Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 2, 2020, 9:23 PM EDT) -- A Pennsylvania appeals court on Tuesday shot down a request from a Husqvarna Group unit to bar a hearing involving the company from being broadcast online, an arrangement set up in lieu of a live hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Husqvarna Professional Products Inc. had asked that the hearing, which centers on whether the company can move a personal injury case from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to a court in the suburbs, be closed to the public due to the possibility that confidential business information could be revealed..
But the Pennsylvania Superior Court said in an order Tuesday that the public's right to access court proceedings trumped any concerns raised by Husqvarna.
"We are mindful that the existence of a common law right of access to judicial proceedings and inspection of judicial records is beyond dispute," the court said in an order from President Judge Jack Panella.
He pointed to provisions in the Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteeing that "all courts shall be open."
"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, when read together with the aforementioned provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution and the established common law, reference a mandate for open and public courtrooms," Judge Panella said.
The court is scheduled to hear the case en banc on Wednesday following a three-judge panel's decision last April rejecting arguments from Husqvarna that it did not have sufficient business contacts in Philadelphia to warrant the case being heard in the county's court system.
The ruling came after a Philadelphia judge agreed to move the case, which was brought by Ronald and Rosemary Hangey over injuries suffered after Ronald Hangey fell off and was run over by his Husqvarna riding mower, to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
After the Superior Court announced plans to hold its en banc session remotely and broadcast it online to accommodate social distancing measures due to the coronavirus pandemic, Husqvarna asked the court last week to not include its case in the webcast.
The company claimed that the argument would focus heavily on confidential sales data that had been subject to a confidentiality order when the case was before the trial court.
In addition, it said that the case had purposely been heard at the end of the day when it was argued before a three-judge panel, and that the courtroom had been cleared save for the attorneys, the judges and court personnel.
The Hangeys countered that the sales data, which they said reflected the span of time from 2014 to 2016, was too old to be of any continued confidentiality concern.
"Husqvarna's insistence that the mention of these sales figures, which pertain exclusively to a period ranging from four to six years ago, could now put Husqvarna at some competitive disadvantage is simply beyond belief," they said.
The Hangeys added that Husqvarna had made no attempt to request the hearing be closed when it was initially scheduled to be heard in person in March before being postponed as a result of the pandemic.
"There is no legitimate explanation for Husqvarna's delay, until just six days before the reargument en banc of this appeal, in asking that the public and the media be deprived of access to the reargument of this appeal, nor has Husqvarna attempted to offer any reason for its delay in its letter from counsel dated today," they said.
The Hangeys said they did not intend to specifically raise any statewide sales data during the argument, and to refer only generally to sales figures in Philadelphia
In denying Husqvarna's motion on Tuesday, the court noted the "staleness" of the sales data and credited the fact that the Hangeys' attorney had pledged not to raise any specific numbers during the hearing.
Howard Bashman, an attorney representing the Hangeys, said he was gratified that the court denied Husqvarna's request.
"We are pleased that the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied Husqvarna's request to seal the oral argument so that the general public, the media, and socially distanced co-counsel for plaintiffs can view the oral argument as it happens," he said. "The court's order also appropriately references the value of conducting judicial proceedings in the open, which remains as important now as it has ever been."
An attorney for Husqvarna did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
The Hangeys are represented by Howard Bashman of the Law Offices of Howard J. Bashman, and Robert Mongeluzzi, Ara Avrigian and Keith Heinold of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC.
Husqvarna is represented by Douglas Grimsley, Jeffrey Quinn, Frederick Bode III and Michael Muha of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote PC.
The case is Hangey et al. v. Husqvarna Professional Products Inc. et al., case number 3298 EDA 2017, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
