

Fulton County; [Dominion]; nor the [Secretary] can verify that the impacted components

of Fulton County’s leased voting system are safe to use in future elections.”17

Accordingly, the Secretary decertified the voting equipment that Fulton County used in

the November 2020 election. 18

B. Fulton County’s Petition for Review Challenging the
Secretary’s Exercise of Decertification Authority

On August 18, 2021, Fulton County; the Fulton County Board of Elections; and

Stuart L. Ulsh and Randy H. Bunch—individually and in their official capacities as County

15 Id. at 2 ¶4.
16 Petition, Ex. H, Letter from Pa. Dep’t of State to Counsel for the Fulton Cty. Bd. of
Elections, 7/20/2021, at 1-2.
17 Id. at 2.
18 Id.

[J-46-2022] - 7
Commissioners—filed a Petition for Review against the Secretary in the Commonwealth

Court’s original jurisdiction. The County challenged the Secretary’s authority to

promulgate Directive 1 and sought vacatur or reversal of the Secretary’s decertification

of the County’s voting equipment and/or its denial of Fulton County’s access to state funds

to cover the costs of replacing the decertified equipment.

The County asserted in Count I that the decertification was “arbitrary, capricious,

and legally improper, and an error of law, as [the Secretary] failed to comply with the

mandates of 25 P.S. § 3031.5(b)” by not conducting a physical reexamination of the

County’s EMS before decertifying it. 19 The County asserted that, if the Secretary “had

conducted the mandated reexamination of” the County’s EMS, it “would have found that”

the EMS “continued to meet” the Election Code’s security requirements. 20

In Count II, the County sought a declaratory judgment that the County has authority

to allow a third-party vendor to examine and analyze its EMS. 21 The County contended

that, by “forbid[ding] any use of third-party vendors to conduct an examination of various

components of” its EMS and doing so six months after the County “engaged Wake TSI to

assist [the County] in conducting its ‘analysis,’” the Secretary contradicted the Secretary’s

own 2016 and 2020 guidance documents. 22 These documents, the County argued,

19 Amended Pet. at 14 (Count I).
20 Id. at 14 ¶48.
21 Id. at 15-19.
22 Id. at 15-16. The County argues that the Secretary’s September 2016 “Guidance
on Electronic Voting System Preparation and Security,” id., Ex. C (“2016 Guidance”),
“expressly contemplates the use of third-party vendors for electronic voting system
preparation and security,” 2016 Guidance at 7 ¶24, because the 2016 Guidance
recommends procedures to employ “[i]f a county uses an outside vendor to perform any
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 8
generally anticipated counties’ use of third-party vendors, and the County asserted that

the “analysis and investigation of [the EMS] with the assistance of Wake TSI was

conducted in accordance with the requirements of the [Code] as well as the [Secretary’s]

then-current Guidance.” 23

Count II concluded with the following prayer for relief:

Petitioners respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order
declaring that Petitioners . . . complied with the requirements of the Election
Code and the Guidance issued by [the Secretary] in retaining and utilizing
[Wake TSI] to assist [them] in conducting an analysis of Fulton County’s
Election System, and further declaring that any finding to the contrary by
[the Secretary] should be stricken[,] and further declaring the July 20, 2021
decertification by the Secretary null and void and of no effect . . . . 24

This aspect of the pleading dovetailed with Fulton County’s claim that, had the Secretary

inspected the voting equipment before decertifying it, the Secretary would have found

that it continued to meet the Election Code’s requirements for certification. In both

regards, the County made assertions whose veracity might ultimately hinge upon

disputed factual claims pertaining to the voting equipment’s condition after Wake TSI’s

inspection.

In Count III, the County sought declaratory judgment to the effect that, in issuing

Directive 1, the Secretary usurped the County’s Board of Elections’ “power . . . to conduct

a systematic and thorough inspection” of its elections with the assistance of third-party

of the election preparation tasks.” Id. (quoting 2016 Guidance at 1); cf. Amended
Petition, Ex. D (“2020 Guidance”) (updating the 2016 Guidance but preserving the
reference to third-party vendors).
23 Amended Petition at 18 ¶64.
24 Id. at 19.

[J-46-2022] - 9
entities. 25 In Count IV, the County sought a declaration that the Secretary lacks authority

to withhold funds from the County to purchase replacement machines. 26 In Count V, the

County sought injunctive relief in furtherance of the foregoing claims. 27

The Secretary filed Preliminary Objections demurring only to Count III. The

Secretary emphasized that the General Assembly delegated to the Secretary the

authority to examine, approve, and reexamine voting systems and to issue directives or

instructions for electronic voting procedures. The Secretary also noted that the General

Assembly tasked the Secretary with determining whether a county’s EMS “can be safely

used by voters at elections as provided” in the Election Code. 28

C. The Secretary Seeks to Prevent a Third-Party Inspection
During the Litigation of the Petition for Review

On November 29, 2021, the Secretary discovered “a meeting agenda posted

online” indicating that the Fulton County Board of Commissioners would vote on a motion

the next day to allow the Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee (“Senate

Committee”) to examine the County’s voting equipment. 29 When contacted by the

Secretary’s counsel, Attorney Michele D. Hangley, counsel for the County, Attorney

Thomas W. King, III, explained that the vote was not going forward and that the County

25 Id. at 20 ¶73
26 See id. at 20-22.
27 See id. at 22-25.
28 Preliminary Objections, 10/18/2021, at 6 ¶¶15-16, 7 ¶17 (citing 25 P.S.
§ 3031.5(a)).
29 Emergency Application for an Order Prohibiting Spoliation of Key Evidence
Scheduled to Occur on Dec. 22, 2021, 12/17/2021, at 5 (“Emergency Application”)
(quoting Fulton Cty. 11/30/2021 Meeting Agenda, Ex. A).

[J-46-2022] - 10
had not received a request from the Senate Committee. 30 Attorney King indicated that

the County intended to return its voting equipment to Dominion, but was considering first

making it available to another third-party for additional inspection. 31 Attorney Hangley

responded “that such an ‘inspection’ threatened to spoliate evidence central to

Petitioners’ claims,” and reminded Attorney King that the Secretary had “requested that

the Department of State be given plenty of notice of any vote on or scheduling of any

inspection.” 32

On December 10, Senator Cris Dush, who had replaced Senator Doug Mastriano

as Chair of the Senate Committee, wrote the County seeking “[p]ermission to collect the

digital data from the election computers and hardware used by [the County] in the

November 2020 election” as part of the Senate Committee’s investigation of the

Commonwealth’s election system. 33 On December 14, the Secretary learned—again

from the County’s website rather than from direct notice—that Fulton County’s

Commissioners had voted the same day to permit the inspection to go forward the

30 Id. (citing Email from Attorney Thomas W. King, III, to Attorney Michele D. Hangley,
11/29/2021, Ex. B).
31 Id. (citing Letter from Attorney Hangley to Attorney King, 12/7/2021, Ex. C).
32 Id. at 5-6 (quoting Ex. C, supra) (internal quotation marks omitted).
33 Id., Ex. D (Letter from Senator Dush to Fulton County, 12/10/2021). Senator Dush
is now Vice-Chair of the Committee. The Democratic Senators who sat on the Senate
Committee at the relevant time in 2021 and 2022—Anthony H. Williams, Jay Costa,
Vincent J. Hughes, and Steven J. Santarsiero—filed a brief as amici curiae supporting
the Secretary. They averred that then-Chairman Dush “unilaterally selected Envoy
Sage . . . as the vendor to perform this ‘investigation’” “[t]hrough a no-bid process that
was not made public or . . . shared with the Democratic Senators.” Democratic Senators’
Br. at 2. The Committee is now chaired by Senator Jarrett Coleman, and the overall
composition of the Committee has changed significantly during the intervening months.

[J-46-2022] - 11
following week. 34 Attorney Hangley learned from Attorney King that the inspection was

scheduled for December 22 and was to be conducted by Envoy Sage, which the

Secretary characterized as “a recently formed company with no election experience, no

apparent physical presence, and, at most, two identifiable employees.” 35 Attached to

Attorney King’s letter “was a single page, containing less than a half-page of text,” that

described Envoy Sage’s “protocol” for the inspection. 36 The “so-called ‘protocol’

provide[d] no details” and “conclusorily assert[ed] that Envoy Sage ‘will follow proper

procedure for collection and chain of custody.’” 37

On December 17, 2021, concerned that the County would disregard the

Secretary’s request that it refrain from turning its voting equipment over to Envoy Sage,

the Secretary filed an Application for Emergency Relief. The Secretary’s Application

sought to “enjoin [the County’s] planned ‘inspection’ and require them to preserve voting

equipment and data.” 38 Attached to the application was the affidavit of the Secretary’s

expert, Ryan Macias. Mr. Macias is a voting technology consultant with more than sixteen

years’ experience in “election technology, security, and policy,” who previously served as

the Acting Director of the United States Election Assistance Commission, which assesses

the security, accuracy, and accessibility of voting systems nationwide. 39 There,

34 See Emergency Application at 6.
35 Id. at 9 (citing Letter from Attorney King to Attorney Hangley, 12/16/2021, Ex. F).
36 Id. at 10.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 11 (capitalization normalized).
39 Emergency App., Ex. L (Affidavit of Ryan Macias, 12/17/2021), at 2-3 ¶5.

[J-46-2022] - 12
Mr. Macias “managed multiple voting system applications and testing campaigns

including the Dominion [system] used in Fulton County.” 40

Mr. Macias attested that he reviewed the County’s plan to grant Envoy Sage

access to its voting equipment, and “took part in a limited inspection of” that equipment

on October 13, 2021, “as part of a preliminary effort to determine whether any of the

compromised machines could potentially be ‘sanitized’ in a way that would allow their

reuse.” 41 Mr. Macias observed that “[t]he Envoy Sage Protocol is highly irregular and

does not conform to any type of industry standard for such a document.” 42 He found the

absence of proper protocols “particularly alarming” because “the equipment in question

includes electronic data which can be easily altered—intentionally or unintentionally—

without ever dismantling any hardware or even touching a keyboard.” 43 “[O]nce such

data [are] altered, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to trace things back to determine

the status quo ante, i.e., to see what data, if any, was altered, and how.”44 Mr. Macias

concluded that the Envoy Sage inspection “could irrevocably undermine the ability to

review, examine, or analyze the condition of the equipment and data as it existed prior to

Envoy Sage’s activities.” 45

40 Id.
41 Id. at 4 ¶6.
42 Id. at 6 ¶10.
43 Id. at 6 ¶12.
44 Id.
45 Id.

[J-46-2022] - 13
In support of the Emergency Application, the Secretary cited our decision in Pyeritz

v. Commonwealth, 46 wherein this Court observed that “parties to pending and prospective

suits, upon an appropriate showing, may be able to obtain injunctive relief to preserve

evidence,” and pointed to several “factors for obtaining such relief” drawn from the United

States District Court’s decision in Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power

Corp:

(1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and
maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of
an order directing preservation of the evidence;

(2) any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation
of evidence absent an order directing preservation; and

(3) the capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence
sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition
or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by
ordering evidence preservation. 47

After analyzing each factor, the Secretary requested an order preventing the

County “from providing any third party (other than [Dominion]) with access to the

electronic voting machines in Fulton County’s possession . . . including but not limited to

allowing the inspection by Envoy Sage currently scheduled for December 22, 2021,” and

requiring Petitioners to “take all necessary steps . . . to preserve those machines, and any

data stored thereon, in a secured and unaltered state pending further order of the

Court.” 48

46 32 A.3d 687, 694 (Pa. 2011).
47 Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429,
433-34 (W.D. Pa. 2004)
48 Emergency App. at 17.

