IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES and JOHN VOYLES, husband and wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE KISKADDEN, individually, Plaintiffs, VS . RANGE RESOURCES LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES VOYLES, husband and wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE KISKADDEN, individually, Plaintiffs, VS. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. Consolidated at Docket No. 2012?3534 The Honorable Michael]. Lucas OMNIBUS MOTION TO QUASI-I SUBPOENAS, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES Filed on behalf of Intervenor: The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette Counsel of Record for This Party: FREDERICK N. FRANK, Esquire Pa. I.D. #10395 PARKER, JR, Esquire Pa. I.D. #318781 FRANK, GALE, BAILS, MURCKO POCRASS, P.C. Firm I.D. No. 892 33?ti Floor, Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 471?5912 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL DIVISION Case No. 2012?3534 RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY I-IANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. John M. Smith, Esq. Kendra L. Smith, Esq. Smith Butz, LLC 125 Technology Drive Suite 202 Bailey Center I, Southpointe Canonsburg, PA 15317 ?0772 ozzmei ?r Piaz?nfg?fr Brian L. Calistri, Esq. Christopher P. Deegan, Esq. Weber, Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires Newby LLP 4 PPG Place, 5LII Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 bea/ir?i@ wg?aw. com s?deega72@ wgfaw. 0mm! ?r Defendant PBR, I 22c. 51/ a Skapr I admins; I 27c. and Biggilzeez?ed {wit/3652'? I m. Alan S. Miller, Esq. Houston Harbaugh Three Gateway Center 401 Liberty Ave, 22nd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 #ziXXeIm@ fab-Kai?. mm ozmreX for De?admzz? BAP Izzdm?tries, I126. Robert A. Arcovio, Esq. Katherine Lowery, Esq. Kyle T. McGee, Esq. Margolis Edelstein 525 William Penn Place, Suite 3300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 com Counsel for Highland Environmental, LLC NOTICE OF PRESENTATION Donald Smith, Esq. Todd A. Gray, Esq. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard Smith LLP 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 805 DaizaXd. com Todd. 7?cgy@ Xewia?bm?baii?. 6'07?! oznud ?r Temy?z?x Eizvz'roimem?af Lac. D. Matthew Jameson, Esq. Mark. K. Dausch, Esq. Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center 6th Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 mdazricb@ whim/Kmart com Cox/ambit)? Red Oak: Water Tr'mzy?rNE, LLC Mark K. Dausch, Esq. Mark D. Shepard, Esq. Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center 6th Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 6?07}! Izzy/grab ard@ babric?a/Zaizd 6'07)? 020th jar Mz?cobac Laborafon'et, Im?. Doug LaSota, Esq. Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman Goggin Union Trust Building 501 Grant St, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 dc/a.r0fa@ ?Ida/egg. (20772 Cozmref?ir Groyp, LLC Mark T. Caloyer, Esq. Paul K. Vey, Esq. Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick Raspanti, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 com com ozmre/ Sci/max I ?remafz'omi Jonathan M. Kamin, Esq. Deborah R. Erbstein, Esq. David A. Wolfe, Esq. Goldberg, Kamin Gravin, LLP 1806 Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ozmre/ Piazza/25523? 5 Mag) John W. Zotter, Esq. Zimmer Kunz PLLC The Grant Building 310 Grant Street, Suite 3000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 qoffer@ 3/5/5122). .0077; ozmreZ for 6222 Domzz'rzz'm Comz?mcrz'on, Inc. KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the Omnibus Motion to Quash Subpoenas, for Protective Order and Award of Counsel Fees will be presented to The Honorable Michael J. Lucas on the 8th day of March, 2019 at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom No. Street, Washington, PA 15301. Frederick N. Frank Washingto Cou Courthouse, 1 South Main Attorney for Intervenor IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et al., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012?3534 RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. OMNIBUS MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENAS. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES I. INTRODUCTION 1. The instant matter is before this Court on The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette?s (?The Post- Gazette?) Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record (?Motion to Unseal?), which asserts the public?s right of access to sealed judicial documents, including a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and an order with respect to the motion to enforce. A copy of the Motion to Unseal is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. On Februaryr 7, 2019, Range Resources ?led its Response in Opposition to the Motion to Unseal (the ?Opposition Response?). 3. On February 7, 2019, this Court issued an Order of Court scheduling a hearing on the Motion to Unseal requiring all parties seeking to maintain closure of the records to serve an answer to the Motion to Unseal ten days before the hearing. The hearing is scheduled for Mach 25, 2019 at 9:00 3.111. 4. After the close of business hours on February 25, 2019, Range Resources emailed counsel for The Post?Gazette the following: a. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dace; Team: of PG Publishing Co. A The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette (?The PG Subpoena?; b. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dir/?65 T362172: of Sally Stapleton (Managing Editor for The PostuGazette) (the ?Stapleton Subpoena?); c. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dares" Tea/222 of David Templeton (Reporter for The Post? Gazette) (the ?Templeton Subpoena?); and d. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dam Term: of Don Hopey (Reporter for The Post?Gazette) (the ?Hopey Subpoena?). (collectively referred to as the ?Subpoenas?). 5. The Stapleton Subpoena, Hopey Subpoena and Templeton Subpoena notice the named individuals for depositions on March 12, 2019 and direct that the documents identi?ed in Exhibit A be produced at the depositions. The PG Subpoena is directed to a corporate designee of The Post?Gazette and contains a similar request for documents for the designee to produce at the deposition. Included in the PG Subpoena as Exhibit is a list of topics for the deposition. As the documents requested in each subpoena are identical, only the PG Subpoena is attached as Exhibit 2. 6. The Subpoenas seek testimony and documents that have absolutely nothing to do with the legal and factual issues in the Motion to Unseal. No fact that could be learned as a result of this discoveiy has any logical bearing on the disposition of the Motion to Unseal. This discovery, made in a bad faith effort to harass and intimidate the free press, ignores that the discovery of testimony from reporters, including their sources and notes, is manifestly impermissible because it would Violate two sacrosanct protections of the free press: 7. The discovery would violate the absolute privilege of the Shield Law protecting reporters from being compelled to disclose their sources; and This discovery would violate the Quali?ed First Amendment Privilege, which protects reporters from being compelled to testify regarding their reporting and to produce their notes. Accordingly, the Subpoenas must be quashed and an award of counsel fees to The Post?Gazette is warranted for Range Resources? obdurate and vexatious conduct in issuing the Subpoenas. II. ARGUMENT A. 8. The Subpoenas Must Be Quashed Because They Seek Testimony and Documents Protected by the Shield Law The Shield Law, 42 Pa. CS. 5942, entitled ?Con?dential communications to news reporters? (the ?Shield Law?), states that: 9. General rule.--No person engaged on, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news, shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit. Exception.--The provisions of subsection insofar as they relate to radio or television stations shall not apply unless the radio or television station maintains and keeps open for inspection, for a period of at least one year from the date of the actual broadcast or telecast, an exact recording, transcription, kinescopic film or certi?ed written transcript of the actual broadcast or telecast. Since its enactment in 1937, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally held that the Shield Law affords journalists absolute protection from the compelled disclosure of information that could reveal the identity of a con?dential source. 533 Carie?mzz' a Samara}? Timer, LP, 956 A.2d 937, 951 (Pa. 2008) (setting forth Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Shield Law in prohibiting the compelled disclosure of a con?dential source's identity). 10. The Supreme Court is clear that the Shield Law encompasses not just testimony, but also documents or reporting materials that could potentially reveal a con?dential source?s identity. See CaireZXmiz', 956 A.2d at 950 (citing Supreme Court precedent ?as standing for the proposition that documents may be considered sources for Shield Law purposes, where production of such documents, even if redacted, could breach the con?dentiality of the identity of a human source and thereby threaten the free flow of information from con?dential informants to the media?). 11. The scope of the privilege is broad and protects unpublished materials even where the source of the information is known as held in the seminal case interpreting the Shield Law, n? Tangier, 193 A. 2d 181 (Pa. 1963). 12. In Trader, a subpoena was directed to reporters to appear before a grand jury and bring with them tapes and documents gathered during the course of the newspaper?s investigation of a city of?cial. The paper had published an article on its interview with the identi?ed city of?cial. Id. at 182. 13. The trial court directed the reporters to produce all the documents and interview tapes evidencing what the city of?cial had told them with the names of others deleted. