Carmen Enterprises v. Murpenter, LLC

J-A05004-26 CARMEN ENTERPRISES, INC., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF F/D/B/A CRUISE HOLIDAYS OF : PENNSYLVANIA NORRISTOWN AND : BYEBYENOW.COM TRAVEL STORE, : AND BRUCE J. CHASAN : : Appellants : : v. : : ELY GOLDIN AND FOX ROTHSCHILD, : LLP : No. 420 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered February 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 210201913 BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J. OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JUNE 9, 2026 I. Introduction In this case brought pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings Act (“WUCPA”),1 the Plaintiffs, Carmen Enterprises, Inc. and Bruce J. Chasan, Esq. appeal from the order granting summary judgment to the Defendants, Ely Goldin, Esq. and Fox Rothschild, LLP (collectively, “the Law Firm”). Attorney Chasan claims the trial court incorrectly ruled that he lacks standing. We find no error in that decision, because an attorney’s right to recovery is through or against his former client, not the opposing party or that party’s legal counsel in the underlying lawsuit. Carmen Enterprises brings three claims of error, including a challenge to an order permitting the Law Firm to retract a December 20, 2005 Fax that ____________________________________________ 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351. J-A05004-26 it gave to Carmen Enterprises during discovery. The trial court erred by assuming (without deciding) that attorney-client privilege or the work-product rule shielded the fax from discovery. Because the Law Firm failed to prove the existence of either shield, we reverse the order allowing it to “clawback” the December 20, 2005 Fax. Carmen Enterprises also contends that the trial court granted summary judgment erroneously. We agree. The record contains genuine issues of material fact that are sufficient to submit this matter to a jury. Hence, we partly affirm, partly reverse, and remand for trial. II. Factual & Procedural Background To understand the claims presented in this case, we present a detailed recitation of the facts from the underlying litigation, as well as the factual and procedural history of the present WUCPA case. The underlying litigation began in Montgomery County more than 25 years ago. A. The Underlying Litigation In 1990, Attorney Chasan incorporated Carmen Enterprises, a travel agency.2 It operated Cruise Holidays of Norristown and BuyBuyNow.com Travel Store. Seven years later, Robert Douglas Carpenter, Jr. and Kate Murphy formed and co-owned Murpenter, LLC. Murpenter was a competitor travel agency of Carmen Enterprises and operated Uniglobe Wings Travel. ____________________________________________ 2 In the mid to late 1900s, travel agencies were common businesses that people hired to book their airline tickets, cruises, hotel rooms, and tours. Travel agencies have largely become obsolete in the digital age. -2- J-A05004-26 On October 31, 2001, Carmen Enterprises and Murpenter entered into a business deal that went sour. In 2002, Carmen Enterprises sued Murpenter in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Murpenter hired Attorney Goldin to defend it. During the litigation, he joined Fox Rothchild, LLP. In a previous appeal, President Judge Emeritus Jack Panella described the facts and procedural posture of that case as follows: On October 31, 2001, Carmen [Enterprises] sold the assets of Cruise Holidays to Murpenter, including what was purported to be a list of 1,900 customer names and addresses. The Purchase and Sales Agreement (“Agreement”) included a fixed and formulaic schedule of remittances to be paid by Murpenter, with the last payment due on November 10, 2002. Paragraph 13 of the Agreement provided: “Any payment that is more than five calendar days late is subject to an automatic 10 percent late fee. [Murpenter] agrees to pay the cost of any collection suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” Agreement at ¶ 13. Murpenter also agreed to pay certain commissions to Carmen [Enterprises] over the twelve months following the date of the Agreement, which were to be offset by the scheduled payments noted above. Murpenter assumed the lease for a Compaq computer, which contained part of the customer list that was accessible through “My Advanced Mail List” software installed on the computer. The other portion of the customer list was accessible through “CruiseWeb” database. Together, the lists contained over 1,900 names and addresses. Prior to the sale, [Attorney] Chasan showed Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Murphy how to access the list on the Compaq computer. Although the hiring of employees was not a condition of the Agreement, Murpenter hired several of Carmen [Enterprises’] former employees, including lead- sales-person Jane Couchara. Ms. Couchara was familiar with the Compaq computer and with Carmen [Enterprises’] electronic-client-list files. -3- J-A05004-26 [Attorney] Chasan relinquished the keys to the Carmen [Enterprises] store to Murpenter on November 1, 2001. [Four weeks later], Ms. Murphy emailed [Attorney] Chasan asking for a readable computer disk containing the active-client list described in the Agreement. [Attorney] Chasan