[J-46-2022] - 14
In its response, Fulton County asserted that “[t]he electronically stored information

at issue is the primary evidence in this case” and that the voting equipment had “already

been inspected by third-party representatives of the [Secretary], who is now trying to

prohibit the Petitioners from conducting their own inspection of the evidence in this

case.” 49 Thus, Petitioners implied that they did not reap sufficient evidence from Wake

TSI’s investigation to pursue this litigation, but rather required a second inspection

specifically to obtain such evidence.

After the parties presented argument before the Commonwealth Court, President

Judge Emerita Mary Hannah Leavitt postponed the planned inspection to January 10,

2022, “by which time,” the court optimistically suggested, “the parties will have negotiated

protocols for said inspection.”50 The parties did not meet the court’s expectations, and a

continuing pattern of failed negotiations and court-ordered delays followed. On

January 11, the court issued an order that deferred the planned inspection until

January 14 and directed the parties to “continue negotiating protocols that will apply to

49 Petitioners’ Answer to Respondent’s Emergency Application for an Order
Prohibiting Spoliation of Key Evidence, 12/20/2021, at 17 (“Answer to Emergency App.”).
50 Order, 12/21/2021. In the interim, Dominion moved to intervene to enforce its
contract with the County, specifically insofar as it “expressly prohibits the County” “from
‘[t]ransfer[ring] or copy[ing] onto any other storage device or hardware or otherwise
copy[ing] the Software in whole or in part except for purposes of system backup.’”
Emergency App. of Dominion Voting Sys., Inc. for Leave to Intervene for the Limited
Purpose of Seeking a Protective Order, 1/3/2022, at 2, 3 ¶4 (quoting Software License
Terms and Conditions at 2, § 5.1, Ex. B). The lower court denied Dominion’s application.
Dominion appealed this order at 4 MAP 2022. On March 21, 2022, this Court reversed.
Since then, Dominion has participated in the Secretary’s appeal and these sanction
proceedings consistently with the limited interest it asserted in support of intervention.

[J-46-2022] - 15
said inspection.”51 The parties again failed to reach an agreement, so the Secretary filed

another application to prevent the inspection. 52

In the Renewed Application, the Secretary again sought to bar the Envoy Sage

inspection, citing various irregularities and uncertainties in the inspection proposed as

well as concerns about Envoy Sage itself. The Secretary noted the Secretary’s own

inability to participate in the inspection sufficiently to protect its interests and to monitor

whether and to what extent the equipment and data are compromised. The Secretary

observed that it had “no reasonable assurance that the inspection will not spoliate key

evidence in this case.” 53 The Secretary further proposed that, “[t]o the extent any

inspection is allowed to proceed, it should be required to take place as party discovery in

this case, subject to a strict protective order prohibiting disclosure to any third parties.”54

The Secretary’s argument and Mr. Macias’s supporting affidavit relied upon the global

proposition that any further inspection of the EMS risked irrevocably compromising the

evidentiary value of the voting equipment to the resolution of any of the County’s claims

that might be affected by questions of fact informed by measurable aspects of the

machines. 55

51 Commonwealth Court Order, 1/11/2022.
52 Renewed Emergency App. for an Order to Enjoin the Third-Party Inspection
Currently Scheduled for January 14, 2022, From Proceeding, 1/13/2022 (“Renewed
Application”).
53 Id. at 20.
54 Id.
55 See, e.g., id. at 4 (“Envoy Sage has failed to provide a set of specific, step-by-step
inspection procedures that conform to industry standards and provide reasonable
assurance that the inspection will not spoliate the evidence.”), 5 (“[T]he planned
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 16
In opposing the Renewed Application, Fulton County abandoned its former

assertion that the Envoy Sage inspection was critical to developing the factual record in

furtherance of the County’s own Petition for Review, disclaiming for the first time any

interest in the condition or recertification of its voting equipment—or, strikingly, any data

obtained from the Envoy Sage search that it was fighting to enable. Now, the County

framed its challenge solely as a question of law testing the authority that the Election

Code confers upon the Secretary to decertify the County’s voting equipment, to take other

remedial actions, and more generally to issue Directive 1 or similar orders in the future. 56

Shortly after 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 14—hours before the scheduled

inspection—the Commonwealth Court denied the Secretary’s Renewed Application and

refused to enjoin the inspection. The court acknowledged Capricorn Power’s three-factor

balancing test, but found that the Secretary failed “to demonstrate a critical element of

each of the three factors—that the data or state of the System subject to inspection

constitutes evidence in this matter worthy of protection.” 57 The court found that the

inspection pose[s] an obvious and substantial risk of spoliating important evidence in this
case.”), 12-13 (“[I]maging the entire electronic voting system . . . creates a significant risk
of spoliation . . . .”); see also id., Ex. A (reproducing numerous draft inspection protocol
agreements that appear to reflect the parties’ failed negotiation, all drafts focusing
substantially upon the general risk of spoliation and chain of custody concerns arising
from the proposed inspection).
56 Compare Answer to Emergency App. at 17 (“The electronically stored information
at[ ]issue is the primary evidence in this case.”) with Answer to Renewed App. at 6
(averring that Envoy Sage was retained solely by, and at the behest of, the Senate
Committee; stating that the County “will not receive any of the data retrieved from the
investigation,” which will be controlled by the Committee; and bemoaning the burdens
that last-minute delays of inspections (in which it disclaimed any interest) imposed upon
Envoy Sage “and the Committee itself”).
57 Memo. & Order, 1/14/2022, at 3-4 (Leavitt, P.J.E.) (citing Pyeritz, 32 A.3d at 694)
(emphasis in original).

[J-46-2022] - 17
Secretary had failed to establish that it or the County would “use any data obtained from

the System as evidence in this proceeding.” 58 The court accepted at face value the

County’s insistence that it raised only a legal challenge to the Secretary’s decertification

authority. Thus, the court determined that “[t]he inspection, and the data it may generate

or alter, are not evidence in this matter.”59

D. The Secretary’s Appeal to this Court and its Emergency
Application for a Stay

That same day, immediately before the 1:00 p.m. inspection was to begin, the

Secretary filed an appeal to this Court together with an Emergency Application for a Stay

(“Stay Application”), which this author granted on a temporary basis in order to preserve

the status quo pending review by the full Court. On January 27, 2022, the full Court

extended that stay pending final resolution of the Secretary’s appeal—which does not

concern the underlying challenge to the Secretary’s authority, but only the Secretary’s

effort, denied by the Commonwealth Court, to secure Fulton County’s voting equipment

from further inspections while that underlying challenge is litigated in full.

It is important to the reasoning that follows to review critical highlights of the Stay

Application. In providing a brief, pointed account of the foregoing history of this case, the

Secretary expressed incredulity:

[D]espite the consequences of [the County’s] earlier decision to allow third-
party access to Fulton County’s electronic voting equipment, and despite
the fact that this equipment—in particular, its status and condition following
Wake TSI’s “examination”—is essential evidence in this case, [the County]
decided to allow yet another third party to access that equipment and
manipulate its data. And, once again, [the County] made this decision
without providing advance notice to the Secretary, who is not only

58 Id. at 4.
59 Id.

[J-46-2022] - 18
Pennsylvania’s “chief election official,” charged with the statutory
responsibility to protect the security of electronic voting equipment, . . . but
is also a litigant with discovery rights that [the County is] obligated to
respect, see, e.g., [Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct] 3.4
(requiring “[f]airness to [o]pposing [p]arty and [c]ounsel” and prohibiting the
“unlawful[] alter[ation], destr[uction] or conceal[ment of] a document or other
material having potential evidentiary value”). 60

Because our consequent orders granting the Secretary temporary relief lie at the

heart of the County’s defense to the Sanctions Application, we reproduce them in full.

First, on January 14, 2022, this author issued a single-Justice temporary order pending

review by the full Court.

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2022, [the Secretary’s] “Emergency
Application to Stay Third-Party Inspection of Electronic Voting System
Scheduled to Begin at 1:00 p.m. on January 14, 2022” is GRANTED, on a
temporary basis, pending consideration of the request by the full Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the inspection of Fulton County’s
electronic voting equipment that is currently scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m.
on January 14, 2022, is hereby STAYED and ENJOINED pending further
Order of the Court.

On January 27, the full Court extended the stay until we could resolve the

Secretary’s appeal:

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2022, Respondent-Appellant’s
“Emergency Application to Stay Third-Party Inspection of Electronic Voting
System Scheduled to Begin at 1:00 p.m. on January 14, 2022” is
GRANTED. The single-Justice Order entered on January 14, 2022, staying
the lower court’s ruling and enjoining the proposed third-party inspection of
Fulton County’s electronic voting equipment, shall remain in effect pending
the disposition of the above-captioned appeal.

Thus, our January 27 Order adopted and extended the effect of the January 14 Order’s

throughout the pendency of the Secretary’s interlocutory appeal.

60 Stay App., 1/14/2022, at 5-6 (emphasis and modifications in original).

[J-46-2022] - 19
The proceedings challenging the Secretary’s decertification authority continued

while the January 27 Order remained in effect and this Court considered the pending

appeal. Meanwhile, on April 12, 2022, at a public meeting, the Fulton County

Commissioners voted unanimously to terminate the engagement of the attorneys who

had represented the Commissioners to that date in the instant litigation. As well, a

majority of the Fulton County Commissioners—Commissioner Paula J. Shives voting

“nay”—voted to appoint Pennsylvania Attorney Thomas Carroll and Michigan Attorney

Stefanie Lambert to represent the County moving forward. 61 At noon on that same day,

Commissioner Ulsh signed out a key to the locked room in which the voting equipment at

issue was stored. 62

On May 17, 2022, this Court issued an order scheduling oral argument on the

appeal for our September session in Philadelphia. In addition to reproducing the

Secretary’s issues as stated, we “further directed [the parties] to provide supplemental

61 Commissioner Shives is a petitioner in this litigation in her capacity as a member
of the Fulton County Commission and its Board of Elections, not individually. She testified
that she voted to terminate former counsel’s representation in furtherance of her belief
that the County should drop the instant litigation entirely. See Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”),
11/9/2022, at 282-84; see also id. at 284 (“I’m not in favor of these lawsuits and I just think
having a special counsel just keeps them going.”).
62 See Secretary’s Application to Admit into Evidence the Key Access Log Belatedly
Produced by Petitioners, 11/18/2022, Ex. 1. The Secretary asked the Special Master to
admit the access log—which was the subject of continued, initially unsuccessful efforts to
produce as directed by the Master—into the record in an Application for Relief filed on
November 18, well after the conclusion of the Master’s proceedings, and the same day
the Special Master filed her Report. The County opposed that application the same day,
asserting, most intelligibly, a claim that the access log somehow violated someone’s Fifth
Amendment rights. The Special Master granted the application. We find no merit to the
County’s Fifth Amendment argument regarding the log, which it did not raise at any of the
several times during the evidentiary hearings when the Secretary asked the Master to
direct the County to produce the log. Therefore, we adopt the Special Master’s order
admitting the exhibit.