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the tapes and documents, even in redacted form, did not need to be produced ?because the identity of many other persons may have been revealed in the questions and answers.? Id. at 186. The Court noted: ?If a Court can select or direct newsman in its or their judgment to selector delete what information is disclosed by the informer. . .the object and intent of [the Shield Law] will be reaZz'rfimK?J nulli?ed?. Id. at 186 (emphasis in the original). 14. The Supreme Court has expressed that the Shield Law?s absolute guarantee of source confidentiality is vital to the free-?ow of information and journalistic endeavors: It is a matter of widespread common and therefore of Judicial knowledge that newspapers and news media are the principal source of news concerning daily local, State, National and international events. We would be unrealistic if we did not take judicial notice of another matter of wide public knowledge and great importance, namely, that important information, tips and leads will dry up and the public will often be deprived of the knowledge of dereliction of public duty, bribery, corruption, conspiracy and other crimes committed or possibly committed by public of?cials or by powerful individuals or organizations, unless newsmen are able to ?t?y and coaawez?e?) protect the sources of their information. Try/X07; 193 A.2d at 185 (emphasis in original). 15. Although indicated that their purpose ?is to inquire into all the facts and circumstances involved in the Pittsburgh Post?Gazette?s Emergency Petition to Intervene and To Unseal?, the Subpoenas are nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to obtain protected source material and harass and intimidate the free press. Accordingly, the Subpoenas must be quashed as they seek testimony and documents that are absolutely privileged under the Shield Law. 16. The Stapleton Subpoena, Hopey Subpoena, Templeton Subpoena and PG Subpoena contain an identical list of documents that the deponent must produce at the deposition (the ?Request?). See Exhibit A to Exhibit 2. The PG Subpoena, in addition to list of documents, provides a list a of topics for the designee, which merely incorporate the documents requested in Exhibit B. See Exhibit to Exhibit 2. 17. The documents requested not only implicate, but directly target, protected source material in the possession of The Post?Gazette and its employees regarding the litigation referenced by Range Resources in its Subpoena, which even if existent, would have been obtained solely for the purpose of gathering news. Thus, any testimony or document that related to the litigation cited by 5 Range Resources that has the potential to reveal source information is protected by the Shield Law. This is especially true given that Range Resources defines ?Documents? as including reporters notes. The Requests are as follows: Request No. 1 seeks all documents re?ecting with any plaintiff or their agent or representative regarding various judicial and agency actions. It is obvious that any communications with the plaintiffs or their agents would identify or could lead to the identification of source material for The Post?Gazette?s coverage. Request No. 2 asks to produce documents showing the source of a statement in an article published by The Post?Gazette that a civil complaint was ?led in the underlying litigation. Once again, Range Resources is speci?cally targeting documentation identifying the source of information appearing in an article. Request No. 3 similarly asks for documentation related to The Post?Gazette?s knowledge that various pleadings were ?led under seal in the underlying matter. Preliminarily, Request No. 3 appears to be seeking a copy of the publicly available docket in this matter, as it would clearly show the referenced pleadings as filed under seal. If Range Resources, however, is insinuating that another source provided the information. Any documentation related thereto is strictly protected by the Shield Law. Request No. 4 asks that The Post-Gazette produce documents related to its statement in its Motion to Unseal that it learned of a hearing before the Court on February 7, 2019 at 8:45 am. As explained with respect to Request No. 3, asking The Post?Gazette to provide documents showing the source of information is strictly prohibited by the Shield Law. Request No. 5 is a request for documents showing how The Post?Gazette was made aware of recent developments in the underlying matter. Documents showing the source of how The Post?Gazette became aware of the underlying matter is protected by the Shield Law. Request No. 6 asks for documents supporting the allegation in paragraph 33 of the Motion to Unseal that ?Range Resources has no governmental interest.? Range Resources? request is disingenuous. The quoted language from the Motion to Seal in Request No. 6 is not a statement of fact but rather a legal assertion that Range Resources is incapable of overcoming its burden under the First Amendment to show that an important governmental interest is served by sealing the records at issue. The document relating to 6 this statement is the legal argument appearing in the Motion to Unseal. Accordingly, Request No. 6 is improper. Nonetheless, documents relating to the statement would obviously disclose the source of the information, which is prohibited by the Shield Lawl. g. Request No. 7 seeks letters speci?cally referenced in an article appearing in The Post?Gazette on January 28, 2019. The letters are speci?cally identi?ed as having been provided to The Post-Gazette from unnamed sources. Providing the requested letters and related documents would reveal these sources. The Shield Law strictly prohibits such disclosures. h. Request Nos. 8 through 10 seek communications and documents relating to various matters referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. Requests Nos. 8 and 10 ask for communications between various individuals ?that are the subject of? the January 28, 2019 article. Any communications referenced in the January 28, 2019 article could not be disclosed without directly or indirectly revealing the source of the communications. Accordingly, Requests Nos. 8 and 10 are barred by the Shield Law. Request No. 9 asks for documents related to an ?arrangement? referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. The source of The Post?Gazette?s information regarding the ?arrangement? is protected under the Shield Law as well any related documents where the source of the information could be indirectly revealed. i. Request Nos. 11 and 12 request documents related to a meeting in May of 2017 that is referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. Documents revealing the source of information appearing in the January 28, 2019 article, 226. the source of information regarding the May 2017 meeting, are protected by the Shield Law. j. Request No. 13 asks for communications between The Post?Gazette and June Chappel as to matters appearing in the January 28, 2019 article. Communications involvingJune Chappel and The Post?Gazette, if existent and relate to the January 28, 2019 article, could potentially reveal that Ms. Chappel is the source of information appearing in the January 28, 2019 article, which is prohibited by the Shield Law. To the extent that Range Resources is seeking documentation that supports the legal conclusion that ?Range Resources has no governmental interest?, any such documentation would be protected by the attorney?client privilege and attorney?work product doctrine. See Sadat, 1226?. a. Dep't ofEim?l. 641 A.2d 1243, 1245 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994) (providing that the work product doctrine?s ?protection of attorney's mental impressions is unquali?ed? and ?legal advice given by an attorney in his professional capacity in response to a client inquiry is immune from discovery on the basis of the attorney?client privilege?). k. Requests No. 14 seeks communications between The Post?Gazette and three other individuals anonymously referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. Disclosing such communications, assuming they even exist, obviously would disclose the source and identify of the individuals referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. The protections afforded by the Shield Law against Request No. 14 could not be clearer. 1. Request No. 15 asks for documents related to a statement appearing in the January 28, 2019 article that a letter was introduced as an exhibit during a hearing in the underling litigation in August 2018. The requested documents would identify indirectly or directly the source of the information appearing in the January 28, 2019 article. The Shield Law prohibits such a disclosure. in. Request No. 16 specifically asks for reporter notes regarding efforts by Stacey Haney, GOLDBERG, KAMIN GARVIN, and/ or SMITH to unseal or disclose records in the underlying litigation. The reporters notes requested in Request No. 16 are unequivocally protected by the Shield Law as they contain source information regarding The Post?Gazette?s coverage of the underlying litigation. 