In the case of King v. Kappa Sigma Fraternity, No. 55 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Jan. 13, 2025 Stabile, J., Olson, J., and Stevens, P.J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the court affirmed a trial court’s entry of an Order granting a Motion to Compel in this interlocutory appeal on a discovery issue involving the attorney work product privilege and attorney-client privilege.
This case arose out of alleged hazing incidents that allegedly resulted in harm to the Plaintiff.
In its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed whether handwritten witness interview notes were properly compelled to be produced by a Defendant sorority. According to the Opinion, the notes were factual summaries of statements made by the persons interviewed by representatives of the sorority.
The court reaffirmed the well-settled rule that a party asserting a privilege in support of a refusal to produce discovery bears the burden of establishing the validity of the assertion of that privilege.
Here, the court found that the interview notes were not created by or at the request of an attorney, but rather, were written by the Defendant fraternity’s officers. The court confirmed that the record lacked any evidence of an attorney’s role in the creation of the notes of the interviews.
Moreover, nothing established that the notes were prepared at counsel’s direction.
The court also noted that the attendance of non-legal officers of the fraternity at the interviews additionally precluded the privilege from applying.
The court also noted that the notes did not reflect any legal advice being provided. Nor were the persons interviewed, who were fraternity members, informing their attorneys of anything during the course of the interviews.
As such, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of an Order compelling the production of the notes of interviews in question.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.