[J-46-2022] - 20
briefing and argument concerning whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the

instant interlocutory appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) . . . and/or Pa.R.A.P. 313.”63 On

the same day, this Court’s Prothonotary sent correspondence to the attorneys of record

indicating that the Secretary’s supplemental brief would be due thirty days after the date

of the Order, and that Fulton County’s supplemental brief would be due thirty days after

service of the Secretary’s brief. 64

In the wake of our May 17, 2022 Order, Fulton County’s (and its attorneys’) pattern

of neglect and non-compliance emerged. The Secretary timely filed and served a

supplemental brief concerning this Court’s appellate jurisdiction on June 16, 2022, which

established July 18, 2022 as the due date for Fulton County’s responsive brief. 65 On

June 28, 2022, while the appeal was pending, and while Fulton County to all reasonable

appearances was precluded from permitting a third-party inspection of the County’s voting

63 Rule 311(a)(4) allows an interlocutory appeal as of right of an order denying an
injunction, and Rule 313 allows an interlocutory appeal as of right of a collateral order. A
collateral order is one that is “separable from and collateral to the main cause of action
where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented
is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be
irreparably lost.” Rae v. Pa. Funeral Dirs. Ass’n, 977 A.2d 1121, 1125 (Pa. 2009) (quoting
Pa.R.A.P. 313). Although this Court previously noted probable jurisdiction, we
nonetheless recognized (a) that the appeal implicated a nascent question of the nature
of the relief that the Secretary sought (i.e., injunctive versus discovery-related), and
(b) that the distinction might determine our appellate jurisdiction. We have never decided
the jurisdictional question. As explained at length below we impose a sanction that moots
the underlying appeal and with it the jurisdictional question.
64 As of that date, the attorneys who had been removed during the April 12
Commission meeting had not withdrawn their appearances in this Court. Attorney Carroll,
who had been appointed special counsel on April 12, also had yet to enter his
appearance.
65 The thirtieth day after service fell on a Saturday, extending the County’s deadline
to the following Monday.

[J-46-2022] - 21
equipment, Attorney Carroll entered his appearance in the underlying litigation in the

Commonwealth Court. Attorney Carroll did not move for the admission pro hac vice of

Attorney Lambert, who had been appointed with him.

The Commonwealth Court having denied the Secretary’s preliminary objection to

Count III of the Petition for Review on May 23, 2022, the Secretary had filed her Answer

and New Matter to Fulton County’s Petition for Review on June 22, 2022. Consequently,

by rule, Fulton County’s responsive pleading in the Commonwealth Court was due on or

before July 12. Despite the fact that Attorney Carroll entered his appearance on June 28,

2022, he waited until 5:27 p.m. on the date of the July 12 deadline to file a motion seeking

to extend the time for a response until July 18. Therein, Attorney Carroll noted his

June 28 entry of appearance and cited his status as “a solo practitioner . . . newly

undertaking representation of Petitioners.”66 He did not mention that he had been

appointed co-special counsel for the County in a public meeting over three months earlier.

He also offered no explanation for failing to seek an extension earlier in the two weeks

between his entry of appearance and the deadline for Fulton County’s responsive

pleading. The Commonwealth Court granted the motion, later extending the deadline

until July 26, 2022.

On July 5, 2022, this Court’s Prothonotary sent correspondence to the most recent

counsel of record for Fulton County, James M. Stein, James M. Stein, Jr., and Douglas

Joseph Steinhardt, advising them that oral argument had been scheduled for

September 14, 2022, in Philadelphia. The standard notice directed counsel to return an

acknowledgment of receipt and advised that the return would confirm that the responding

66 Motion to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleading, 7/12/2022, at 1.

[J-46-2022] - 22
attorney or substitute counsel would appear as specified. It added that requests for

continuances “are disfavored,” “must be brought at the earliest opportunity,” shall be

verified, and shall “set forth in detail the unforeseen circumstances necessitating a

continuance.” 67 The Secretary promptly returned an acknowledgment. Fulton County

did not.

On July 20, 2022, our Prothonotary sent another letter to Attorneys Stein 68 and

Steinhardt. The letter referred to our May 17, 2022 order scheduling argument and

directing submission of a supplemental brief, and it noted that Fulton County’s

jurisdictional brief was overdue. The letter directed the County to “file for an extension of

time Nunc Pro Tunc together with [its] brief on or before July 25, 2022.”

On July 25, this Court sent additional notices to Attorneys Stein and Steinhardt,

again soliciting their acknowledgment of the argument notice. This was followed on July

26 by still more correspondence “remind[ing]” counsel of their obligation to respond to this

67 Notice of Date and Time of Argument, 7/5/2022.
68 We continued to transmit communications to Attorneys James M. Stein and
Douglas Steinhardt because, as reflected in the public dockets and corroborated by our
consultation of the relevant public filings, Attorneys Stein and Steinhart continued to be
listed as counsel for the County in this case. Attorney Stein remains co-counsel of record
as of this writing, both in this Court and in the Commonwealth Court in the underlying
litigation. Attorney Steinhardt remained counsel of record through the summer, finally
withdrawing his appearance before this Court on October 26, 2022, about a week after
the Secretary filed the Sanctions Application. Even if any of these attorneys had
withdrawn before a summer’s worth of non-responsiveness to this Court’s notices, it was
incumbent upon them to forward our communications to the County or to Attorney Carroll.
As well, Attorney Carroll had a professional obligation to confer with the County’s former
counsel promptly upon his retention to whatever extent was necessary to ensure his
competent representation of the County. The consequences of any failures in this regard
are attributable to both Fulton County and Attorney Carroll.

[J-46-2022] - 23
Court’s Orders and notices and directing counsel’s attention to the aforesaid July 5 and

July 25 notices.

At 7:10 p.m. on July 26, 2022, Attorney Carroll belatedly entered his appearance

in this Court. At 7:51 p.m. on that date, he filed a “Motion Nunc Pro Tunc for Leave to

File Appellees' Supplemental Brief.” Not only was this motion filed after the July 25

deadline we prescribed, but it also did not include the supplemental brief that this Court

directed the County to include with the motion. By way of an explanation for Fulton

County’s continuing noncompliance, Attorney Carroll offered only this: “Undersigned

counsel, having just appeared in this case, for good cause, hereby moves the Court to

allow for an extension of the filing of [the County’s] supplemental brief to Monday,

August 8, 2022.” August 8 was fourteen days after our already-extended deadline for the

filing. Attorney Carroll offered nothing to substantiate “good cause” and did not qualify

his “just having appeared” comment with an acknowledgment of his April 12 appointment

as special counsel specifically for this litigation—or, for that matter, his appearance and

active participation in the underlying litigation in the Commonwealth Court approximately

a month before entering his appearance in this Court.

On July 27, 2022, this Court sent another argument notice and request for

acknowledgment, this time directly to Attorney Carroll. On July 29, we entered an Order

granting Attorney Carroll’s request for an extension until August 8, 2022, to file the

County’s supplemental brief. But August 8 came and went. This Court received no

supplemental brief; the County never filed one. On August 10, 2022, this Court’s

Prothonotary sent yet another letter to Attorney Carroll. The letter noted that the Court

still had not received an acknowledgment of the argument notice. The letter also informed

[J-46-2022] - 24
Attorney Carroll that, because he had failed to file a jurisdictional brief, even after the

additional two-week extension that this Court had granted, Fulton County would not be

permitted to present oral argument on jurisdiction. Finally, on August 11, Attorney Carroll

returned his acknowledgment of the oral argument notice.

Oral argument was scheduled for Wednesday September 14, 2022. On the

morning of Monday, September 12, 2022, Attorney Carroll a “Motion to Adjourn Oral

Argument,” asserting emergent personal reasons that allegedly prevented him from

“prepar[ing] for oral argument . . . and/or associat[ing] other counsel as a substitute this

close to the time for the presentation of oral argument.” 69 Attorney Carroll‘s Motion to

Adjourn Oral Argument was not verified, as this Court’s argument notice expressly

requires of those seeking a continuance. Attorney Carroll averred that the Secretary did

not accede to the request, preferring that this Court decide the collateral appeal on the

parties’ briefs. Failing that, the Secretary asked that argument be rescheduled for this

Court’s November session in Harrisburg. This Court granted the extension in a

September 13 Order and directed that the case be heard in Philadelphia during our

October session. We noted: “Counsel SHALL appear for that scheduled argument, and

69 Attorney Carroll had not yet informed this Court that Attorney Lambert was his co-
counsel, nor had he sought her admission pro hac vice below or in this Court. Although
the rules governing pro hac vice representation direct that the sponsoring attorney must
be in attendance at all court proceedings in connection with the representation, that
requirement is qualified by a carve-out when sponsoring counsel is “excused by court.”
See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1012.1(d)(1). This is not to say that we would have granted such a
request. But, had Attorney Lambert been admitted pro hac vice, it would have given
Attorney Carroll a good-faith alternative to filing a disfavored, last-minute request for a
continuance reflecting no contingency planning.

[J-46-2022] - 25
no further continuance requests will be entertained.” 70 Our Prothonotary scheduled

argument for October 26, 2022.

II. The Speckin Forensics Inspection of the Voting Equipment and
the Secretary’s Application for Contempt and Sanctions

Shortly before the rescheduled argument, the Secretary redirected our focus to a

pressing matter. On October 18, 2022, the Secretary filed the Sanctions Application

before us. The Secretary informed this Court that, on July 13 and 14, 2022, Fulton County

allowed Speckin to inspect the voting equipment at issue in this litigation, in alleged

defiance of our pending stay order.

Neither the Commissioners’ intent, nor the fact, nature, and scope of this

inspection, were addressed in a public proceeding by the Fulton County Commission or

Election Board, nor was the inspection approved by a formal vote of either body. The

County also did not notify the Secretary or Dominion, both of whom previously had

claimed the right to notice of any inspection—the Secretary, as a function of her authority

over the administration of elections and Dominion, based upon the terms of its contract

with Fulton County. Even Commissioner Shives did not learn until September 2022 that

the July inspection was planned or had occurred.

So closely held was the news of the planned inspection that it only came to public

light (indirectly) when Fulton County filed a separate breach of contract action against

Dominion in the Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County on September 21, 2022, just

seven days after the September 14, 2022 oral argument that Attorney Carroll averred he

70 Emphasis in original.

[J-46-2022] - 26
could not attend. 71 Fulton County’s complaint relied principally upon Speckin’s

September 15, 2022 report of its findings from the inspection, which the County attached.

The County explained that the Speckin report was based upon analyses “performed on

six hard drives in Fulton County” in July of 2022. 72 Speckin described a highly intrusive

examination of the County’s voting equipment, which the County does not dispute.