18. As set forth above, each of the requests sought by the Subpoenas is strictly barred by the Shield Law. Further, because the Stapleton Subpoena, Hopey Subpoena and Templeton Subpoena seek testimony regarding the documents addressed above, which again are absolutely protected from disclosure, any such testimony also is barred by the Shield Law. 19. The PG Subpoena, in addition to list of documents, provides a list of topics for the designee, a majority of which merely incorporate the documents requested in Exhibit A. The topics listed in Exhibit to the PG Subpoena (the ?Topics?) are absolutely protected by the Shield Law. a. Topic No. 1 simply lists the factual basis of the information and allegations contained in the Motion to Unseal. Testimony as to this information would directly or indirectly reveal the source of the information and allegations. Accordingly, the Shield Law bars this testimony. b. Topic No. 2 references The Post?Gazette?s knowledge of the facts reported in the January 28, 2019 article. Once again, such testimony would disclose, directly or indirectly, the source of the facts reported in the January 28, 2019 article. This is strictly prohibited by the Shield Law. c. Topic No. 3 is a reiteration of communications listed in Exhibit A in Requests Nosand additional correspondence referenced in the January 28, 2019 article. Any communications referenced in the January 28, 2019 article could not be disclosed without directly or indirectly revealing the source of the communications. Additionally, communications involving named individuals and The Post?Gazette, which relate to the January 28, 2019 article, could potentially reveal the names of individuals who are the source of information appearing in the article. d. Topic No. 4 lists the manner of The Post?Gazette?s receipt of the documents listed in Topic No. 3. Testimony as to how The Post?Gazette?s received various documents is a direct infringement on the Shield Law as it would disclose the source of the documents. e. Topic No. 5 indicates that the testimony will pertain to how The Post- Gazette obtained knowledge of the facts contained in the documents and communications listed in Topic No. 3. This topic is squarely aimed at The Post?Gazette?s sources material and accordingly, is expressly prohibited by the Shield Law. f. Topic No. 6 merely reiterates Request No. 1 in Exhibit A to the Subpoenas. Again, it is obvious that any communications with the plaintiffs or their agents would identify or could lead to the identi?cation of source material for The Post?Gazette?s coverage. 20. The documents and testimony sought by the Subpoenas, because they would directly or indirectly lead to the disclosure of source material, are expressly prohibited by the Shield Law. The Supreme Court is clear that even if the potential for disclosure of sources is not discernable 11972};ch fade, the Shield Law?s absolute guarantee of source con?dentially must be liberally extended to protect sacrosanct rights that are critical to our democracy and me press? ability to function. fee 193 A.2d at 185 (stating that the Shield Law ?must be liberally construed in favor of the newspapers and news media?). B. Range Resources Cannot Overcome the Quali?ed Reporter?s Privilege 21. In addition to the absolute privilege afforded by the Shield Law, Range Resource faces an additional, but no less insurmountable, obstacle the First Amendment Quali?ed Reporter?s Privilege. 22. In order to protect the ?essential role played by the press in the dissemination of information and matters of interest and concern to the public? guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Federal and the Courts have uniformly applied a quali?ed reporter?s privilege (the ?Quali?ed Privilege?). Sea R279) 2). C223: ey?CbaJZar, 612 F.2d 708, 714 (3d Cir. 1979?. See a/ra McMemm'a a. 590 A.2d 802, 811 (Pa. Ct. 1991), 590 A.2d 753 (1991) citing RzYa 51913719. 23. The Quali?ed Privilege affords broad protections to reporters that are subpoenaed for notes, documents or testimony. See United 5mm? 12. 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1981) (?Czrt/abertraa (applying the Quali?ed Privilege to a subpoena timer Zara/772 issued to the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., which sought ?all reporters' notes, ?le ?out takes,? audiotapes, and transcripts of interviews prepared in connection with the ?60 Minutes? program?); and Airman Cairn. Ca. a. Bng. Cami. Trader Coma?! gym/macaw e?a? 443 F. Supp. 489 (ED. Pa. 1977), (granting a motion to quash on the basis that the Quali?ed Privilege barred testimony by a news manager and the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena dam teal/r22). 24. The Quali?ed Privilege will be overcome only where a ?demonstrated, speci?c need for evidence? presents a paramount interest to which the privilege must yield. Ri/e 612 F.2d at 716. The determination of Whether the Quali?ed Privilege has been overcome must be made on a ?case? by?case basis,? balancing the rights of reporters under the First Amendment against the interests of those seeking the information the reporters possess. Id. at 716. In accordance with the forgoing 10 considerations, in order to overcome the Quali?ed Privilege, Courts have held that the requestor must show that: (1) he or she must demonstrate an effort to obtain the information from other sources; (2) he or she must demonstrate that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her sources; and (3) he or she must persuade the Court that the information sought crack?! to ?ag ciaz'm. Pang) a. Kezriimz, 1997 WL 117027, at (ED. Pa. Mar. 11, 1997) citing Cer/Jbei?rm? II, twins. (emphasis added). 1. The Testimony and Documentation Sought by the Subpoenas Is Not Crucial to Range Resources? Response to the Motion to Unseal 25. The testimony and documentation sought by the Subpoenas is wholly unrelated, much less crucial, to the Motion to Unseal. The law that applies to the Motion to Unseal has nothing whatsoever to do with subjects identi?ed in the subpoenas, delving into the reporter?s sources and methods. 26. The Motion to Unseal sets forth a claim for public access to two motions and orders ?led under seal in the underlying litigation. The Motion to Unseal is clear that the only way public access to judicial documents can be defeated is to overcome the presumptions of access under the Constitution, the common law and First Amendment right of access: 20. The Supeiior Court has stated that there are two methods for analyzing requests for closure of judicial proceedings, each of which begins with a presumption of openness a common law analysis and a constitutional analysis. de? a 829 A.2d 697, 699 (Pa. Super. 2003). 21. Under the common law approach, the party seeking closure must Show that his or her interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of openness. Id. 3 It should be noted that the test cited by Pam) and Car/Jammy: II is commonly referred to as the Rz'igy Test, which is derived from the seminal decision of the Third Circuit in Rz'Xe .rngm, 612 F.2d 708. 11 22. Under the constitutional approach, which is based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution, the party seeking closure must overcome the presumption of openness by showing that closure serves an important governmental interest and there is no less restrictive way to serve that interest. Id. 22. In cases where a party is seeking closure and cannot meet the threshold of the common law analysis, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the constitutional analysis has been satis?ed. Hafiawz?cb Raige Raf. Corp, No. 2010?3954, 2013 WL 1025-4260, at *3 (Pa. Com. Pl. Mar. 20, 2013). Motion to Unseal, 20?23. 27. Thus, Range Resources must demonstrate that its interest in secrecy outweighs the common law presumption of openness. If the common law presumption is overcome, Range Resources must show that closure serves an important governmental interest and there is no less restrictive way to serve that interest. 28. There is nothing in the Subpoenas that seeks testimony or documentation regarding Range Resources? secrecy rights or important governmental interests. It is incomprehensible how the Subpoenas, which range in scope from protected source material involving a legally irrelevant article appearing in The Post?Gazette to demanding a review of pleadings involving The Post- Gazette from 1950 to present, are mm'aZ to the extremely limited determinations presented by the Motion to Unseal. 29. Because the Subpoenas seek information that has no possible nexus to Range Resources? burden of proof, the information sought is the anti-thesis of being ?crucial? to case. 2. The Information Sought by the Subpoenas Can be Obtained by Alternative Means 30. It is self?evident that the information sought can be obtained from other sources. The Subpoenas themselves admit the z?iy?bmzazfz'wz mag/31? 2'5 amz'XaMefmm 5/33 actzraipa?ier invoked 232 {be Zz'zfzgatz'wz. For example: 12 a. Request No. 1 involves alleged communications exclusively between the Plaintiffs and their agents or counsel regarding the underlying litigation and other actions. The request itself identi?es alternative sources. b. Request Nos. 3 and 4 relate to information that that is obtainable from the publicly accessible docket of the underlying matter. c. Requests Nos. 8, 10, 13 and i4 speci?cally identify parties to the requested communications that are not protected by the Quali?ed Reporter?s Privilege. 31. Similarly, the Topics listed in The PG subpoena speci?cally identify sources other than The Post?Gazette. 32. It is clear that Range Resources is not interested in other sources, let alone their ability to provide the requested information, and instead seeks to harass and intimidate The Post- Gazette. The Subpoenas are unenforceable pursuant to Quali?ed Privilege as the requested testimony and documentation is readily available to Range Resources by alternative means. 3. Range Resources Has Failed to Demonstrate an Effort to Obtain the Information from Other Sources 33. Lastly, to overcome the Quali?ed Privilege, Range Resources must demonstrate an effort to obtain the testimony and documentation sought in the Subpoenas from sources outside of The Post?Gazette. 34. It is clear that Range Resources has made no effort whatsoever to obtain the information from sources other than The Post?Gazette. No discovery, other than that directed to The PostmGazette, has been sought. 35. Because there has been no attempt by Range Resources to obtain the testimony and documentation sought by the Subpoenas from other sources, the Subpoenas must be quashed pursuant to the Quali?ed Reporters Privilege. 13 C. In Addition to the Shield Law and Quali?ed Reporter?s Privilege, the Subpoenas Must be Quashed as They Were Issued in Bad Faith and Purely to Harass The Post?Gazette 36. The ?subpoena power is not unlimited.? Com. 2). nigh?Anni, 734 A.2d 870, 878 (Pa. Super. 1999). 