# Dougherty, J., Aplt. v. Heller, K.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 14, 2016 · 635 Pa. 507

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824104

## Case

- **Full name:** John J. DOUGHERTY, Appellant, v. Karen HELLER, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 14, 2016
- **Citations:** 635 Pa. 507; 138 A.3d 611; 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2288; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1210; 2016 WL 3261814
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Saylor, Wecht, Colins, Friedman, Leadbetter, Brobson, Strassburger
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9824104

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding generalized claim that public disclosure of videotaped deposition could infringe upon appellant's privacy or cause him embarrassment insufficient to raise type of issue which is “too important to be denied review” under collateral order doctrine
- noting that tax returns are subject to privacy rights pursuant to state law and confidentiality under a federal statute
- observing a “trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery.” (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

Senior Judge LEADBETTER,
concurring.
I join in the thoughtful opinion of the court. I write separately simply to emphasize that, with respect to the second prong of the collateral order doctrine, appellant’s asserted claims of harm are simply too speculative to evaluate. Had the deposition gone forward and some concrete and substantial invasion of privacy occurred, application of the doctrine might have been in order. However, in the present posture it is impossible to say that appellant has any interest at all to protect, let alone one “too important to be denied review.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824104. Public record. Not legal advice.