Two events followed the filing of the Secretary’s Sanctions Application. First, this

Court entered an order appointing Commonwealth Court President Judge Cohn Jubelirer

as Special Master to conduct the evidentiary proceedings necessary to develop a record

sufficient to address the Secretary’s allegations and the relief the Secretary sought. We

directed the Master to provide a report proposing findings of fact and conclusions of law

on or before November 18, 2022. In that October 21, 2022 Order, this Court directed the

Special Master (1) to determine whether the Secretary’s application sounded in civil or

criminal contempt; (2) to “afford the parties such process as is due in connection with that

determination”; and (3) to make separate determinations as to each form of relief the

Secretary seeks, including the imposition of sanctions, the award of counsel fees, and

71 Dominion removed the contract action to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it remains as of this writing. Separately, on
September 1, 2022, Fulton County appealed, also to the Fulton County Court of Common
Pleas, an August 2, 2022 ruling of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (“OOR”) that
granted Dominion relief from Fulton County’s categorical denial of certain requests under
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101, et seq. Notably, the
OOR decision identified Carroll as attorney of record. Evidently he actively undertook
that matter, like the underlying litigation, well before he entered his appearance in this
Court.
72 Sanctions App., Ex. A, Complaint at 17 ¶67. It is undisputed that the specific
equipment Speckin inspected is the same equipment to which this Court’s stay order
applied.

[J-46-2022] - 27
dismissal of Fulton County’s underlying and ongoing challenge to the Secretary’s

authority to decertify Fulton County’s voting machines.

In a second Order issued the same day, this Court directed that this Court would

not hear oral argument on the pending appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s denial of a

protective order as scheduled. Instead, we would rule on the appeal based upon the

parties’ briefs.

III. The Special Master Proceedings

A. Discovery

On October 24, 2022, the Special Master issued an initial order (1) directing Fulton

County to file an Answer to the Secretary’s Sanctions Application, (2) directing the parties

to file memoranda of law concerning the sanctions sought by the Secretary, and

(3) scheduling a status conference for October 27. 73 At the October 27 conference, the

Special Master and the parties agreed as a threshold matter that the Secretary’s assertion

of contempt was civil in nature. This resolved the first issue that this Court directed the

Special Master to address, and it is a determination that the parties did not object to then

or now. 74

73 As a technical matter, inasmuch as the Special Master acts on this Court’s behalf,
all filings are in a sense to this Court. Nonetheless, the Special Master’s Orders and the
parties’ filings directed to the Special Master’s consideration have been docketed with the
underlying litigation at 277 MD 2021, while filings soliciting the Justices’ direct attention
have been filed at this Court’s appellate docket at 3 MAP 2022, J-46-2022. Accordingly,
a full grasp of these proceedings is best gained through consultation of both records.
74 Attorney Carroll agreed that the Secretary’s allegations implicate civil rather than
criminal contempt. See Status Conference Transcript, 10/27/2022, at 3-4 (Special
Master: “There is agreement that to the extent [she] would recommend any relief, it would
not be in the nature of criminal sanctions[?]” Attorney Wiygul for the Secretary: “[W]e
agree that this would be a civil contempt proceeding.” Attorney Carroll: “I would agree
with that.”). Attorney Carroll nonetheless presented this as an open question in later
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 28
The Secretary proposed “targeted” discovery including depositions of County

Commissioners Ulsh, Bunch, and Shives, and the disclosure of communications and

documents in which the parties discussed the Speckin inspection and this Court’s

protective order. The Secretary explained that it sought these items so that it could

determine who instigated and decided to conduct the inspection, who engaged and paid

Speckin, and assess the relevant individuals’ understandings of and intentions regarding

our order.

The County opposed the Secretary’s proposal categorically. Attorney Carroll

maintained that no discovery could occur until the Special Master ruled upon the scope

of this Court’s protective order, because Fulton County contended that its conduct fell

entirely outside our protective order’s scope, rendering Speckin’s inspection

permissible. 75 Consequently, the County asserted, contempt would not lie as a matter of

law. Fulton County also maintained that any discovery would impair its litigation interests

in the County’s pending breach of contract action against Dominion as well as its RTKL

appeal.

filings. See Fulton County’s Emergency Application for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin
Discovery in Special Master Proceedings and to Compel Legal Rulings Preceding Said
Discovery, 11/1/2022, at 18 (insisting that the “nature of the contempt sought by the
Secretary must be decided” before discovery could proceed); compare Fulton County’s
Emergency Application for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Depositions Scheduled for
November 7, 2022 and to Have Special Master Rule on Fulton County’s Legal Issues
Raised in Its Motion Objecting to Discovery, 11/7/2022, at 6 (noting that the Special
Master had “concluded” that the Secretary sought civil contempt), with id. at 24 (indicating
that among the “predicate legal issues” yet to be decided is “whether the contempt
proceedings are ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ in nature”).
75 See generally Answer to Appellant’s Application for an Order Holding Appellees in
Contempt and Imposing Sanctions, 10/26/2022 (docketed in the Commonwealth Court at
277 MD 2021).

[J-46-2022] - 29
The Special Master rejected Fulton County’s arguments and ruled that discovery

would proceed. In her October 27, 2022 Order, the Special Master directed the parties

to provide a joint scheduling order suggesting deadlines for discovery—or, if no

agreement could be reached, separate proposed orders—by noon on October 28, 2022.

The Special Master added that no continuance would be granted and no late submission

would be considered.

The parties failed to reach an agreement. After receiving the parties’ proposals,

the Special Master issued an order on October 28, 2022, which functioned both as a rule

to show cause under Pa.R.Civ.P. 206.7 why the Secretary’s Sanction Application should

not be granted and as a detailed discovery and scheduling order for the proceedings.

The Master noted that, while the Secretary submitted a proposed schedule, the County

instead dedicated its submission to arguing (again) that it could not engage in discovery

absent the aforesaid “predicate legal ruling” concerning this Court’s stay, and the County

further stated “global objections” to discovery based upon the sweeping application of

various alleged privileges. 76 The Special Master declined to grant relief on either theory,

but, in issuing the rule, invited Fulton County to assert any defenses to the contempt

allegations.

The balance of the order directed the parties to serve written discovery requests

by noon on October 31, and to respond, produce, or object no later than noon on

November 2. The order further specified that all privilege-based objections must be

accompanied by a detailed privilege log and cautioned that any untimely objections would

be waived and disregarded. Accommodating Attorney Carroll’s scheduled vacation the

76 See SMR at 20.

[J-46-2022] - 30
week beginning on October 30, and without objection by the parties, the Special Master

scheduled the evidentiary hearing for November 9 and 10.

Importantly, the Special Master admonished the parties as follows: “Given the

existing time constraints in this matter, no extensions or continuances shall be granted

and no late submissions will be considered by the Court. In the event counsel for any

party cannot meet the deadlines set forth above, the Court expects the parties to retain

other counsel.” 77

As the hearings approached, the County repeatedly confounded the Special

Master’s efforts to conduct these proceedings in an orderly and efficient manner with

serial interruptions, delays, and even what can only be described as defiance. The

Secretary timely served discovery requests on October 31. But at approximately 10:30

p.m. on November 1—four days after the Master issued her rule and scheduling order,

and approximately four business hours before responses and objections were due—

Fulton County filed directly to this Court (rather than the Special Master) an “Emergency

Application for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Discovery in Special Master Proceedings

and to Compel Legal Rulings Preceding Said Discovery” (“First Application to Enjoin”).

Therein, Fulton County contended that there was no genuine dispute of a material fact

requiring discovery because the County conceded that the Speckin inspection had

occurred. This argument wholly disregarded the fact that the Secretary’s contempt

allegations and other stated bases for the imposition of sanctions entail state-of-mind

determinations that are not informed by concessions of the occurrence or non-occurrence

77 Order, 10/28/2022, at 4.

[J-46-2022] - 31
of events alone. The County has never really acknowledged, much less offered a

discernible defense regarding, these critical state-of-mind factors.

Second, Fulton County argued at great length that discovery before resolution of

the much-belabored “predicate legal rulings” would prejudice the County by forcing it to

disclose information that might not serve its interests in the parallel breach of contract

and RTKL actions against Dominion. Relatedly, the County vaguely invoked various

RTKL protections without explaining what principle or authority dictated that RTKL

protections may serve as a discovery bar in substantially unrelated litigation. 78 Finally,

Fulton County argued—again, vaguely—that disclosures which conformed to the

Secretary’s request would “violate the individual constitutional rights of the proposed

deponents and other potential witnesses.” 79

Conspicuous by its absence from the First Application to Enjoin was any developed

argument as to why these various objections could not have been raised individually to

the Secretary’s detailed proposed deposition questions, interrogatories, and requests for

admission and production as directed by the Special Master. This omission has persisted

throughout these proceedings. The County does not maintain that the time afforded was

insufficient. The County does not argue that the Secretary’s requests contradicted the

Special Master’s order, which bore the hallmarks and expectations of traditional discovery

practice but for the compressed schedule. Reading the County’s First Application to

78 The only overlap of which we are aware lies in the fact that certain RTKL privileges
are materially the same as privileges generally enjoyed in litigation. This is not a
consequence of any connection, but is rather a coincidence of certain protections that are
applied more or less universally for their own sakes such as the limited attorney-client
and work-product privileges.
79 First Application to Enjoin at 44.

[J-46-2022] - 32
Enjoin in isolation, one might think that the County was afforded no opportunity to protect

its interests. In fact, it was denied none of the protections enjoyed by any litigant subject

to discovery. But rather than crafting privilege-based objections to specific requests and

questions and providing a privilege log as directed by the Special Master, the County

wagered its limited time on a long-winded cri de coeur insisting that this Court excuse it

from the fact-finding process that this Court itself had prescribed.

We denied relief in a November 2, 2022 Order, referring the question to the Special

Master. We underscored that our order had no prejudicial effect on “Petitioner-Appellee’s

rights to seek discovery-related relief before the Special Master in due course and in full

conformity with any prior or future orders or directives issued by the Special Master.” 80

The County’s last-minute application and our consideration of same inevitably had

scuppered the Special Master’s carefully crafted schedule. But rather than hold Fulton

County to the losing side of its own gamble, we extended the deadlines for responses

and objections by twenty-four hours—an extension to which the Special Master added

eight hours of grace time in a subsequent order. Still, the County again declined its

renewed opportunity to engage in good-faith discovery.

On November 3, 2022, the Secretary filed an “Emergency Application to Compel

the Depositions of Ulsh, Bunch, and Shives on November 4 and 5, 2022.” The Secretary

asserted that, on October 31, it served upon Attorney Carroll proposed deposition

questions and notices of remote video depositions for Ulsh, Bunch, and Shives for specific

times on November 4 and 5, 2022. The Secretary maintained that its application was

necessary because the County had engaged in a pattern of obstruction that invited

80 Emphasis added.

[J-46-2022] - 33
skepticism about its intent to comply. On November 4, in an “Application for Discovery

Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” the Secretary informed the Master

that, although the County had served responses and objections to the Secretary’s timely

served discovery requests, the responses comprised an eleven-page standard objection

asserting the now-familiar generic privileges and objections followed by responses to

virtually all specific requests with another form response that asserted that the requests—

all of them, apparently—were “absurdly onerous,” overbroad, and burdensome, without

explaining why. 81 In so many words, the County simply repeated—despite this Court’s

and the Special Master’s repeated refusal to credit the claim—that no discovery at all was

relevant to sanctions because it conceded that the Speckin inspection had occurred.