37. The issues presented by The Post?Gazette?s Motion to Unseal are extremely limited and purely relate to Range Resources? ability to assert privacy and governmental interests that are capable of overcoming the common law and First Amendment rights of access. The Post?Gazette bears no burden to show why it seeks access to the judicial documents as a representative of the pubho 38. Contrary to this framework, Range Resources issued four subpoenas to The Post? Gazette seeking documents and testimony that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at issue the common law and Constitutional presumptions of access to judicial documents. 533 de?, ?rpm. 39. As examples, Request No. 17 seeks any order, opinion, ?ling, or transcript relating to any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding that was marked as settled, closed or ?nal at the time The Post?Gazette sought to intervene 7950 to tbeprm?t. Request No. 17 is so brazen and legally abusive that The Post?Gazette will only respond by stating if Range Resources was proceeding in good faith it could have used its extensive legal resources to search publicly available records for this information. 40. Like Request No. 17, Topics 7 through 9 are so evidently harassing to The Post- Gazette and abusive of the power to subpoena that a response would undeservingly legitimize the topics. 41. Topic No. 7, for reasons that escape understanding, indicates that the designee will be asked to disclose The Post?Gazette?s internal document retention policies. This topic is 14 manifestly irrelevant to the Motion to Unseal. Further even if The Post?Gazette?s retention policies had any possible relevance, they would be protected as con?dential proprietary information of which discovery is not permitted under Pa. R. C. P. 4012 (9). 42. Harassment and bad faith also is shown by topic No. 9, which lists ?the existence of and the parties to any con?dential settlement agreement or release entered by the 4 43. There is no other logical explanation for the requested discovery other than a campaign of harassment given that the Subpoenas speci?cally identify other litigants and sources that would arguably possess the requested information and documents: a. Communications exclusively between the Plaintiff and her counsel and not any communication to which The Post- Gazette was a party. The Subpoenas, Request No. 1. b. Communications exclusively between governmental agencies. Subpoenas, Request No. 8 and 10. 44. Range Resources? Subpoenas are transparent retaliation for The Post?Gazette filing the Motion to Unseal and were issued with the hope they will have a chilling effect on The Post? Gazette?s news?gathering, which they will not. D. The Post?Gazette is Entitled to Counsel Fees 45. As evidenced above, Range Resources? Subpoenas are nothing more than an effort to harass The Post~Gazette as they seek a tremendous volume of documents and extensive testimony regarding matters that are wholly privileged and irrelevant to The Post?Gazette?s Motion to Unseal. 46. Despite the apparent bad faith and the total lack of foundation for legitimate discovery, The Post?Gazette had no choice but to expend considerable time and resources in preparing the instant Omnibus Motion to have protection from the Subpoenas? harassing and abusive aims. 15 47. Counsel fees may be awarded as a sanction for ?dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter.? 42 2503(7). 48. The Subpoenas, a brazen and legally abusive attempt to harass and intimidate The Post?Gazette, de?ne obdurate and vexatlous conduct. 49. In accordance with the forgoing, The Post-Gazette requests that it be reimbursed for its counsel fees and expenses for preparing and presenting this Omnibus Motion. Upon granting this request, The Post?Gazette will submit a veri?ed statement of its counsel fees and expenses. WHEREFORE, the Intervenor, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, resPectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the relief requested in this Omnibus Motion and enter the attached order quashing the subpoenas of Range Resources and awarding counsel fees and expenses. Respectfully submitted {r WW ll By: Frederick N. Frank, Esquire Attorney for Intervenor 16 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES VOYLES, husband and wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE individually, Plaintiffs, VS. RANGE RESOURCES LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES VOYLES, husband and Wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE KISKADDEN, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. SOLIVIAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. Consolidated at Docket No. 2012-3534 The Honorable Michael]. Lucas EMERGENCY PETITION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL RECORD Filed on behalf of Intervenor; The Pittsburgh Posthazette Counsel of Record for This Party: FREDERICK N. FRANK, Esquire Pa. I.D. #10395 C. SCIALABBA, Esquire Pa. I.D. #324493 FRANK, GALE, BAILS, MURCKO s; POCRASS, RC. Firm I.D. No. 892 33?i Floor, Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 471-5912 EXHIBIT No. 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et 211., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012?3534 RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. NOTICE OF PRESENTATION TO: Jonathan M. Kamin, Esquire Kimberly A. Brown, Esquire Goldberg, Kamin (St Garvin, LLP Jones Day 1806 Prick Building 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the within Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record will be presented to The Honorable Michael]. Lucas on the day of February, 2019 at 8:45 21.111. in Courtroom No. 5, Washington County Courthouse, 1 South Main Street, Washington, PA 15301. 1! 0 52?? Frederick N. Frank Attorney for Intervenor 02.03.2019 9:56 AM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et a1., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012-3534 RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA LLC, e1: al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, et a1., Plaintiffs, vs. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. EMERGENCY PETITION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL RECORD The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (?The by and through its attorneys, Frederick N. Frank, Esquire, John C. Scialabba, Esquire, and Frank, Gale, Bails, Murcko Pocrass, P.C., presents the Within Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record and in support thereof avers as follows: I. Factual Background and Procedural History 1. The Post-Gazette is a newspaper of general circulation throughout the Commonwealth and, in particular, throughout southwestern with its principal of?ces located at 358 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, Allegheny,Ir County, 15212. 2. The Post?Gazette learned that a civil complaint had been ?led in the above?captioned case through various media coverage, including a January 28, 2019 article titled ?State conducting criminal investigation of shale gas production.? The article was published by The Post?Gazette and stated that the Plaintiffs had previously ?led a civil case agamst the Defendants in 2012 and that the Attorne}Ir General sent a letter to counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants stating, rater a/z'a, that the Attorney General had ?assumed jurisdiction over several criminal investigations involving environmental crimes in Washington County? and ?it has come to [the Attorney General?s] attention that one of the potential criminal investigations involves your respective clients.? 3. The docket in this matter re?ects that on June 15, 2018, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by the Honorable Katherine B. Elmer}r (?judge Emery?). Again, on September 11, 201 8, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by Judge Emery. Docket Entries for ?Sealed Motions and Sealed Orders? are attached hereto as Exhibit 4. It is The Post-Gazettes intention, as described z'iw?a, to intervene in this matter and unseal the Sealed Motions and Sealed Orders. 5. Upon infonnation and belief, the Post?Gazette has learned that a related proceeding is being heard before this Court on February 7, 2019 at 8:45 am. 6. Due to the fact that the Post?Gazette has only recently been made aware of this matter, the Post?Gazette is noticing and presenting this Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record on an emergency basis. 7. For the reasons set forth below, The Post?Gazette reapectfull;r requests that it be permitted to intervene in the proceedings in order to assert the public?s right of access to the Sealed Motions and Sealed Orders. II. Right to Intervene to Assert the Right of Access 8. Of signi?cance to this matter is the critical role the press plays in our democracy. In MM: at. Alabama, 384 US. 214, 218 (1966), the United States Supreme Court noted: ?The Constitution speci?cally selected the press . . . to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs. Thus, the press serves and was designed to serve as a power?il antidote to any abuses of power by governmental of?cials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping of?cials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve.? 9. Courts have continuously recognized this important role the press plays in protecting the public interest in public access and ?the legitimacy and importance of the interest of the news media in judicial proceedings.? Capital? Cz'zfz'er il/Iedz?a, Inc. v. Tania, 483 A.2d 1339, 1344 (Pa. 1984); See aim Ric/mama? Newgapm', I116. 22. Virginia, 448 US. 555, 586 (1980) (reaf?rming that ?the institutional press is the likely, and ?tting, chief bene?ciarjr of a right of access because it serves as the ?agent? of interested citizens, and funnels information about trials to a large number of individuals?). 10. As an agent of the public, the press has consistently been found to have standing in matters of public access. Sea PG Pub. Co. a Comment O?rg 120 A.3d 456, 462 (Pa. 2015), aff'd, 135 A.3d 578 (Pa. 2016) (recognizing the ?media's unique role and interest in observing government activity in our democracy? and holding that the press had a suf?cient direct interest for standing to challenge alleged obstacles to accessing public records). 