responded that the disk had been left on Ms. Couchara’s desk and was readable in the Compaq computer. He told Ms. Murphy that if there was a problem reading the disk, he would lend Murpenter the software to load into one of their own computers. On November 30, 2001, Ms. Murphy responded that the disk was unreadable and asked for the software. [Attorney] Chasan sent the software disk and instruction pamphlet to Murpenter on December 3, 2001, and emailed Ms. Murphy and Mr. Carpenter to tell them it was on its way via certified mail. Murpenter [made the] scheduled payments through March 2002. However, it paid the December 2001 and March 2002 payments late, thus generating late fees pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the Agreement. Murpenter never paid the late fees. It stopped its payments in April 2002, because [Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Murphy mistakenly believed that Carmen Enterprises] had not provided a list of 1,900 active customers, as promised in the Agreement. On April 17, 2002 . . . Carmen [Enterprises] sued Murpenter, alleging breach of express and implied contract, trespass/property damage, conversion, and interference with contractual obligations. [Attorney Chasan was not a named plaintiff. However, he represented Carmen Enterprises during the litigation. Carmen Enterprises] sought specific performance, indemnification, replevin, and damages, including attorneys’ fees. Among other things, Carmen [Enterprises] sought to recover the late fees owed on the December 2001 and March 2002 payments; the April 1, 2002 payment of $7,500; plus fees, costs, commission payments, and attorneys’ fees. Murpenter filed an answer, new matter, and [three] counterclaims . . . . Carmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Murpenter, LLC, 1115 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 6698621 at *1-2 (Pa. Super. 2015), reargument denied (2015), appeal -4- J-A05004-26 denied, 141 A.3d 477 (Pa. 2016) (non-precedential decision) (some punctuation omitted) (emphasis in original) (“Carmen I”). In its first counterclaim, Murpenter alleged fraud. It claimed that Carmen Enterprises supplied a list of customers’ names and addresses less than the 1,900 names promised in the Agreement. Murpenter also filed a counterclaim of conversion. It alleged that, one evening, after selling Carmen Enterprises’ assets to Murpenter, Attorney Chasan found Murpenter’s employee manual on a desk in the office. Attorney Chasan photocopied the 15-page manual and, without damaging it, returned the manual to the employee’s desk. Murpenter’s third counterclaim was for “Set Off.” That counterclaim did not allege a new cause of action or even that Carmen Enterprises breached the Agreement. Instead, the counterclaim of set off incorporated Murpenter’s first and second counterclaims by reference and sought a reduction of Carmen Enterprises’ ultimate award to “the extent that [Carmen Enterprises] is found to be liable to Murpenter under the preceding [counter]claims or under the [Agreement], such indebtedness . . . or judgment should be set off against any liability that Murpenter may have to [Carmen Enterprises].” Second Amended Complaint, Ex. V, Murpenter’s First Amended New Matter Counterclaim in Carmen I at 4. After receiving the counterclaims, Attorney Chasan called Attorney Goldin to discuss “the various pleadings and discovery responses . . . [of] June 24-25, 2002.” Id., Ex. W, June 28, 2002 Letter from Chasan to Goldin at 1. -5- J-A05004-26 Attorney Chasan sent a follow-up letter to his phone call, wherein he warned Attorney Goldin that the counterclaims had no basis in fact or law. Attorney Chasan wrote: The first counterclaim, common-law fraud, is complete garbage. Your client is in for a big fall and exposure to sanctions, including huge attorney’s fees. I will point you in the right direction. Look at [Murpenter’s] document production, especially MUR 000036 and 000037. This is proof that your client received the right disk [that contained over 1,900 customers’ names]. However, the amended counterclaim makes no reference to this disk. Maybe [Murpenter] lost or misplaced it. In any event, that is the disk requested in Req. No. 1 of [Carmen Enterprises’] request for production. If you obtain that disk from your client and produce it, the counterclaim based on fraud disappears in an instant. If you don’t hunt down this disk, [Carmen Enterprises] will surely seek sanctions against you personally, too. By the way, [Carmen Enterprises] has no problem in copying the data again and sending it to you on another disk. I would have done that at any time and am willing to do it again now. You will get the exact same files (Sales-01 and Concise2) described in my e-mail of November 28th 2001 (MUR 000036). There are 1,915 names and addresses. As I explained to you . . . only 19 are duplicates. In short, the averments in [Murpenter’s] fraud claim are mistaken and worthless. If you continue to pursue it, you do so at your own peril. As to the second counterclaim, based on alleged conversion, I am sure you recognize the difficulty [Murpenter] will have in proving liability, let alone damages. Again, proceed at your peril. Id. at 1-2 (emphasis added). Thus, Attorney Chasan indicated to Attorney