Rather than compel the depositions, the Special Master deferred ruling and again

extended the deadline for the County to respond and/or object to the proposed deposition

questions until 8:00 p.m. on November 3. The Master also scheduled a status conference

for November 4. Again the Master rejected the County’s contention that it was entitled to

a threshold ruling on the scope of this Court’s stay order before discovery could proceed.

On November 4, before the time appointed for the status conference, the Secretary filed

a new “Application for Discovery Sanctions” asserting the same unrectified deficiencies

in the County’s responses. The Secretary proposed that the court deem admitted any

unresponded-to requests for admission and grant the Secretary certain findings of fact. 82

81 App. for Discovery Sanctions, 11/4/2022, at 10 (quoting the County’s Response to
Requests for Production at 9).
82 See Pa.R.Civ.P. 4014 (providing that a request for admission is admitted unless
the respondent “serves upon the party requesting the admission an answer verified by
the party or an objection, signed by the party or by the party’s attorney,” and that, “[i]f the
court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, it
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 34
Meanwhile, the County filed its pre-conference “Motion for Predicate Legal Rulings

and to Exclude Certain Discovery Requested by the Secretary,” the title signaling its

redundant substance. Undeterred by the Special Master’s three prior rejections of the

argument as well as this Court’s refusal to consider the matter, the County again insisted

that discovery could not proceed until the Master determined the scope of the stay order.

And in case the Master again was unpersuaded, the County asked the Master to allow

discovery subject to her “categorical determination as to Fulton County’s rights given that

there remains underlying litigation, additional litigation by and between Fulton County and

Dominion, and Fulton County’s general rights and privileges under law, including the

RTKL.” This “alternative” simply dressed the same old argument in slightly different garb.

Here again the County insisted upon a “predicate” ruling. 83

The November 4 status conference proceeded as scheduled. Again, the Master

denied the County’s redundant objections for familiar reasons. Reminding the County

that a party objecting to discovery bears the burden of establishing non-discoverability, 84

may order . . . that the matter is admitted”); Pa.R.Civ.P. 4006 (same with respect to
written interrogatories); see also Special Master’s Order, 11/3/2022, at 3 ¶4 (citing prior
orders and reiterating that “[f]ailure to timely return objections to discovery requests to the
other parties will result in waiver of any such objections, and no untimely discovery-related
motions will be considered”); Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019(a)(2) (“Sanctions”) (specifying that a party
who fails to provide sufficient answers or objections to discovery “may not be excused on
the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has
filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order”).
83 Attorney Carroll’s temerity was on full display during the conference that
immediately followed, when he asked (again) “for a motion for a stepped approach,” in
which discovery would occur only after the predicate rulings upon which he insisted, and
then declared that the County “deserve[d] legal rulings before we agree to this.” N.T.,
11/4/2022, at 10-11 (emphasis added).
84 See, e.g., Fisher v. Erie Ins. Exch., 258 A.3d 451, 461 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“The
party invoking a privilege must initially set forth facts showing that the privilege has been
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 35
the Special Master rejected the County’s objections for want of particularity as well as the

County’s dubious invocation of unspecified “rights” associated with the effect of discovery

in this proceeding upon its pending contract suit and RTKL appeal against Dominion. 85

The Master directed that the depositions for Ulsh, Bunch, and Shives be rescheduled for

November 7 or 8, 2022. The Master also declined to rule on the Secretary’s pending

application(s) for discovery sanctions until after the evidentiary hearing.

At the November 4 conference, Attorney Carroll asserted for the first time that

Commissioner Ulsh would be unable to attend the evidentiary hearing on November 9

and 10 because he had a previously scheduled (and previously undisclosed) vacation

requiring him to depart on Election Day, November 8, 2022, immediately after the election

ended. 86 During the hearing, the Master reminded Attorney Carroll that the hearing was

scheduled to accommodate his scheduled vacation per the October 27 hearing, and in

properly invoked.” (cleaned up)). For the same proposition, the Special Master cited Red
Vision Systems, Inc. v. Nat. Real Estate Info. Servs., L.P., 108 A.3d 54, 62
(Pa. Super. 2015).
85 We stated the operative principle in a case involving the clergy privilege, and that
principle is equally applicable to any invocation of an evidentiary privilege or other basis
for withholding evidence:

Exceptions to the demand for every man’s evidence are not lightly created
nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.
Thus, courts should accept testimonial privileges only to the very limited
extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has
a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing
all rational means for ascertaining the truth.

Commonwealth v. Stewart, 690 A.2d 195, 197 (Pa. 1997) (cleaned up). This principle will
not countenance, and does not allow, the County’s steadfast refusal to cooperate with
discovery requests and its persistent invocation of inapplicable privileges.
86 See N.T., 11/4/2022, at 26-27.

[J-46-2022] - 36
the order that followed, the Master “caution[ed] that [the Master] expects all

Commissioners to comply with properly served notices to attend.” 87

The Secretary again served Attorney Carroll with the deposition notices, but the

effort proved futile. At 7:54 a.m. on November 7, shortly before the first scheduled

deposition at 9:30 a.m., Fulton County filed directly to the Justices of this Court a sixty-

page “Emergency Application for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Depositions

Scheduled for November 7, 2022 and to Have Special Master Rule on Fulton County’s

Legal Issues Raised in Its Motion Objecting to Discovery.” With one modest exception,

the Application was materially indistinguishable 88 from its November 1 request to this

Court to block discovery.

The lone new contention appeared only in the first paragraph of the Introduction,

where the County now asserted that no Commissioners could appear for their depositions

that day because the preceding Friday (November 4) the Secretary “ha[d] notified

counties that there ha[d] been a system-wide outage and additional failures in their

election management, and in the equipment systems databases that the Secretary uses

for elections to occur smoothly”—specifically, the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors

87 Special Master Order, 11/4/2022, at 5 n.3. As noted, ever since October 24, 2022,
the evidentiary hearing had been scheduled (without objection) for November 9 and 10,
and was extended a week past the Special Master’s initial preference in order specifically
to accommodate Attorney Carroll’s own scheduled vacation.
88 While we decline to compare the applications word by word, the two filings’ tables
of contents are word-for-word identical but for the deletion from the latter application of
the former application’s argument section 2.a.

[J-46-2022] - 37
(“SURE”) system, which among other things enables counties to generate poll books to

be used during the election. 89

The Secretary appended to its response to the County’s Application a declaration

under penalties for unsworn falsifications 90 by Jonathan Marks, the Deputy Secretary for

Elections and Commissions at the Department of State. Deputy Secretary Marks averred

that the outage occurred at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, November 4, but that it did not affect the

County’s ability “to record returned ballots and process applications.” 91 He acknowledged

that the outage impeded the County’s “ability to generate certain reports and poll books,”

but asserted that all issues were resolved by 7:20 a.m. on Saturday, November 5. 92 He

also noted that, “[a]fter initial communications as to when the outage would be resolved,

Fulton County printed its poll books on November 5,” and the Department received no

further communications from the County. 93 Thus, the problem that Attorney Carroll cited

to support extraordinary relief he had previously sought by other means fully was resolved

well within twenty-four hours of its occurrence—and County elections officials had utilized

89 County’s Emergency Application for a Preliminary Injunction, 11/7/2022, at 4; see
id., Ex. F. The November 4 correspondence from the Secretary described an outage
“impacting various services of” the SURE system. It did not direct any action by County
Boards of Election, and Attorney Carroll made no representations as to whether the
problem had been solved during the intervening weekend, leaving the impression that the
problem persisted into the day he raised it as a basis not to attend depositions.
90 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904
91 Answer in Opposition to County’s Emergency Application, Ex. F at 2 ¶5.
92 Id.
93 Id., Ex. F at 2 ¶6 (emphasis added).

[J-46-2022] - 38
the briefly disabled functionality two days before Attorney Carroll filed a document citing

the issue to relieve his clients of their obligations to appear.

Later the same day—but after the time the first deposition was scheduled to

begin—this Court denied the County’s Application per curiam without comment.

At 8:05 a.m., ten minutes after filing the aforesaid Application with this Court,

Attorney Carroll informed counsel for the Secretary that his clients would not appear for

the noticed depositions or for the evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 9. The

Secretary immediately requested that the Master hold Fulton County in contempt and

direct the arrest of Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch to ensure their appearances at the

November 9 hearing. The Special Master again held the Secretary’s request for

sanctions in abeyance but made clear that all parties who had been noticed must appear.

Attorney Carroll remained undeterred. He responded by filing a “Motion and/or

Reply to Secretary’s Motion and to Suspend Proceedings Against County Commissioners

During Election Under Pennsylvania Law and to Stay Pending Application for Injunction

in the Supreme Court.”94 Attorney Carroll now contended that the Commissioners could

not appear at the November 9 hearing because such appearance would impede them

from executing their official duties as members of the Election Board the day after the

election.

This position was nothing short of astounding. First, of course, Attorney Carroll

already had agreed to the November 9 hearing, scheduled then for his benefit, and

presumably when he was well aware that the election fell on November 8 and was more

94 The allusion to an application for injunction evidently referred to Attorney Carroll’s
intention to seek such relief from the United States Supreme Court. He never filed such
an application.

[J-46-2022] - 39
or less aware of the Commissioners’ obligations as members of the Board of Elections.

Second, he had informed the Court on November 4 that Commissioner Ulsh could not

attend the November 9 hearing because he had scheduled a vacation that would begin

on Election Day immediately after the election was completed. In effect, Attorney Carroll

maintained that the November 9 hearing would interfere with duties on November 9, but

Commissioner Ulsh could discharge those same duties both on Election Day itself and

on the day of the hearing from his vacation. Finally, in between these brackets, Attorney

Carroll sought to relieve the Commissioners from their obligations to appear for their

depositions, citing a problem that no longer existed.

The Special Master denied relief on November 8 and (again) directed all noticed

parties to appear for the next day’s hearing. But by then, it was too late to depose the

witnesses. Attorney Carroll had achieved his clear objective to deny the Secretary the

opportunity to depose his clients by any means, no matter how spurious.