11. The Supreme Court has held the proper manner by which the press may assert the public?s right of access to judicial proceedings is to ?le a petition to intervene. a. Long, 592 Pa. 42, 47, 922 A.2d 892, 895 11.1 (2007). 12. As noted above, access rights of the press, and of the general public, are of equal signi?cance. Accordingly, The Post-Gazette, as a representative of the public, has standing to intervene and assert the public?s right of access to judicial proceedings. See site United State: at. 13735112?, 484 F. 3d 194, 202-03 (3d Cir. 2007). Right of Access to the Sealed Motions and Sealed Orders 13. The Constitution supports the principle of open judicial proceedings. ?All courts shall be open.? Pa. Const. Art. I, 11. Furthermore, case law has supported this principle as well. See, Hat/Mailman 22. 611 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1992). 14. The tradidon of keeping proceedings and records of civil proceedings open to public observation is routed in common law right, and as stated in Pero?er Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3rd Cir. 1984), ?[it is] clear that the public and the press possess a First Amendment and a common lav.r right of access to civil proceedings; indeed there is a presumption that these proceedings will be open.? 15. The ?ling of a petition to intervene in order to open proceedings by the news media, in a civil trial, is an appropriate means of raising assertions of public rights of access. See HWC/l?i?m? lg; Hzrz'rbizzmz, 611 A.2d at 1284. 16. In determining whether the record in a civil proceeding should be sealed, the Superior Court has adopted the standards set forth by the Third Circuit in Pzrb?c?er Sea Humming): by Platte/12mm, 611 A.2d at 1290, 1291. 17. Under Pzzbiia?er Industries, a trial court must satisfy certain procedural and substantive requirements before it can deny access to civil proceedings. 733 F.2d at 1071. 18. Procedurally, a trial court, before sealing a record, must afford the representatives of the media objecting to closure at full opportunity to be heard with their counsel present. If it decides to order closure, the tu'al court then must both articulate the countervailing interest it seeks to protect and make ?ndings speci?c enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered. Pzzbiic?er 733 F.2d at 1071?72. 19. I11 Ind/strict, the reviewing court reversed and remanded a trial court order sealing the record because the trial court failed to articulate the reasons explaining the sealing of the record, stating: ?Here, the [trial court? 5] conclusion could be predicated on either a valid rationale or an invalid rationale, and we cannot assume that its ?nal conclusions were necessarily based on the valid rationale.? Id. at 1073. IV. Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC (?Range Resources?) Has Not Overcome the Common Law and Constitutional Presumption of Openness 20. The Superior Court has stated that there are two methods for analyzing requests for closure of judicial proceedings, each of which begins with a presumption of openness a common law analysis and a constitutional analysis. dek 7). dee, 829 A.2d 697, 699 (Pa. Super. 2003). 21. Under the common law approach, the party seeking closure must show that his or her interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of openness. Id. 22. Under the constitutional approach, which is based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution, the party seeking closure must overcome the presumption of openness by showing that closure serves an important governmental interest and there is no less restrictive way to serve that interest. Id. 23. In cases where a party is seeking closure and cannot meet the threshold of the common law analysis, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the constitutional analysis has been satis?ed. Hagar/ice a. nge Rat. Cam, No. 2030-3954, 2013 WI. 10254260, at *3 (Pa. Corn. Pl. Mar. 20, 2013) 24-. Speci?cally, in order to justify closure or sealing the judicial record, a party must ?rst overcome the common law presumption of Openness. KW. 22. Hmpe, 626 A.2d 1218, 1220 (Pa. Super. 1993). A. Range Resources Fails to Overcome the Common Law Presumption of Openness. 25. Under the common law analysis, the party seeking to close the record bears the burden of proving that they will suffer a clearly de?ned and serious injury if the record were not sealed. Ida/[0222565 Rings Res. Corp, No. 2010?3954, 2013 PM. 10254260, at *6 (Pa. Com. Pl. Mar. 20, 2013). 26. Under the common law approach, the party seeking closure must show that his or her interest in secrecy outweighs the presumPtlon of openness. PA CbiZdee LLC a Flood, 887 A.2d 309, 311?12 (Pa.Super.2005). 27. In Range Resources? Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Stacey Harley?s Motion for Protective Order and Special Relief, the Defendant baldly states that this Court ?may not? permit the disclosure of the con?dential settlement agreement. The Response provides no authority for this argument. Defendant?s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Stacey Haney?s Motion for Protective Order and Special Relief, Page 12. 28. To the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that the Press? and the public?s ability to obtain settlement information by the common law ?ght of access to our Courts, does not impair contracting parties? obligations. Haiz?aiaic/J Barge Rex. C001, No. 2010-3954, 2013 WI. 10254260, at *6 (Pa. Com. Pl. Mar. 20, 2013). Con?dentiality runs only between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Id. The unsealing of the record leaves con?dentiality obligations wholly intact, because the parties remain just as constrained from speaking of the terms and conditions of the settlement as they were prior to its unsealing. Id. 29. Further, Article I of the Cons?tution (speci?cally related to the right to privacy) does not apply to the Defendants, as all of the Defendants in the underlying action are business entities. Helium?!) a Range Res. Cam, No. 2010-3954, 2013 WL 10254260, at *2 (Pa. Com. Pl. Mar. 20, 2013) (holding that business entities cannot assert privacy rights under Article I of the Constitution) . 30. Range Resources has failed to assert that they will suffer a clearly de?ned and serious injury if the record were not sealed and thus, as a matter of law, Range Resources cannot overcome the common law presumption of openness. B. Range Resources Fails to Overcome the First Amendment Presumption of Openness. 31. Even if the Court determines that a party has overcome the common law presumption of openness, and a clearly de?ned and serious injury exists, die movant still must overcome the higher First Amendment burden. Corzzmamwait/J a Laag, 922 A.2d 892, 897 (Pa. 2007) (?the First ?mendment provides a greater right of public access than the common law?); In re Corp, 260 F.3d 183, 198, 11.13 (3d Cir. 2001) (wherein the Third Circuit noted the ?higher showing? which a party seeking closure must establish to rebut the presumption of openness under the First Amendment). 32. A party only can overcome this higher presumption of openness by showing that ?denial of public access serves an important government interest and there is no less restiictive way to serve that government interest.? R. IV. 12. Heaps, 626 A.2d 1218, 1220 (Pa. Super. 1993). 33. In the instant matter, Range Resources has no governmental interest. To the contrary, this case involves allegations of Range Resources, a publicly traded Texas based corporation, having caused spills and leaks of toxic chemicals that resulted in serious health issues, property damage, and water pollution to land owners in Washington County. 34. In the Defendant?s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Stacey Haney?s Motion for Protective Order and Special Relief, Range Resources does not devote a single sentence to the First Amendment burden and accordingly, has failed to meet their burden to show how they have overcome the First Amendment right of access. 35. The Post?Gazette therefore requests that their request to intervene be granted and a hearing on The Post?Gazette?s Petition to Unseal Record be scheduled before this Court, widl all parties seeking sealing of the record required to submit an answer no later than 10 days before the scheduled hearing setting forth their basis for seeking sealing of the record. WHEREFORE, the Intervenor, The Post-Gazette, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the relief requested in this Petition and enter the attached order. Respectfully submitted, mm Frederick N. Frank, Esquire Attorney for Intervenor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Frederick N. Frank, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct COpy of the foregoing EMERGENCY PETITION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL RECORD was served upon the following, this 4th day of February, 2019 as follows: VIA FA CSIMILE The Honorable Michael J. Lucas Washington County Courthouse 1 South Main Street Suite 1005 Washington, PA 15301 VIA EMAIL Jonathan M. Kamin, Esquire Goldberg, Kamin Garvin, LLP 1806 Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 VIA EMAIL Kimberly A. Brown, Esquire Jones Day 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 /t AL Frederick N. Frank, Esquire Attorney for Intervenor VERIFICATION I, SAILY STAPLETON, Managing Editor of The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette, am authorized to make this veri?cation on behalf of The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette, and do make the following statement subject to penalties of 18 4904, relating to unswom falsi?cations to authority, and do state that as Managing Editor, the facts set forth in the forgoing Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record are true and correct to the best of my Date: ?1252 20/5) Sa/HVQapIetm?