Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(By Nikolas Tysiak)

A dose of new case law has arisen in Appalachia this winter. Enjoy!

West Virginia

For those paying attention, there has been some litigation regarding the West Virginia statutory pooling laws passed in 2022. In Sonda v. West Virginia Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, two landowners sued the West Virginia Conservation Commission, challenging the new pooling laws (W. Va. Code §22C-9-1, et seq.) in federal court, alleging an unlawful taking without due process of law under the U. S. Constitution. Instead of proceeding on the merits, the U.S. district court for the Northern District of West Virginia unilaterally decided to abstain from hearing the case, stating that the parties needed to litigate in West Virginia state court first, without identifying the issues that needed to be resolved in state court. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the U.S. District Court had “abused its discretion” in abstaining from the action, as there were clear questions of federal law presented for adjudication and no clear statement of state law issues to be decided. In order to abstain as attempted by the District Court, there must be an unclear issue of state law which may render the need to go to federal court moot. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the District Court Order of Abstention and remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Ohio

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, confronted a question of whether the Point Pleasant formation constituted part of the Utica Shale, or a deeper formation. In Honey Crest Acres LLC v. Rice Drilling D LLC (2024 WL 1155970 (March 18, 2024 S. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pennsylvania Business Central

(By Mary Binker and Susanna Bagdasarova)

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,”[1] taking a significant step toward shaping the future of AI[2] and its regulation. The Order, which reflects growing calls for federal guidance on AI from public and private stakeholders, focuses on establishing a framework for safe, secure, and trustworthy AI development, focusing on ethical innovation, national security, and global cooperation. The Order builds on the White House’s October 2022 “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights”[3] and the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST) January 2023 “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework.”[4]

The Order is broad in scope, covering a spectrum of industries and issues, including the establishment of new standards for AI safety and security; protection of privacy; advancement of equity and civil rights; support of consumers, patients, and employees; and promotion of innovation and competition.

Although the Order is primarily applicable to federal agencies, it reflects a vision and roadmap for AI regulation intended to guide both industry standards and future federal legislation.

The Order sets out eight principles and priorities to guide policymaking on AI systems:

• AI must be safe and secure, requiring robust, reliable, repeatable, and standardized evaluations of AI systems, as well as mechanisms to test, understand, and mitigate risks.
• The U.S. should promote responsible innovation, competition, and collaboration through investments in AI-related education, training, development, research, and capacity as well as by opposing monopolies and unlawful collusion with respect to key assets.

…

Harrisburg, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Michael Libuser)

For judges and their law clerks, one of the most frustrating aspects of pretrial practice is managing discovery disputes. Some advocates view them as hiccups—trivial quarrels that demand little of the court’s time—but discovery disputes often present the first meaningful opportunity for parties to interface with the court. (Case-management conferences, brief as they are, and narrowly focused on scheduling and housekeeping matters, rarely present the same opportunity.) And discovery disputes can, in fact, win and lose cases, color pretrial proceedings by sowing antagonism between the parties, and bring a case to a halt. This article cobbles together the views of numerous federal and state judges, as well as former and current law clerks, regarding best practices for addressing discovery disputes to the court. Some of these best practices are obvious, but litigants routinely fail to heed the obvious, according to the judges and law clerks who generously shared their views on this topic.

Know the Rules

Judges are unanimous: Review local and judge-specific rules. Ignoring this obvious but often-neglected advice can chip away at a lawyer’s credibility, clutter the record, and create unnecessary work for all involved. Numerous judges, for example, require parties to informally notify chambers of discovery disputes before filing formal discovery motions. This requirement advances the goals of efficiency and helps keep costs down, and some judges will deny or strike a formal discovery motion filed in violation of it.

