The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld an order compelling depositions in a case involving EQT Corporation and its former employees. The court ruled that the defendants could not assert certain privileges to avoid testifying, which could have significant implications for the ongoing litigation.

This decision affects Thomas Varner, Samuel Ahwesh, and Summit Land Consulting, LLC, along with intervenors Richard A. Ross and Fieldstone Ventures, LLC. The ruling is important as it clarifies the limits of consultant privileges in legal proceedings, particularly in discovery processes.

Background

The case, EQT Corporation v. Varner, T., was filed in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania under docket number 1252 WDA 2025. The dispute arose after EQT Corporation alleged that Varner and Ahwesh, who previously worked as landmen for the company, misused confidential information after leaving their positions in September 2019. Upon their departure, both signed confidentiality agreements with EQT.

Subsequently, Varner and his wife, Katherine Varner, established Summit Land Consulting, LLC, in which Ahwesh became a staff member. The case escalated following a class action lawsuit against EQT initiated in 2021, where plaintiffs, including Richard A. Ross, accused the company of failing to pay co-tenants related to oil and gas production. EQT alleged that Varner and Ahwesh were involved in recruiting participants for this lawsuit, prompting the company to seek discovery of communications and documents related to their activities.

The Ruling

The Superior Court, led by Judge Bender, affirmed the trial court's order compelling the depositions of the defendants. The court clarified that Varner, Ahwesh, and Katherine Varner could not invoke the non-testifying consulting expert privileges that were previously recognized in the federal court's handling of the Ross lawsuit. The court stated, "The protections afforded under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 are inapplicable," emphasizing that the defendants failed to meet the legal requirements to invoke such privileges.

The court's decision was based on the premise that the discovery rules in Pennsylvania allow for broad access to relevant information in litigation. The ruling highlighted that evidentiary privileges are not favored in the state and that the party asserting a privilege must demonstrate its applicability. The court also noted that the trial court had consulted with the federal judge overseeing the Ross lawsuit before making its decision, ensuring respect for the federal court's findings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing litigation and for how consultant privileges are treated in Pennsylvania courts. By affirming the trial court's decision, the Superior Court has reinforced the principle that discovery rules are designed to prevent unfair surprise and promote transparency in legal proceedings. The ruling clarifies that consultant privileges cannot be broadly applied to shield individuals from providing testimony in related cases.

The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over consultant privileges, emphasizing the need for parties to substantiate their claims of privilege with clear evidence. This ruling could influence how companies handle confidentiality and consulting agreements in the future, particularly in industries where sensitive information is common.

What's Next

The case will return to the trial court for further pre-trial proceedings. The defendants may still assert objections based on other claims of privilege during depositions, but they will need to demonstrate the applicability of those claims on a case-by-case basis. There is no indication that the decision will be appealed, but the ongoing litigation may lead to further developments as discovery progresses.