/Managu?zmr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et al., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012~3534 RANGE RESOURCES - APPALACHIA LLC, et 211., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, et a1., Plaintiffs, VS. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. NOW, to wit, this day of 2019, after consideration of The Post- Gazette?s Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that The Post-Gazette (?Intervenor?) is permitted to intervene and a hearing shall be held on The Post?Gazette?s Petition to Unseal Records on the c121];r of 2019 at before The Honorable Michael] Lucas. Ten days prior to said hearing, 21]] parties seeking to seal the record in the above-captioned case shall serve on all other parties, including the Intervenor, and the Court an answer to Intervenor?s Petition setting forth the basis in law and fact why the record should be sealed. BY THE COURT: COMMONWEALTH OF COUNTY OF ('zigsm? gen 51524:.1 Haney e+ (Juli) Plain-I; we v! File Noam/52 3.53:! Range. R?5mt-r?ceoi" I?l?hi?- 3+ [De?Fa)? dag-f5 SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY To: PG do. op "The berg}. es. Gaget?te Freirf?on'esli N. Froenk; 55g. 7' (af?n 572' alreeIL-i-i 7?61. 31300 EHte serge, {963 1. If: I 1. You are ordered by the court to come to Ermagj bag? Gray?)?! ?S?frgg Sei?ri?a 96m? {Specify courtroom or other place} mp. Wheren . Qifea?eno County; on ?iers}: 1:2 52o)? at 052 o?,clock M. to testify on behalf of pub/gm?? in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: gm? ?ea 5g 5,?th f} and if you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. I REQUESTED BY A lN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa. 3. c. P. No. 234. 2Ia I: NAME: Kimber/o 24-. Brnw?a Esq .EQQ (2m mt oboe Pr?f?f??jx?r??h ?ea TELEPHONE: was: as?? 3? SUPREME count 10 5; a BY THE COURT: Qt?) Prothonotary Cl rk Civil Divisiona? Date: Seal of the Court Jov SCHURYRA My Tam Expires First Monday in January, 2020 NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters commissioners etc in compliance with Pa. P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. lEff. 4/00} EXHIBIT N0. 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of, HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES, and JOHN VOYLES, husband and wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE KISKADDEN, individually, Plaintiffs, v. RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA, LLC, et a1., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of, HARLEY HANEY, a minor, and PAIGE HANEY, a minor, and BETH VOYLES, and JOHN VOYLES, husband and wife, ASHLEY VOYLES, individually, LOREN KISKADDEN, individually, GRACE KISKADDEN, individually, Plaintiffs, V. SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION Consolidated at Docket No. 2012?3534 DEFENDANT RANGE APPALACHIA, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM 0F PG PUBLISHING CO. THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE On Behalf of Defendant Range Resources Appalachia, LLC Counsel of Record for This Party: Kimberly A. Brown, Esquire PA ID. #56200 Kevin C. Meacharn, Esquire PA ID. #208125 JONES DAY 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219.2514 Telephone: (412) 391?3939 Facsimile: (412) 391-7959 kabrown?jonesday.com kcmeacham?jonesday.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et al., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. No. 2012?3534 RANGE RESOURCES - APPALACHIA, DEFENDANT RANGE LLC, et NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Defendants. DUCES TECUM OF PG PUBLISHING CO. THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE STACEY HANEY, et aI., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. No. 2012-7402 SOLMAX INTERNATIONAL, Inc.,, Defendant. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF PG PUBLISHING CO. THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE TO: PG Publishing Co. d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, Range Resources Appalachia, LLC, by their attorneys will, pursuant to take the deposition of the corporate designee for PG Publishing Co. d/bfa The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (?The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?) on the topics identi?ed in Exhibit hereto on March 12, 2819 at 4:00 pm. at the of?ces of Jones Day. 500 Grant St., Ste. 4500, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, and continuing thereafter day to day until completed before a court reporter authorized by law to administer oaths. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means. Under Rule The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is requested to designate an appropriate person or persons to testify concerning those matters set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto. DUCES TECUM The deponent shall produce at this deposition the documents identi?ed in Exhibit A hereto. Dated: February 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted, ?w Ki berly A. Brown Pa Bar 0. 56200 JO DAY 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-3939 Facsimile: {412) 394-7959 kabrown @jonesday.eom ounse! for Defendant RANGE RESOURCES APPALACHIA, LLC EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF PG PUBLISHING CO. THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE DEFINITIONS 0 The or or shall mean for the purpose of this notice PG Publishing Company d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and its employees, agents and representatives. 0 The ?Post-Gazette's Petition? or ?Petition? shall mean the document titled ?Emergency Petition to Intervene and to Unseal Record" ?led in the HANEY-RANGE LITIGATION on February 7, 2019. or shall mean for the purpose of this notice ANY act or instance whereby messages, facts, opinions, data or ANY other information is transmitted orally, visually, in writing, electronically or by ANY other means or media from one or more persons to one or more other persons and shall include the transmission, the messages, facts, opinions, data or other information transmitted, and the process by which the transmission was effected. 0 shall be an all-inclusive term that shall be used in its broadest sense and is to include ANY medium upon which intelligence or information can be recorded or retrieved, and includes, without limitation, the following, whether printed. typewritten, recorded, ?lmed or reproduced by ANY mechanical process or written or produced by hand, and whether an original, master or capy, and whether or not claimed to be privileged from discovery, namely: reporter notes, worksheets, agreements, books, records, letters, accounts, notes, summaries, forecasts, appraisals, surveys, estimates, diaries, desk calendars, reports, COMMUNICATIONS, correspondence, cablegrams, radiograms, facsimiles, printed electronic mail messages, telegrams, telexes, memoranda, summaries, notes and records of telephone conversations, meetings and conferences, notes in reference to personal conversations or interviews, ledgers, invoices, contracts, notices, drafts of ANY DOCUMENT, business records, charts, plans, speci?cations, schedules, diaries, computer printouts, computer stored data, computer tapes or computer disks, micro?lm, micro?che, photographs, slides, negatives, motion pictures, video recordings, tape or other voice recordings and transcriptions thereof, data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated and ANY other information contained on paper, in writing, in graphical media, in ANY computer readable media, or in ANY other physical form in your actual or constructive possession, custody or control. The term shall mean any ESI, data, and metadata, content or communications, including messages, pro?les, photographs, graphics, posts, text, timelines, tweets, pages, or any other information from accounts including but not limited to the following: Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, Google Plus+, Tumblr, Reddit, Vine, Flickr, and Snapchat and mobile applications (?apps?) thereof, including any in which PLAINTIFFS are ?tagged,? mentioned, or otherwise identi?ed on the social media of friends and acquaintances. The term OR includes, without limitation, the original, whether or not the original is in your actual or constructive possession, custody or control, and all ?le copies and other copies that are not identical to the original no matter how containing handwritten notations] or by whom prepared, and all drafts prepared in connection with ANY DOCUMENTS, whether used or not. shall mean for the purpose of this notice, the civil lawsuits ?led in Washington County, at Haney, e: at. v. Range Resources Appalachia, LLC, et al., Case No. 2012-3534 and Honey, er o1. v. Solmax International, Inc, Case No. 201232402 (consolidated at Case No. 2012-3534). shall mean for the purpose of this notice any of the named plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit ?led in Washington County, at Honey, er al. 12. Range Resources Appalachia, LLC, et (11., Case No. 20l2-3534, including Stacey Haney, Harley Haney, Paige Haney, Beth Voyles, John Voyles, Ashley Voyles, Grace Kiskaddcn, and Loren Kiskadden. shall mean for the purpose of this notice the law ?rm of Smith Butz, LLC, including Attorney John Smith, Attorney Kendra Smith, any and all other attorneys working Smith Butz, LLC, all staff and employees of the law ?rm of Smith Butz, LLC, and any agents and representatives thereof. ALLEGHENY COUNTY shall mean for the purpose of this notice, the civil lawsuit ?led in Allegheny County, at Honey v. Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Health, e: (12., Case No. GD 16-001817. KAMIN shall mean for the purpose of this notice, the law ?rm of Goldberg, Kamin Garvin, LLP, including Attorney Jonathan M. Kamin, Attorney David Wolf, Attorney Deborah R. Erbstein, all staff and employees of the law ?rm of Goldberg, Kamin Garvin, LLP, and any agents and representatives thereof. ATTORNEY shall mean for the purpose of this notice Eugene A. Vittone II, District Attorney, Washington County, and all staff and employees of the Office of the District Attorney of Washington County, OF ATTORNEY shall mean for the purpose of this notice the Of?ce of Attorney General, including Attorney General Joshua Shapiro, and all staff and employees of the Of?ce of Attorney General. 