Vet Your Position

“My first piece of advice when a litigator arrives at an impasse with opposing counsel regarding a discovery issue is to carefully review the [procedural rules] on point and research caselaw to ensure that the position you are taking is sound.” One judge estimates that 70 percent of discovery disputes can be resolved under a straightforward application of black-letter rules and law. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli)

When talking about the practice of law with other lawyers—whether long time practitioners, first year associates, or any stage in between—I have been known to advocate for my chosen practice area by pointing out that employment lawyers never get bored with the fact patterns we encounter.  I am of course willing to acknowledge that other commercial litigators surely come across an exciting case occasionally, but employment lawyers routinely deal with allegations that at the very least are interesting and sometimes include personality conflicts that are akin to a soap opera.  In late February, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision in Salsberg v. Mann, — A.3d —- (2024), that could help to ensure that employment litigation will continue to have the “best” fact patterns for years to come, when it ruled that plaintiffs can maintain a cause of action for intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship against third-parties, including coworkers who act outside the scope of their authority to the point they are rendered a “stranger” to the plaintiff’s at-will employment relationship with their employer.

Drexel University employed Cara Salsberg as its Tax Manager; an at-will position within the University’s Tax Department.  Salsberg reported to Donna Mann, whose supervisory responsibilities included determining Salsberg’s schedule and assignments, evaluating Salsberg’s performance, and making recommendations to the University related to Salsberg’s employment.  During a staff meeting in anticipation of the 2017 tax season, Mann told Salsberg and another Tax Department employee that they would soon need to work a yet-to-be-determined amount of overtime during the upcoming “busy season.”  Salsberg expressed her disagreement to Mann, who in turn blamed her own supervisor, David Rusenko, for the increased workload.  Salsberg then decided to meet with Rusenko directly.  …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(By Joseph Schaeffer)

Cases with anonymous plaintiffs are rare but not unheard of when disclosure of the plaintiff’s real identity might lead to reprisal. Indeed, one of the most famous cases in American history—Roe v. Wade—was prosecuted on behalf of the pseudonymous Jane Roe all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, sounds a cautionary note for plaintiffs attempting to litigate their claims anonymously.

In Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc., No. 23-15, 2024 WL 949506, — F.4th — (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), Do No Harm, an advocacy group opposing racial discrimination in healthcare, appealed the dismissal without prejudice of its challenge to a Pfizer fellowship program for persons of African American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American descent. The trial court had considered Do No Harm’s standing in connection with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed concurrently with the complaint, and it found wanting the affidavits of anonymous members that Do No Harm had submitted to support. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard to its standing inquiry—particularly with respect to its conclusion that Do No Harm needed to identify the members supporting its associational standing by name.The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court on appeal. First, the court held that the trial court properly required Do No Harm to meet the same burden of proof on standing at the preliminary-injunction stage that is required at the summary-judgment stage. And second, a majority of the court held that Supreme Court precedent requires a plaintiff (or a member supporting associational standing) to be identified at least to the court … to support standing at the preliminary-injunction or summary-judgment stage.

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(by Ember Holmes and Justine Kasznica)

In 2023, Pennsylvania’s Breach of Personal Information Notification Act (BPINA), underwent its first major update since it was signed into law in June 2006. The Amended BPINA¹ went into effect on May 2, 2023. The Amended BPINA affects all Pennsylvania entities that store information belonging to Pennsylvania residents, including energy companies, but has the most significant impact on state agencies and entities that contract with state agencies.

BPINA was designed to set security parameters and standards for entities that maintain, store, or manage computerized data containing the Personal Information (as defined below) of Pennsylvania residents. BPINA sets forth specific requirements for notifying residents of security system breaches. The Amended BPINA creates new definitions for previously undefined terms in BPINA, amends existing term definitions, and bolsters notification and security requirements for state agencies, state agency contractors, counties, public schools, and municipalities.

As a state agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will be subject to this higher level of scrutiny with regard to its handling of personal information. In addition, any entity that contracts with the PADEP or maintains data on behalf of the PADEP or any other state agency is also subject to these more stringent requirements and should be familiar with the updates as applicable to their notification, reporting, and encryption practices.

Expanded Definition of “Personal Information” and Related Notification Requirements

• The original BPINA definition of “Personal Information” included: (i) social security numbers; (ii) driver’s license numbers or state identification card numbers issued in lieu of driver’s licenses; and (iii) financial account numbers and credit or debit card numbers, in combination with any required access codes or passwords that would permit access to an individual’s account.