B. The Hearings and the Parties’ Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law

Around 1:00 a.m. on the morning of the November 9 hearing, Attorney Carroll for

the first time filed a motion seeking pro hac vice admission of Attorney Lambert, who, like

Attorney Carroll, had represented the County since April 12, 2022. The Special Master

denied the motion, citing Attorney Carroll’s failure to file it three days before Attorney

Lambert’s intended appearance as required by the Bar Admission Rules, 95 and because

the motion lacked the mandatory payment certification from the IOLTA Board. 96

95 See Pa.B.A.R. 301(b)(2)(ii).
96 Pa.R.Civ.P. 1012.1(b)(1).

[J-46-2022] - 40
While these deficiencies alone supported the Special Master’s rejection of the

motion, the Secretary identified additional problems that Attorneys Carroll and Lambert

have never disputed or fully rectified. For example, Attorney Lambert failed to disclose

the pendency of disciplinary proceedings in Michigan arising from litigation conduct in a

Michigan federal case that also led to a sanctions order making her jointly and severally

liable with co-counsel for over $170,000 in counsel fees in 2020 election-related litigation

deemed frivolous and vexatious. 97 The court in that case also referred Attorney Lambert

and co-counsel to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the disciplinary

authority for any other jurisdictions where counsel was admitted “for investigation and

possible suspension or disbarment and ordered [counsel] to complete at least twelve

(12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards . . . and

election law.”98 Attorney Lambert eventually provided proof of good standing in the

Michigan bar, but never denied the pending disciplinary complaint. 99 But neither she nor

Attorney Carroll has ever acknowledged that Rule 1012.1 is not satisfied by proof of good

standing, even when challenged on it before and by the Special Master. 100

The Special Master nonetheless allowed Attorney Lambert to remain in the

courtroom as the County’s chosen counsel, explaining that, “although [Attorney Lambert]

97 See King v. Whitmer, 2:20-cv-13134, 2021 WL 5711102 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2021).
98 Id. at *1 n.1.
99 Attorney Lambert noted that her appeal of the sanctions award is pending before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As of this writing, the last event
in that appeal appears to have been oral argument, held on December 8, 2022.
100 See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1012.1(c)(1)(ii) (requiring the applicant to disclose “any
disciplinary proceedings” in any jurisdiction and to detail “the circumstances under which
the disciplinary action has been brought”).

[J-46-2022] - 41
wouldn’t be able to question witnesses or speak to the court, [she] could assist Attorney

Carroll, confer with him and assist him.” 101 Attorney Lambert never was, and never has

been, admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding or the underlying litigation. 102

The November 9 hearing comprised the testimony of Commissioners Ulsh and

Shives. The entirety of November 10 was spent on Mr. Macias’ testimony as to the

materially undisputed potentially spoliative effects of the third-party inspections of the

County’s voting equipment. Commissioner Bunch ultimately testified remotely on

November 14 after an asserted emergency rendered him unavailable to appear sooner.

The testimony of Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch need hardly be reviewed. While

Attorney Robert A. Wiygul for the Secretary methodically questioned both of them

regarding every potentially relevant communication, decision, and event (official and

unofficial) that pertained to their knowledge and understanding of our stay order and the

Speckin inspection, each of these two commissioners invoked his Fifth Amendment right

against self-incrimination, sometimes to the point of absurdity. 103 The Special Master

101 N.T., 11/9/2022, at 28-29; see SMR at 38. Later, the Secretary would challenge
the degree of Attorney Lambert’s participation in the proceedings, indicating on several
occasions that Attorney Lambert was persistently and audibly dictating questions and
arguments directly into Attorney Carroll’s ear. See SMR at 40 n.29 (citing N.T.,
11/10/20223, at 22-23).
102 Between the first and second day of the hearing, Attorney Carroll filed an amended
pro hac vice motion, which the Master once again found materially defective and which
the Master denied. Thus, Attorney Lambert continued in an advisory capacity on
November 10. No corrected motion was filed, and Attorney Lambert did not participate
in the November 14 hearing.
103 For example, Commissioner Ulsh refused to answer a question concerning who
represented him, N.T., 11/9/2022, at 141-43, and would not confirm whether he was
aware of legal pleadings that had been issued in his name. Id. at 138 (refusing to respond
to whether he had “a recollection of [he] and [his] Co-Petitioners fil[ing] this lawsuit against
the Secretary in August of 2021”).

[J-46-2022] - 42
repeatedly cautioned that, because these proceedings were civil in nature, the fact-finder

could draw adverse inferences from these invocations. 104

Of necessity, then, Commissioner Shives, who testified without invoking any

privileges, provided much of the relevant probative evidence that Commissioners Ulsh

and Bunch neither admitted nor denied. The resulting narrative revealed that her

resistance to the measures undertaken by Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch in the name

of investigating alleged irregularities in the 2020 general election resulted in her frequent

exclusion from the discussions that led to, e.g., the Speckin inspection, which she did not

know about until months after it occurred. Much of what she did learn about the unofficial

proceedings came from her incidental inclusion in group text conversations revealing the

lengths to which her fellow Commissioners had gone to withhold information about

actions undertaken, nominally on behalf of the County she had been elected to represent.

It also emerged that her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition was not a

function of her deliberate non-compliance, as it evidently was for Commissioners Ulsh

and Bunch, but rather because Attorney Carroll had failed to forward to her the notice of

her deposition that the Secretary timely served upon him. Attorney Carroll waved away

the omission as an oversight, but his oversight appears only to have affected

Commissioner Shives, who, it turns out, had refused to support all or most of the efforts

to interrogate the conduct of the 2020 election that led us to this pass and who was

104 See Harmon v. Mifflin Cty. Sch. Dist., 713 A.2d 620, 623 (Pa. 1998) (noting that
an adverse inference may be drawn from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a
witness in civil litigation, and stating that “the inference to be drawn from a party’s failure
to testify serves to corroborate the evidence produced by the opposing party”).

[J-46-2022] - 43
unlikely to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch, conversely,

evidently were informed of the notices. 105

The Special Master’s findings of fact necessarily derived from the testimony of

Commissioner Shives and Mr. Macias. But the Master consistently appended to citations

of those witnesses’ testimony instances when Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch invoked

the Fifth Amendment rather than address the same topic. This effectively embodied the

Master’s decision to draw adverse inferences as corroborative rather than direct

evidence, as well-established law allows and the evidence in this case unequivocally

justifies. 106 Notably, Commissioner Shives and Mr. Macias testified either to matters that

the County has acknowledged at least by necessary implication (e.g., the potentially

105 See generally N.T., 11/9/2022, at 217-29 (documenting an extensive, contentious
colloquy reflecting suggestions of conflict, related unequal treatment of Commissioner
Shives relative to Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch, and the degree to which Shives might
be prejudiced as the lone Commissioner willing freely to testify at the hearing). When
Attorneys Carroll and Lambert were selected by a majority vote of the Commission,
Commissioner Shives had no choice but to accept the representation. But Attorney
Carroll’s failure to notify her of her mandatory obligation to attend a duly noticed
deposition (and, for that matter, to attend the November 9, 2022 hearing, which she
learned about the preceding evening), exposed her to sanctions and even arrest. See id.
at 214-15 (regarding the lack of notice).

Relatedly, Attorney Carroll’s continuing representation of all named Petitioners in
these sanction proceedings, in which the Secretary has sought sanctions against the
County, Petitioners Ulsh and Bunch individually, and Attorney Carroll, presents an
obvious risk of a conflict between Attorney Carroll and his clients. Neither the parties nor
Attorney Carroll have defended themselves at each other’s expense, but that is not to say
there were not defenses available to each that could prejudice another’s interests. We
will not take up this question sua sponte, but Attorney Carroll would be wise in future
endeavors to address potential conflicts with his client in conformity with his ethical
obligations.
106 See Harmon, 713 A.2d at 623-24.

[J-46-2022] - 44
spoliative effect of Speckin’s inspection 107) or that circumstances all but necessarily imply

(e.g., that Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch were conscious, at least generally, of our stay

order and of the Secretary’s stated basis for seeking it).

The parties and the Master agreed early in these proceedings that, after the

hearings concluded, the parties would each submit proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Even though that agreement was confirmed on the record at the

conclusion of the November 14 hearing—including as to the filing’s form, i.e., laid out with

the customary numbered paragraphs with references to the record—the County declined

to employ that format, or for that matter to submit any proposed findings of fact pertinent

to the allegations of contempt. Instead, the County submitted a strikingly brief, minimally

sourced document that rehashed its principal argument regarding the scope of this

Court’s protective order. 108 Conversely, the Secretary provided a nearly ninety-page

narrative, painstakingly sourced, in the prescribed form.

107 Compare, e.g., Answer to Appellant’s Application for An Order Holding Appellees
in Contempt and Imposing Sanctions at 8 (noting that, per the Speckin report, “there was
no way to determine whether and to what extent [the prior insertion into the voting
equipment of external drives] compromised the data or the system during past elections);
Dominion Complaint at 17 ¶69 (Sanctions Petition, Ex. A) (noting that the Speckin
inspection showed that external USB hard drives had been inserted in the machines on
several occasions, and that there is no known list of approved external drives that could
have been or were used or inserted into the machines); id. at 2 ¶2 (Speckin concluding
that there was no way to determine whether and to what extent these unauthorized drives
compromised the data or the system) with Dominion Complaint, Ex. E (Speckin Report)
(describing Speckin’s imaging of voting machine hard drives to “Western Digital 4TB USB
hard drives”).
108 An unresolved interlineation suggests that the County intended to engage
Mr. Macias’s testimony. See Fulton County’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law at 8 (“[MACIAS / CLEANING UP REMAINING HEARING TR REFS]”). In any
event, while Mr. Macias’s testimony is relevant to the undisputed risk of spoliation, it is
Commissioner Shives’ testimony that speaks to what Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 45
The County also argued that sanctions could not be imposed because, on its

account, “[t]he Pennsylvania General Assembly has delegated exclusive authority to

county election boards to perform several functions relating to purchasing, maintenance,

inspection and investigation of voting equipment.” 109 Because this obligation required the

provision of “functional election equipment,” the County continued, it “cannot be held in

contempt for its good faith efforts to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of its

citizens.” 110 Closing with a non sequitur that neither the argument in which it appears nor

the text of our stay order supports, the County contended that “[t]he Court’s January [Stay]

Orders did not prohibit Fulton County from conducting inspection [sic] of defunct and

knew and believed and when. The County makes no effort to propose a counternarrative
on these points.
109 Id. at 12 (citing, in the pages that followed, 25 P.S. §§ 2642-43) (emphasis added).
In characterizing its authority as “exclusive,” the County writes 25 P.S. § 2621 out of the
Election Code. That section describes the Secretary’s duty “[t]o examine and reexamine
voting machines, and to approve or disapprove them for use in this state, in accordance
with the provisions of this act.” 25 P.S. § 2621(b). Notably, the architects of the Election
Code believed that the powers and duties of both the Secretary and the county boards of
elections merited their own entire articles of the Code. So to cite only the Code’s
provisions concerning county election boards is to disregard a suite of provisions
pertaining to the Secretary—provisions which the County itself has discussed at length in
the underlying litigation. In any event, no provision of the Election Code suggests that a
county may unilaterally disregard a court order. Where a party believes an order conflicts
with a statute, it may seek relief on that basis. But it may not decide for itself which of the
competing mandates prevails. Cf. Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971)
(citing Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90 (1922)) (“Whether or not the district court
issued the preliminary injunction on the basis of a correct or incorrect view of the law, the
order must unquestionably be obeyed.”).
110 Fulton County’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 12.