28 shall mean for the purpose of this notice the article titled State Conducting Criminal Investigation of Shale Gas Production, David Templeton and Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post?Gazette, Jan 28, 2019, courts/20 1 9/0 10078 A request for information (and/or ANY form thereof), (and/or ANY form thereof), (and/or ANY form thereof), (and/or ANY form thereof), or (and/or ANY form thereon a given subject matter shall be construed in the broadest sense and shall include information that, directly or indirectly, constitutes, embodies, comprises, re?ects, represents, supports, contradicts, identi?es, records, notes, mentions, states, refers to, refutes, reports upon, responds to, describes, discusses, studies, analyzes, evaluates, contains information concerning, or is in ANY way pertinent or relevant to that subject matter. As indicated, the term necessarily includes information that is in opposition to as well as in support of YOUR position{s) and claim(s) in this action. RE UESTED DOCUMENTS Any and all DOCUMENTS REFLECTING, CONCERNING, OR REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS with any PLAINTIFF, their agent, attorney, or representative, including SMITH BUTZ and/or GOLDBERG, KAMIN GARVIN, REGARDING the LITIGATION, the HANEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY LITIGATION, iskadden v. Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Hearing Board Docket No. 2011-149-R, Commonwealth Court Docket No. 167 CD 2015 and/or Voyles v. Department of En vironmemai Protection, Commonwealth Court Docket No. 253 MB. 2011, from January 1, 2012 to the present. Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Post-Gazette?s Petition including the statement that ?The Post-Gazette learned that a civil complaint had been ?led in the above-captioned case through various media coverage, including a January 28, 2019 article titled ?State conducting criminal investigation of shale gas production.? Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Post-Gazette?s Petition, including the statement that ?on June 15, 2018, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by the Honorable Katherine B. Emery (?Judge Emery"). Again, on September 11, 2018, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by Judge Emery.? Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Post?Gazette?s Petition, speci?cally the statement that ?Upon information and belief, the Post-Gazette has learned that a related proceeding is being heard before this Court on February 7, 2019 at 8:45 am.? Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the PostnGazette?s Petition, including the statement that ?the Post?Gazette has only recently been made aware of this matter.? 10. 11. Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Post~Gazette?s Petition, including the statement that ?Range Resources has no governmental interest.? Any and all DOCUMENTS referenced in the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE, cited in the Post-Gazette?s Petition, 2, including but not limited to: The ?August 16, 2018 Letter to attorneys in a civil case" reportedly signed by Deputy Attorney General Courtney Butterfield, and ?obtained recently by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?; The September 8, 2018 letter sent from a ?resident? to DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE, ?asking him to investigate the ?many individuals and companies involved in his situation?; The September 13, 2018 letter from DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE to the ?resident?, reportedly ?noting limited jurisdiction? and that DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE was ?forwarding a copy of your letter to Acting Chief Deputy Attorney General Rebecca Franz"; COMMUNICATIONS between DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the ?arrangement? between DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any COMMUNICATIONS between Washington County residents and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the May 2017 meeting between the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL wherein ?l7 peeple from as many as seven counties aired 12. I3. 14. 15. 16. complaints about the shale gas industry,? REGARDING the matters that are the: subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the meeting ?Late in May 2017? wherein ?[Attorney General] Shapiro and AG investigators met in Pittsburgh with representatives from environmental advocacy groups,? REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and June Chappel, REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any of the ?[t]hree others [who] have met with investigators and say they are willing to testify,? REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any DOCUMENTS RELATED T0 or REFLECTING that ?the letter was introduced as an exhibit during an August court hearing? in the LITIGATION as reported in the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. Any DOCUMENTS (the de?nition of which expressly includes "reporter notes") REGARDING the HANEY-RANGE LITIGATION, the HANEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY LITIGATION, and/or efforts by Stacey Haney, GOLDBERG, KAMIN GARVIN, andfor SMITH BUTZ to unseal court records and/or publicly or otherwise further disclose the con?dential settlement agreement reached in the LITIGATION. Any order, Opinion, ?ling, or transcript RELATING TO any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding that was marked on that proceeding?s docket as settled, closed, or final judgment entered at the time in which PG Publishing Company d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sought to intervene from ?950 to the present, excluding the present matter. EXHIBIT TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM TO PG PUBLISHING CO. PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE Per Rule Range Resources Appalachia, LLC will depose the corporate designee of PG Publishing Company d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("the Post~Gazette") on the tepics identi?ed below. The Post?Gazette has a duty to designate ?one of more of?cers, directors, or management agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf? as to the following matters: DEFINITIONS The de?nitions of terms as described in Exhibit A hereto shall apply to the below Topics. TOPICS 1. The factual basis of the allegations contained in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?s Emergency Petition to Intervene and To Unseal Record, ?led on February 7, 2019; including, but not limited to, the following allegations: Paragraph 2 of the Post-Gazette?s Petition, stating, in part, that ?The Post~ Gazette learned that a civil complaint had been ?led in the above- captioned case through various media coverage, including a January 28, 2019 article titled ?State conducting criminal investigation of shale gas production)? Paragraph 3 of the Post?Gazette?s Petition, stating that ?on June 15, 2018, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by the Honorable Katherine B. Emery (?Judge Emery?). Again, on September ll, 2018, a Motion and Order were ??led under seal? by Judge Emery.? (0) Paragraph 5 of the Post-Gazette?s Petition, stating that ?Upon information and belief, the Posh-Gazette has learned that a related proceeding is being heard before this Court on February 7, 2019 at 8:45 am." Paragraph 6 of The Post-Gazette?s Petition, stating that ?the Post-Gazette has only recently been made aware of this matter.? Paragraph 33 of the Post-Gazette?s Petition, stating that "Range Resources has no governmental interest," and ?this case involves allegations of Range Resources, a publicly traded Texas based corporation, having caused Spills and leaks of toxic chemicals that resulted in serious health issues, property damage, and water pollution to land owners in Washington County.? The knowledge of the facts reported the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE, as referenced in the Post-Gazette?s Petition, 2. The knowledge of the following DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS referenced in the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE: (8) (C) (6) (D The ?August 16, 2018 Letter to Attorneys in a Civil Case? signed by Deputy Attorney General Courtney Butter?eld, and ?obtained recently by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?; The September 8, 2018 letter sent from a ?resident? to Washington County District Attorney Vittone ATTORNEY ?asking him to investigate the ?rnany individuals and companies involved 93:, in his situation The September 13, 2018 letter from DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE to the ?resident?, among other things, ?noting limited jurisdiction? and that DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE was ?forwarding a copy of your letter to Acting Chief Deputy Attorney General Rebecca Franz?; COMMUNICATIONS between DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY Any DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the ?arrangement? between DISTRICT ATTORNEY VITTONE and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY Any COMMUNICATION between Washington County residents and the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, as referenced in this article; Any DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the May 2017 meeting between the OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL wherein 17 people from as many as seven counties aired complaints about the shale gas industry? Any DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the meeting ?Late in May 2017? wherein ?[Attomey General] Shapiro and AG investigators met in Pittsburgh with representatives from environmental advocacy groups? 00 Any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and June Chappel, REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 Any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and ?