J-S79033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CEDARBROOK PLAZA, INC., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
STORAGE PARTNERS OF CHELTENHAM, :
L.P. AND BRUCE MANLEY,
:
Appellants : No. 282 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order December 14, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Civil Division, No(s): 10-15608
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2017
Storage Partners of Cheltenham, L.P. (“Storage Partners”), and Bruce
Manley (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from the Order of the trial court,
which denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of an Order compelling
discovery in aid of execution and a Motion for a Protective Order, following
the entry of judgment in favor of Cedarbrook Plaza, Inc. (“Cedarbrook”). We
quash the appeal.
This suit arises out of Defendants’ breach of a commercial lease
agreement. In 2002, Cedarbrook and Defendants entered into a twenty-
year lease (the “Lease Agreement”), whereby Storage Partners leased
approximately 100,000 square feet of space in Cedarbrook’s shopping center
in Wyncote, Pennsylvania. In March 2011, after appropriate Notice of
Default, Cedarbrook confessed judgment against Defendants for possession
of the property, based upon Defendants’ failure to pay rent under the Lease
J-S79033-16
Agreement. Defendants filed a Petition to Strike/Open the judgment, which
the trial court denied.
In the interim, in 2010, Cedarbrook commenced an action against
Defendants seeking damages resulting from Defendants’ breach of the Lease
Agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court found against Defendants,
jointly and severally, and awarded Cedarbrook $1,484,077.31, plus interest
and costs. Trial Court Opinion, 6/5/15, at 8. The trial court subsequently
amended its award of damages to $1,450,880.31, plus fees and costs. Id.
at 1 n.2. On appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment entered by the trial
court. Cedarbrook Plaza, Inc. v. Storage Partners of Cheltenham,
L.P., 136 A.3d 1032 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum).
While that appeal was pending, Cedarbrook filed a Motion to Compel
More Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Document Request (“Motion
to Compel”), in aid of execution. Defendants filed a response to
Cedarbrook’s Motion to Compel. On October 21, 2015, the trial court
entered an Order granting Cedarbrook’s Motion. Trial Court Order,
10/21/15. Defendants did not file an appeal of the trial court’s October 21,
2015 Order.
On December 4, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the October 21, 2015 Order, and for the Entry of a Protective Order.
Defendants alleged that the trial court’s Order required the production of “a
massive amount of highly sensitive information belonging to innocent third
-2-
J-S79033-16
parties that [] Manly has no authority to produce to [Cedarbrook,] and the
production of which may subject him to liability under certain confidentiality
provisions[.]” Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Defendants also argued that
the trial court’s Order required a burdensome undertaking, and that the
information sought was sensitive and confidential. Id. On December 14,
2015, the trial court denied Defendants’ Motion. Thereafter, Defendants
filed the instant appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
Defendants present the following claims for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in entering the October 21,
2015 Order?
2. Whether the trial court erred in entering the December 14,
2015 Order denying [Defendants’] [M]otion for
[R]econsideration?
3. Whether the trial court erred in entering the December 14,
2015 Order denying [Defendants’] [M]otion for a [P]rotective
Order?
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Defendants’]
request for oral argument on the [M]otion for [R]econsideration
and for [P]rotective [O]rder[,] and in denying the [M]otion[] less
than a week after it was filed?
5. Whether the trial court erred in requiring [] Manley to
produce to Cedarbrook a massive amount of highly sensitive and
confidential information belonging to approximately fifty (50)
non-party and non-debtor entities and individuals, which
information: (i) [] Manley has no authority to produce; (ii) the
production of which may subject him to liability under certain
confidentiality provisions and/or (iii) is completely irrelevant to
Cedarbrook’s execution efforts against [] Manley?
-3-
J-S79033-16
Brief for Appellants at 5-6. Before addressing Defendants’ claims, we first
must determine whether we have jurisdiction over the instant appeal.
An appeal generally does not lie from an order denying
reconsideration; but, rather, from the final order which precedes it. See
Cheathem v. Temple Univers. Hosp., 743 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Super.
1999) (explaining that an order denying motion for reconsideration is not
reviewable on appeal); In re Merrick’s Estate, 247 A.2d 786, 787 (Pa.
1968) (quashing an appeal from a trial court’s order denying
reconsideration). Thus, Defendants cannot appeal from the trial court’s
December 14, 2015 Order.
The trial court’s prior Order, entered on October 21, 2015, constitutes
a final, appealable Order, inasmuch as it resolved all claims of all parties. 1
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (providing that a final order is one that “disposes of
all claims of all parties”). However, Defendants’ present appeal is untimely,
as it was not filed within 30 days of the trial court’s October 21, 2015 Order.
1
Defendants assert that their request for a protective order may be made at
any time, and that the “Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not impose
a time limit upon the filing of a motion for a protective order.” Brief for
Appellants at 18 n.4. Defendants’ assertion is specious. Defendants
objected to the Interrogatories in aid of execution, and the requests for
production of documents, claiming that the information and documents were
“privileged,” “sensitive” or “confidential.” See Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Document Requests in Aid of Execution, filed
6/16/2015, at 3 et seq. The trial court resolved these claims in its October
21, 2015 Order. Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order raised no new
claim or issue not previously resolved by the trial court in its Motion to
Compel. Thus, Defendants’ claims were finally resolved by the trial court’s
October 21, 2015 Order.
-4-
J-S79033-16
See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (stating that an appeal must be filed within 30 days
after entry of the order); see also Day v. Civil Service Comm’n of
Carlisle, 931 A.2d 646, 651-52 (Pa. 2007) (recognizing that the timeliness
of an appeal implicates the court’s jurisdiction). Defendants, having failed to
file a timely appeal of that Order, have foreclosed this Court’s opportunity to
review the merits of their appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); Day, 931 A.2d at
651-52. Because we are without jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal,
we have no recourse but to quash it.
Appeal quashed.
President Judge Gantman joins the memorandum.
Judge Moulton concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/13/2017
-5-