[J-46-2022] - 46
decertified voting machines that had already been decommissioned and were never going

to be used again.” 111

The conclusory nature of the County’s arguments can best be illustrated by the

following excerpt from its submission:

The issues in the underlying suit are purely concerning the legal question
of who, among the Secretary and the County Board of Elections had
authority to perform the acts of having the Dominion machines inspected in
the first place.[112] The actual integrity of the machines, and the extent to
which they were inspected and/or compromised by the Wake TSI Report is
not at issue in the underlying litigation.[113] Therefore, in addition to not
being within the scope of the Supreme Court’s January Orders, and even if
it was, the Conty [sic] had a right to do it, and even if it did not, the act in
itself did ont [sic] violate the spirit of the January Orders, because no
contemptuous act occurred by Fulton County have [sic] the defunct
machines inspected. 114

In sum, Fulton County has raised only one intelligible defense: the claim that our stay

orders barred only the specified inspection at the specified date and time that was referred

to in those orders.

111 Id. The County has repeatedly returned to its claim that the machines here at issue
will never again be used due to their decertification and the County’s acquisition of new
voting equipment from one of Dominion’s competitors. Lost in this theory is that the
County’s Petition for Review explicitly seeks recertification of those machines and asserts
bases for relief that clearly are predicated on disputed claims regarding the condition of
the machines immediately after the Wake TSI inspection. The County insists that it
presents only questions of law, but how the County chooses to cast its Petition for Review
is immaterial to the Secretary’s right to defend against all claims as pleaded.
112 The County raises no such claim in the underlying litigation. Rather, it challenges
the Secretary’s decertification authority, both facially and as exercised in this particular
case.
113 As noted previously, the County’s Petition facially contradicts this claim. It also
made the same claim to this Court in opposition to the Secretary’s first Emergency
Application. When we granted the Secretary’s application, the County might have
suspected that this Court found its position at best less than clear.
114 Fulton County’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 18-19.

[J-46-2022] - 47
IV. The Special Master’s Recommendations and Our Analysis

A. Fulton County’s Alleged Violation of this Court’s Order
and the Special Master’s Recommendation That We Hold
the County in Contempt

“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance

with their lawful orders through civil contempt,” which “has long been recognized as the

appropriate means by which a court may compel compliance with its orders.” 115 This

inherent power dates back centuries, and it is embodied in our Judicial Code. 116

Among the matters we directed the Special Master to determine was whether the

Secretary’s allegation of contempt and the sanctions sought were civil or criminal in

nature. What distinguishes civil from criminal contempt are the ends to be achieved, and

the classification dictates what process is due the alleged contemnor. This Court has

explained the governing standard as follows: “it is a several[-]step process that must take

place to hold one in civil contempt—rule to show cause why an attachment should not

issue, . . . hearing on the contempt citation, [and an] adjudication of contempt.” 117 In

contemporary terms, the defendant in civil contempt must be given notice of its alleged

contempt and the opportunity to respond. Here, Fulton County was given that much and

more, much of it gratuitous and far more generous than the County’s conduct deserved.

115 In re Investigating Grand Jury of Phila. Cty., 433 A.2d 5, 6 (Pa. 1981) (cleaned up).
116 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132.
117 Commonwealth ex rel. Magaziner v. Magaziner, 253 A.2d 263, 266 (Pa. 1969)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Snowden, 1 Brewster 218, 219 (Pa. 1868)). Both Magaziner
and Snowden addressed instances of imprisonment for civil contempt, but, plainly, the
process required for coercive or compensatory relief should be no more exacting than it
is to establish a basis for imprisonment.

[J-46-2022] - 48
With regard to the ends to be achieved, the distinction depends upon whether the

sanctions’ “dominant purpose is to punish for the violation of a court order [criminal

contempt] or to coerce into compliance with the order [civil contempt].” 118 Civil contempt

also enables the court to award the complainant expenses incurred as a consequence of

the contemnor’s violation. 119 In imposing sanctions for coercive purposes, “the court must

exercise the least possible power to the end proposed.” 120

As noted above, notwithstanding Fulton County’s occasional post hoc suggestion

to the contrary, the Special Master and the parties agreed that this proceeding sounds in

civil rather than criminal contempt. The Secretary primarily seeks compliance with this

Court’s temporary stay as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining and, belatedly,

enforcing that stay when the County subverted that order in fact. We agree that the

sanctions here at issue are to be resolved according to the rules of civil rather than

criminal contempt.

“[I]n civil contempt proceedings the burden is on the complaining party to prove

noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence.” 121 “The corollary of this proposition

is that the order which is said to have been violated must be specific and definite.”122

Mere noncompliance with a court order is not by itself sufficient to prove
contempt; rather, the complaining party must prove:

118 Barrett v. Barrett, 368 A.2d 616, 619 (Pa. 1977).
119 See East Caln Twp. v. Carter, 269 A.2d 703, 706 (Pa. 1970).
120 Commonwealth, DEP v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 32 A.3d 639, 657
(Pa. 2011).
121 Barrett, 368 A.2d at 621.
122 In re Rubin, 378 F.2d 104, 108 (3d Cir. 1967).

[J-46-2022] - 49
(1) That the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he
is alleged to have disobeyed;

(2) That the act constituting the contemnor’s violation was volitional; and

(3) That the contemnor acted with wrongful intent. 123

The County lashes its defense entirely to the question of clarity; it argues that our

stay orders pending appeal refer by their terms only to the then-emergent Envoy Sage

inspection that those orders specified. Consequently, it argues, nothing in our orders

barred the County from inviting or facilitating another inspection by any different party at

any different time—because the County did not violate an unambiguous mandate, we are

told, the County cannot be held to have violated the order at all, and therefore cannot be

held in contempt.

There is no shortage in Pennsylvania case law of boilerplate language to support

this general proposition, but the County cites precious little of it. Primarily, it relies upon

Stahl v. Redcay. There, consistent with the Third Circuit decision in Rubin, the Superior

Court explained:

Because the order forming the basis for civil contempt must be strictly
construed, any ambiguities or omissions in the order must be construed in
favor of the defendant. In such cases, a contradictory order or an order
whose specific terms have not been violated will not serve as the basis for
a finding of contempt. . . . A person may not be held in contempt of court
for failing to obey an order that is too vague or that cannot be enforced. 124

But the County offers nothing about Stahl’s context.

123 Waggle v. Woodland Hills Ass’n, Inc., 213 A.3d 397, 403 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).
124 Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 489 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting In re Contempt of
Cullen, 849 A.2d 1207, 1210-11 (Pa. Super. 2004)); see Fulton County’s Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 8-9.

[J-46-2022] - 50
In Stahl, the Superior Court reversed sanctions imposed when counsel made a

factual assertion during his opening argument that the court allegedly had precluded in a

pre-trial ruling. But neither the opposing party nor the sanctioning trial court had cited any

order imposing precisely the evidentiary constraint that the defendant allegedly violated,

and the record disclosed none. The Stahl court nowhere suggested that violating the

circumstantially clear intention of a court as embodied in a duly issued order of record is

immunized simply by virtue of a claim of ambiguity that depends upon isolating the order

from the circumstances of its issuance, including the stated reasoning of the party seeking

the order and the logical intent of the Court in awarding it. 125

Were the rigid proposition for which Fulton County cites Stahl consistent with the

broader run of Pennsylvania law, that case’s distinguishing features would be of little

moment. But the law on this subject is not so doctrinaire. Like other jurisdictions we have

surveyed, Pennsylvania law provides for far more sensitivity to circumstance than Stahl’s

language suggests or its peculiar facts would require. Common sense dictates that a

more rigid approach inevitably would tempt those prepared to play fast and loose with

court orders.

We find particular guidance in United States v. Christie Industries, 126 which we

cited favorably in our thoroughly sourced decision in Commonwealth v. Garrison. 127 In

Christie, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a defense to

125 Beyond Stahl—and by implication the cases cited therein, which the County does
not discuss—the County cites only Rodney v. Wise, 500 A.2d 1187, 1190
(Pa. Super. 1985), a case that involved neither injunctive relief nor parsing a written order.
126 465 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir. 1972)
127 396 A.2d 971, 977 (Pa. 1978).

[J-46-2022] - 51
contempt that relied upon an excruciatingly literal reading of an order. The order in

question was a preliminary injunction that barred the defendants “from preparing,

packaging, promoting, selling, distributing, introducing and causing to be introduced and

delivering and causing to be delivered for introduction into interstate commerce

firecracker assembly-kits on the ground that they are banned hazardous substances

within the meaning of the Child Protection Act of 1966.” 128 In the order, the court

described the assembly kits in question as containing “cylinder casings, cup-like end

caps, fuse coil, one plastic bag containing potassium nitrate and one plastic bag

containing aluminum powder and sulfur.” 129 The government originally asked the court

to enjoin shipping not only of “assembly-kits” but also of “any similar article, or any

component of said firecracker assembly-kits.” 130 But in its order granting the injunction,

the court excluded the catch-all language.

Citing the necessity of clarity, the defendants raised several highly technical

arguments that parsed the order so as to exclude the allegedly contemptuous conduct.

The court rejected nearly all of these arguments, including in particular the claim that the

order was not violated (a) by the shipment in a single package of components that made

up the “kit,” because the components were sold separately and were not advertised or

sold as a “kit”; or (b) by substituting components such as non-cylindrical casings

(“cylindrical” casings being the only sort described in the order); or (c) by shipping all

components of an above-described kit but for the fuse coil.

128 Christie Indus., 465 F.2d at 1005 n.2.
129 Id.
130 Id. at 1006.

[J-46-2022] - 52
The court rejected this last argument not because it was proscribed expressly or

even implicitly, but because the court found that it violated the spirit and intent of the

injunction to protect children during the pendency of litigation instantiated to do precisely

that. 131 The court observed that omitting the coil did not vitiate the essential non-

compliance of the work-around, because a reasonably curious child could be expected to

devise substitute fuses.

Similarly, the court found that the defendant violated the order when it added a

warning in its catalog that only people of legal age should purchase the fireworks kits (or

their equivalent) and that the buyer must sign a statement attesting that the buyer is of

legal age. Again engaging common sense rather than parsing syntax in a vacuum, the

court observed that some children foreseeably would order the kits (or their equivalent)

notwithstanding the warning and would have no scruple about signing the form

dishonestly. 132

The Christie court acknowledged “that a person will not be held in contempt of an

order unless the order has given him fair warning that his acts were forbidden,” and that

“[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in

orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” 133 But it added a

critical caveat:

131 See id. at 1007 n.6.
132 Id. at 1007. The court also cited circumstantial evidence that the defendant knew
that its warning and signature requirement were ineffectual and that it intended to market
to children, observing that the defendant had promised all purchasers an entry in a
drawing for a radio-controlled model airplane.
133 Id. at 1006 (citing Kammerer, 450 F.2d at 280).