[t]hree others [persons who] have met with investigators and say they are willing to testify,? REGARDING the matters that are the subject of the JANUARY 28 Any DOCUMENTS RELATED T0 or REFLECTING that "the AG's letter was introduced as an exhibit during an August court hearing" in the LITIGATION as reported in the JANUARY 28 ARTICLE. The date and manner of the receipt of the DOCUMENTS listed in Topic No. 3, supra. The knowledge of the facts contained in DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS listed in Topic No. 3, supra. COMMUNICATIONS between the POST-GAZETTE, and any of the named PLAINTIFFS or their attorneys or representatives, including but not limited to SMITH BUTZ and/or GOLDBERG, GARVIN, RELATING TO any of the following matters: the the HANEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY LITIGATION Kiskadden v. Department ofEn vironmenml Promotion, Environmental Hearing Board Docket No. 201144941; Commonwealth Court Docket No. 1167 CD 2015; Voyles v. Department ofEnvironmentai Protection, Commonwealth Court Docket No. 253 MD. 201 1; and/or the matters reported in State Conducting Criminal Investigation of Shale Gas Production, Don Hopey and David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, Jan 28, 2019, crimes/stories/201901210078, as referenced in the Post-Gazette?s Petition, 2. The reporting and editorial oversight practice and procedures including but not limited to document retention policies. The efforts to collect DOCUMENTS and respond to subpoenas or discovery requests RELATED TO the Post Gazette?s Petition. The existence of and the parties to any con?dential settlement agreement or release entered by the POST-GAZETTE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certi?es that a true and correct copy of the within Defendant Range ResourceswAppalachia, Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has been served via e-mail, this 25th day of February, 2019, to the following: John M. Smith, Esquire Kendra L. Smith, Esquire Smith Butz, LLC 125 Technology Drive, Suite 202 Bailey Center I, Southpointe Canonsburg, PA 15317 com sntitnbutzlow. com Connseifor Plot'nt??s Brian L. Calistri, Esquire Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire Weber, Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires Newby LLP 4 PPG Place, 5?'1 Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 bcalt'strt' wglow. cont cdeegan wglaw.c0m Counsel for Defendant PBR, Inc. d/b/a Skaps Industries, Inc. and Engineered Products, Inc. Mark K. Dausch, Esquire Mark D. Shepard, Esquire Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center, 6lh Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 mshepord @babstcallond. com onnsel for icroboc laboratories, Inc. Alan S. Miller, Esquire Houston Harbaugh Three Gateway Center 22nd Flour 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Defendant EAP Industries, Inc. Robert A. Arcovio, Esquire Katherine Lowery, Esquire Kyle T. McGee, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 525 William Penn Place, Suite 3300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 rarcovio@mnrgolisedelstein.com klowery@mnrgolisedelsrein.com ConnseIfor Hightand Environmental. LLC Mark T. Caloyer, Esquire Paul K. Vey, Esquire Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick Raspanti, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38'11 Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 @pt'etrago?o. com pkv@pietrogalto.com ounse! for Solmox International D. Matthew Jameson, Esquire Mark K. Dausch, Esquire Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center, 6'11 Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 mjomeson@bobstcallond.com ConnseIfor Red Oak Water Transfer NE, LLC Donald Smith, Esquire Todd A. Gray, Esquire Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard Smith LLP 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Todd. Groy?Iewisbrisbois.com Counsel for Defendant Terra?x En vironmento! Technology, Inc. John W. Zotter, Esquire Zimmer Kunz PLLC The Grant Building 310 Grant Street, Suite 3000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 zotter?zklam com Counsel for New Dominion Construction, Inc. Doug LaSota, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman 8: Goggin Union Trust Building 501 Grant St, Suite 700 Pittsburgh. PA 15219 Counseifor -C hem Group, LLC Frederick N. Frank, Esq. Frank, Gale, Bails. Murcko Pocrass, RC. 707 Grant Street Suite 3300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Pittsburgh Post?Gazette AW 0 of EAttomeys for Defendant nge esourcesmAppalachia,LLC VERIFICATION I, DON HOPEY, of The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette, am authorized to make this veri?cation on behalf of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and do make the following statement subject to penalties of 18 4904, relating to unsworn falsi?cations to authority, and do state that the facts set forth in the forgoing Omnibus Motion to Quash Subpoenas, for Protective Order and Award of Counsel Fees are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Date: 2/5 PDQ at. Doh Hopey CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Frederick N. Frank, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Omnibus Motion to Quash Subpoenas, for Protective Order and Award of Counsel Fees was served upon the following, via email, this 4th day of March, 2019: John M. Smith, Esq. Kendra L. Smith, Esq. Smith Butz, LLC 125 Technology Drive Suite 202 Bailey Center I, Southpointe Canonsburg, PA 15317 j27252222't/2@ ?0222 50222 ozrme/ for Brian L. Calistri, Esq. Christopher P. Deegan, Esq. Weber, Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires Newby LLP 4 PPG Place, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ?0222 cdeegmz@zagiaz22.m222 02222322 jar PBR, I122. 22/ b/ a 5 ?2ng Iizdzm?rz'er, I220. and E2gz'2zeemd Syn/22226.5? 1726?. Mark K. Dausch, Esq. Mark D. Shepard, Esq. Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center 6th Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 222dazm/3@ babma?mzd 6'07}? 50222 0222256! for er?cobac mam-ma?a, I222. Alan S. Miller, Esq. Houston Harbaugh Three Gateway Center 401 Liberty Ave, 22nd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ?0222 Comm/?r Dry?i?izdaizt BAP I 226291322225, I 726?. Robert A. Arcovio, Esq. Katherine Lowery, Esq. Kyle T. McGee, Esq. Margolis Edelstein 525 William Penn Place, Suite 3300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 mrc?oaio @?zargon?redeMez'?. ?0222 (?222qgee@222mgolerede?fez?22. ?0222 Counsel for Highland Environmental, LLC Mark T. Caloyer, Esq. Paul K. Vey, Esq. Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick 6: Raspanti, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 6?07}? Caz/meijbr SOXmax Interzzafz'om? D. Matthew Jameson, Esq. Mark. K. Dausch, Esq. Babst, Calland, Clements and Zornnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center 6" Floor 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ?0222 222da22m6@ babitca?a?d ?0222 Cozmref?rr Red Oak Ware-2' Trmz?r NB, LLC Donald Smith, Esq. Todd A. Gray, Esq. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard Smith LLP 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 805 Todd. 7292@ Xawz'rbmboz'r. ?0222 Term?x Eim'romzmt? Tee/3220203, I225. John W. Zotter, Esq. Zimmer Kunz PLLC The Grant Building 310 Grant Street, Suite 3000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 {ott37@ {Mam 00222 (9022723222 ?r 8222 Dominica Camz?mcfz'on, I225. Doug LaSota, Esq. Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman 6: Goggin Union Trust Building 501 Grant St, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 dc/amta@ mdmg. com CamzreZ?vr Ma?a-Chem Group, LLC Jonathan M. Kamjn, Esq. Deborah R. Erbstein, Esq. David A. Wolfe, Esq. Goldberg, Kamin Gravin, LLP 1806 Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 02/7259/ for" dug/V Frederick N. Frank, Esquire Attorney for Intervenor IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, STACEY HANEY, et a1., CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012?3534 RANGE RESOURCES - APPALACHLA LLC, et al., Defendants. STACEY HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendant. ORDER OF COURT NOW, to wit, this day of March, 2019, after consideration of The Post?Gazette?s Omnibus Motion to Quash Subpoenas, for Protective Order and Award of Counsel Fees (?Omnibus Motion?), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: 1. The following subpoenas and notices of deposition issued by Range Resources~ Appalachia, LLC (?Range Resources?) are quashed: a. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dace; Tea/:22 of PG Publishing Co. A The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette; b. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dace; Term: of Sally Stapleton; c. Subpoena to Attend and Testify and Notice of Deposition Dimer Team}: of David Templeton; and d. Subpoena to Attend and Testif;7r and Notice of Deposition Team of Don Hopey. (collectively ?the Subpoenas?) 2. This Court ?nds that Range Resources serving of the Subpoenas constitutes obdurate and vexatious conduct as de?ned in 42 Pa. C. S. A. 2503(7). Therefore, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is awarded all of its counsel fees and expenses for the preparation and presentation of the instant Omnibus Motion. The Pittsburgh Post?Gazette shall ?le a veri?ed statement of its counsel fees and expenses and Range Resource shall pay the amount of counsel fees and expenses set forth on the veri?ed statement within ten days of the filmg of the veri?ed statement. BY THE COURT: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this ?ling complies with the provisions of the Pablz'c? Amery Poiz'gj aft/ye U?g?ed Syria?: ofPengy/vam?a Care Recordr cf #36 Appelfm?e mid Tn'a/ Comm that require ?ling con?dential information and documents differently than non-con?dential information and documents. Submitted by: Ergderick N. Erhrk 4 Signature: g/{I/Id Name: Frederick N. Frank Attorney LD. No. 10395