…

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Water Law Newsletter

(Lisa M. Bruderly, Mackenzie M. Moyer and Jessica Deyoe)

On January 18, 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) presented the final version of the technical guidance document on using trenchless technology to construct natural gas pipelines, other pipelines, and underground utilities to the PADEP Water Resources Advisory Committee. See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Trenchless Technology Guidance: Environmental Considerations for the Construction and Operation of Trenchless Technology” (Jan. 18, 2024). The final guidance was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in late February. See 54 Pa. Bull. 1017 (Feb. 24, 2024). Development on the guidance began in 2018 due to a stakeholder workgroup required as part of a PADEP settlement with the Clean Air Council, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and the Mountain Watershed Association regarding PADEP-issued permits for the Mariner East II Pipeline Project.

The final guidance, entitled “Trenchless Technology Guidance,” PADEP Doc. No. 310-2100-003, outlines the steps that proponents of projects using trenchless technology should consider. Trenchless technology is defined as “[a] type of subsurface construction work that requires few trenches or no trenches which includes any trenchless construction methodology, including, but not limited to: horizontal directional drilling, guided auger bore, cradle bore, conventional auger bore, jack bore, hammer bore, guided bores, and proprietary trenchless technology.” Id. at 6. Trenchless technology is often considered a less environmentally impactful alternative to other types of construction. Id.

Under the Guidance, each project should evaluate the “suitability, feasibility, and environmental considerations” of using trenchless technology methods, depending on the level of environmental risk. Id.  …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern, Gina F. Buchman, Christina M. Puhnaty)

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) recently announced the availability of over $101.1 million in funding for 16 environmental restoration projects across 12 Pennsylvania counties as part of PADEP’s AML/AMD Grant Program. See Press Release, PADEP, “The Shapiro Administration Awards $101.1 Million in Grants for Environmental Restoration Projects” (Jan. 17, 2024). This funding comes from the Biden administration’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, through which Pennsylvania expects to receive $244.9 million annually until 2036. These projects focus on reclaiming abandoned mine lands and decreasing or treating abandoned mine drainage.

Pennsylvania’s AML/AMD Grant Program will have three application rounds in 2024 for new projects:

• 2024 Application Round 1—February 19, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. April 5, 2024
• 2024 Application Round 2—June 3, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. July 19, 2024
• 2024 Application Round 3—September 23, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. November 8, 2024

Program guidance and application instructions are available on PADEP’s website, as well as annual summaries of the accomplishments of abandoned mine reclamation projects in Pennsylvania. See PADEP, “AML/AMD Grant Program,” here.

PADEP Issues Draft 2024 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Report
In November 2023, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued its draft interactive 2024 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Report and the public comment on the draft report has now closed. The report identifies Pennsylvania’s federal Clean Water Act (CWA) § 303(d) listing of impaired waters requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and section 305(b) reporting of the overall condition of Pennsylvania’s aquatic resources. …

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(By Gary Steinbauer and Christina Puhnaty)

On December 2, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication version of its final Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review (Final Rule). The Final Rule comes more than two years after EPA published its initial proposal on November 15, 2021 (Initial Proposal) and a supplemental proposal on December 6, 2022 (Supplemental Proposal) (collectively, the “Proposals”). According to EPA, the agency received over one million comments on the Proposals. (For information on the Proposals, please see our November 11, 2021 and December 12, 2022 articles.) This Alert focuses on critical aspects of the Final Rule, including key changes that EPA made since issuing the Proposals.1 

Brief Overview of Methane Rule

The Methane Rule is comprised of four separate actions proposed under sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. EPA currently regulates emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane from oil and natural gas facilities under 40 C.F.R Part 60 Subparts OOOO2 and OOOOa3. First, through this Final Rule, EPA will regulate oil and natural gas facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 6, 2022, under a new Subpart OOOOb. The requirements in OOOOb will apply to affected facilities 60 days after the rule is published in the federal register. Second, under a new Subpart OOOOc, EPA finalized emissions guidelines that are intended to inform states in the development, submittal, and implementation of state plans to establish standards of performance for greenhouse gases (in the form of limitations on methane) from sources existing on or before December 6, 2022. …