[J-46-2022] - 53
[T]his is not to say that where an injunction does give fair warning of the
acts that it forbids, it can be avoided on merely technical grounds. The
language of an injunction must be read in the light of the circumstances
surrounding its entry: the relief sought by the moving party, the evidence
produced at the hearing on the injunction, and the mischief that the
injunction seeks to prevent. 134

To similar effect is a long list of cases, including a Second Circuit case in which

the court rejected a defense based upon a dubiously literal interpretation of an order: “In

deciding whether an injunction has been violated it is proper to observe the objects for

which the relief was granted and to find a breach of the decree in a violation of the spirit

of the injunction, even though its strict letter may not have been disregarded.” 135

134 Id. at 1007 (emphasis added).
135 John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 128 F.2d 981, 983 (2d Cir. 1942)
(citing, inter alia, Ginsberg v. Kentucky Util. Co., 83 S.W.2d 497 (Ky. 1935), in which the
court noted “a principle running through all authorities that injunction orders must be
honestly and fairly obeyed and courts will not tolerate schemes or subterfuges, however
artfully they may be clothed to disguise their real nature and purpose, if they are in fact
designed to thwart the court’s decrees; and the violation of the spirit of an injunction is a
breach of the court’s mandate even though its strict letter may not have been disregarded”
(id. at 500)); see United States v. Greyhound Corp., 508 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1974) (“To
provide a defense to criminal contempt, the mistaken construction must be one which
was adopted in good faith and which, given the background and purpose of the order, is
plausible. The defendant may not avoid criminal contempt by twisted interpretations or
tortured constructions of the provisions of the order.” (emphasis added; internal quotation
marks omitted)); Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepard Conservation Soc.,
774 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that an enjoined party may be held in contempt for
providing a non-party with the means to violate the injunction if it knows the receiving non-
party is likely to do so); cf. Mayor of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U.S. 259, 273 (1913)
(rejecting a claim that a decree was overbroad, observing that “[t]he nature and extent of
the . . . decree is not to be determined by seizing upon isolated parts of it or passages in
the opinion considering the rights of the parties, but upon an examination of the issues
made and intended to be submitted, and what the decree was really designed to
accomplish” (emphasis added)); Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 762 (2010) (Breyer, J.,
dissenting) (citing Stetson and Mayor of Vicksburg for the proposition that “[c]ourts long
have looked to the objects for which injunctive relief was granted, as well as the
circumstances attending it, in deciding whether an enjoined party has complied with an
injunction” (cleaned up)).

[J-46-2022] - 54
Writing for the Court in McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 136 Justice Douglas

aptly anticipated the perils of literalist interpretations that exclude reasonable inferences

about what any reasonable party would have understood was at issue in the run-up to the

issuance of a contested injunctive order. In that case, Justice Douglas wrote:

It does not lie in their mouths to say that they have an immunity from civil
contempt because the plan or scheme which they adopted was not
specifically enjoined. Such a rule would give tremendous impetus to the
program of experimentation with disobedience of the law which we
condemned in Maggio v. Zeitz[137]. The instant case is an excellent
illustration of how it could operate to prevent accountability for persistent
contumacy. Civil contempt is avoided today by showing that the specific
plan adopted by respondents was not enjoined. Hence a new decree is
entered enjoining that particular plan. Thereafter the defendants work out
a plan that was not specifically enjoined. Immunity is once more obtained
because the new plan was not specifically enjoined. And so a whole series
of wrongs is perpetrated and a decree of enforcement goes for naught. 138

136 336 U.S. 187 (1949).
137 333 U.S. 56 (1948). Although Maggio used the evocative “experimentation with
disobedience” language, its discussion aimed at a somewhat different issue that
nonetheless finds an echo in the County’s conduct in this case. In that case, the Court
cautioned that “a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or
factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of
the original controversy. . . . [W]hen [the order] has become final, disobedience cannot
be justified by re-trying the issues as to whether the order should have issued in the first
place.” Id. Although this does not bear directly upon the County’s argument regarding
the proper scope of our order, it is relevant to the County’s serial effort to recast various
aspects of this case to suit its purposes during the course of this contempt proceeding.
This captures, for example, the County’s attempt to relitigate whether its Petition for
Review in fact raises issues of fact, and its frankly incoherent claim that, because its
voting equipment has been decertified and replaced, it is no longer voting equipment at
all such that the County was as free to order its inspection as it would be to order the
inspection of a county vehicle. This last, of course, is incoherent primarily because, if the
County succeeds in its underlying legal challenge to the Secretary’s authority to decertify
its machines, then the decertification would be void. The County cannot seek to benefit
from a decertification that it still hopes to invalidate in the underlying litigation.
138 McComb, 336 U.S. at 192-93.

[J-46-2022] - 55
The McComb Court also proposed an obvious good-faith alternative to gambling

on a blinkered, self-serving reading of an order and hoping for the best: “Respondents

could have petitioned the District Court for a modification, clarification or construction of

the order. But [they] did not take that course . . . . They undertook to make their own

determination of what the decree meant. They knew they acted at their peril.” 139 The

County might have elected some variation on this approach out of caution if it felt that the

Speckin inspection could not wait.

In light of the circumstances in which the Secretary sought the protective order and

the substance of the Petition for Review against which the Secretary sought to defend,

and in the similar light cast by the relief the Secretary sought, the arguments the Secretary

made in support in its several related applications here and below, and the arguments the

County made in opposition, it would beggar credulity to accept Fulton County’s

suggestion that its agents were not aware that the Speckin inspection contravened the

concern for spoliation that alone underlay this Court’s decision to grant the Secretary the

protective order it sought.

To similar effect, the Special Master observed:

Because the applications that elicited the Injunction Order clearly related to
the collateral discovery issue on appeal, there was no need for any party to
speculate or guess about the purpose of the Injunction Order . . . . The
Supreme Court obviously intended to preserve its ability to render an
appellate decision that was meaningful. . . . And any subsequent
inspection of the Dominion Voting Equipment would moot out that appeal
and prevent a meaningful resolution of the issues on appeal. Those issues
were Dominion’s right to protect its property and the Secretary’s right to

139 Id. at 192 (emphasis omitted).

[J-46-2022] - 56
preserve evidence for her defense, which both depended entirely upon
preventing further inspection of the Dominion Voting Equipment. 140

Perhaps tellingly, the County does not openly test our credulity by proclaiming

actual ignorance on the part of its agents. Although the County implies and surely would

welcome that inference, it has never submitted evidence or clearly averred that any one

of Fulton County’s agents considered or was actually confused about the intended scope

or objective of the temporary order that this Court issued. Instead, we have

Commissioner Shives’ testimony that the other two Commissioners understood the

broader intention of our order; the serial invocations by Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch

of the Fifth Amendment in response to any direct question about what they knew and

believed; and the circumstantial evidence comprising how these two commissioners went

about deciding to allow and ultimately facilitating the Speckin inspection, including walling

off Commissioner Shives. They behaved to all appearances like people who knew that

they had something to hide. 141

140 SMR at 63 ¶8 (emphasis in original).
141 See id. at 67 ¶22 & n.38. The Special Master also noted (without expressly
crediting) the Secretary’s argument that, in addition to bespeaking Commissioners Ulsh
and Bunch’s desire to hide their activities from Commissioner Shives, the citizenry of
Fulton County, the Secretary, and Dominion, the conspicuous secrecy with which the
Commissioners acted also may have violated various statutes. These include 25 P.S.
§ 2643 (Election Code) (“All actions of a county board [of elections] shall be decided by
a majority vote of all the members”) and 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 705, 708 (the “Sunshine Act”)
(requiring public votes and providing that the public must be notified of any executive
sessions held, and their reasons, in the public meeting immediately preceding or following
the session). Like the Special Master, we find it unnecessary to address these issues.
But we note that, when compared with the Commission’s generally transparent behavior
relative to their other efforts to inspect the voting equipment, it is suggestive that only the
Speckin inspection was arranged so quietly, and that Commissioners Ulsh and Bunch
turned secretive only after our stay order issued.

[J-46-2022] - 57
The Master also explained the patent absurdity of the County’s reading: (1) that

our first order, because it referred expressly to the Envoy Sage inspection and referred

to the date and time for which it was scheduled, would have left the County free to

reschedule the very same Envoy Sage inspection by a day or even an hour; (2) that our

second order was issued, nonsensically, for the exclusive purpose of barring a particular

inspection at a particular moment that passed nearly two weeks earlier; or, at best, (3) that

we sought to stop only Envoy Sage from inspecting the machines, leaving literally any

other individual or entity free to do anything to the voting equipment the County wanted. 142

The Special Master concluded:

Put simply, . . . no reasonable interpretation of the Injunction Order would
render it inapplicable to the Speckin Inspection. That inspection directly
implicated the ground on which the Injunction Order was sought—avoiding
spoliation[143] of the evidence. Equally telling, the interpretation the County
now attempts to give the Injunction Order . . . is unsupported by any of the
grounds offered to the Supreme Court in support of the Secretary’s
application for the injunction. Indeed, if anything, these grounds supported
prohibition of the [Speckin] Inspection to an even greater degree than they
supported prohibition of the Proposed Envoy Sage inspection. 144

142 SMR at 63-65 ¶¶8-12.
143 During these hearings, Attorney Carroll in both his questioning and argument
repeatedly made much of the proposition that Mr. Macias could not testify to a reasonable
degree of certainty that the Speckin inspection in fact compromised the electronic
information on the voting equipment as it was following Wake TSI inspection. But in so
arguing, Attorney Carroll either misapprehended or sought to distract from the real
issue—not the fact of spoliation but the impossibility of determining whether spoliation
occurred. Not only did the County offer no countervailing evidence, it established through
its own various pleadings and the findings in the Speckin report, itself, the inescapable
uncertainty that followed the Speckin inspection.
144 Id. at 64-65 ¶12. Here, the Special Master alludes to the fact that, in the run-up to
the planned Envoy Sage inspection, the County at least offered the Secretary a token
gesture toward the imposition of an agreeable protocol. (In this regard, it is worth noting
that at that time, the Secretary was attempting to negotiate to allow the inspection,
provided the County’s agreement to an acceptable protocol.) Because it was planned
(continued…)

[J-46-2022] - 58
We agree. A court assessing compliance with its order may and indeed should

view the words of the order in light of the terms and reasoning of the party seeking it and

the procedural and real-world circumstances amid which it was issued. 145 That we require

clarity as to the conduct proscribed to ensure that the contempt sanction is not imposed

when the alleged contemnor in good faith may not have understood the order’s scope

does not warrant venerating form to a degree that makes a mockery of substance. That

our case law requires us to interpret ambiguous language in favor of the alleged

contemnor does not require us to treat as reasonable an interpretation of our order that

would render it incompatible with the clear impetus for its issuance and, in case of the

January 27, 2022 order, without any discernible effect.

and executed in secret, it follows trivially that the County made no such effort, token or
otherwise, in connection with the Speckin inspection.
145 Pennsylvania appellate courts typically review trial court contempt orders for an
abuse of discretion, “plac[ing] great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge,”
and reversing only where “the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the
evidence of record.” G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 268-69 (Pa. Super. 2013). Appellate
courts in other jurisdictions have deferred to lower courts’ interpretations of their own
orders when determining whether an alleged contemnor had sufficient notice and
understanding of what conduct was proscribed to sustain a finding of contempt. See In
re Grand Jury Subp

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9387975. Public record. Not legal advice.