Goldin that, under Pennsylvania law, a counterclaim for conversion requires proof of actual damages. -6- J-A05004-26 Three-and-a-half months later, Attorney Goldin admitted to finding the disk with the list of customers’ names. He wrote, “I also have in my custody the original Advanced Mail List software and the disk containing the list of names.” Id., Ex. Y, October 11, 2002 Letter from Goldin to Chasan at 1. “I am going to make a copy of the disks for my files over the weekend and bring the originals to [Ms. Murphy’s] deposition on Monday.” Id. At the deposition, Attorney Goldin produced a disk with the Advanced Mail List software and a hardcopy of the software’s instructions. However, he did not produce the disk with the list of 1,915 customers’ names as promised. See Murphy’s Depo., 10/14/02, at 8-9. Attorney Chasan asked Ms. Murphy about the location of the disk with 1,915 customers’ names. He did so in the context of Carmen Enterprises’ request for production of the disk and a trial court order compelling Murpenter to produce that disk. Attorney Chasan asked: Ms. Murphy, Exhibit Three is [Carmen Enterprises’] First Request for Production of Documents that was served by [Carmen Enterprises to Murpenter] . . . on May 22, 2002. Have you seen this document before? A: No. Q: [Carmen Enterprises requested production of] the computer disk of [Carmen Enterprises’] client names and addresses, provided by [Carmen Enterprises] to [Murpenter] on or about November 27, 2001 . . . Has [Murpenter] produced that computer disk? A: Is it that one [which Attorney Goldin produced at the start of this deposition]? I don’t know. Q: You don’t know? -7- J-A05004-26 A: We never [saw] the computer disk. * * * Q: One of the items mentioned in the record this morning by [Attorney] Goldin was a three-and-a-half inch diskette, yellow in color, which has the notation on it, “Cruise Web at 11/1/01.” Have you seen that disk before? A: Just this morning, when it was handed to you. Id. at 38-40. Attorney Chasan then showed Ms. Murphy the instruction pamphlet for the Advanced Mail List software, i.e., the program capable of reading the disk that Carmen Enterprises provided to Murpenter with the 1,915 customers’ names. He asked Ms. Murphy if she ever saw the software’s instruction pamphlet. She had not. See id. at 41. Similarly, Ms. Murphy had never seen the Advanced Mail List software disk itself, which had the program capable of reading Carmen Enterprises’ list of 1,915 customers’ names. See id. at 42. Thereafter, they discussed a demand that Ms. Murphy made on February 28, 2002, for the 1,915 names. Attorney Chasan drew Ms. Murphy’s attention to an email she had sent to him and said: it says, “Where is 2C [i.e., the Agreement section requiring Carmen Enterprises to provide over 1,900 customers’ names,] delivered to [Murpenter] on a readable disk?” Do you see that? A: Yes. * * * Q: Exhibit 32 . . . Is this an email that you received from me on November 28[, 2001]? A: . . . yes . . . -8- J-A05004-26 Q: . . . it says, “I have copied the mail list onto a disk and placed the disk in a sealed Airborne Express envelope on Jane’s former desk. There are two files: Sales-01 and Concise2. Although there are about 1,915 names and addresses. If you have any trouble reading the disk, I have the software, My Advanced List, which I can lend you to load on one of your computers. Frankly, I thought you had already copied the list, based on the fact that I saw numerous mailing labels around the store in connection with your mailing.” Do you recall reading that paragraph in November? A: Not off the top of my head, no. Q: Does [Murpenter] have a disk that is marked Sales- 01 and Concise2? A: Do I? No. * * * Q: Exhibit 33 is . . . an email message of Friday, November 30, 2001 from you to me. Is that correct? A: Yes. Correct. Q: You wrote in the first paragraph, “The disk [Carmen Enterprises provided] is unreadable without the [My Advanced List] software. You need to either deliver to us a readable disk with ‘txt’ file extension or the [My Advanced List] software to make your disk readable. This was due on October 31st; it is now the 30th of November, and I had to ask you to deliver what I believe is rightfully ours.” Do you remember writing that? A: Yes. Q: What did you mean by “the disk was unreadable Without the software?” A: I was told that [our computers] couldn’t export any names. That they couldn’t read anything. [It] didn’t work. Q: Who told you that? A: Terry Vaughan. -9- J-A05004-26 Q: Did you personally see the disk that she was referring to? A: No. Q: Do you know what Terry Vaughan did with that disk? A: No, I don’t. * * * Q: Exhibit 34 . . . is an email from me to you; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you receive this email? A: I believe so. Q: This was dated December 2[, 2001]. And the first paragraph says, “I will mail you the software for My Advanced Mail list, by certified mail, return receipt requested. I will also mail the instruction pamphlet, which you can copy and then return along with the software disk . . . The second paragraph says, “load it on your computer and then you will be able to read and manipulate all the data on the disk. Note, as I indicated to you long ago and showed you in early September [of 2001], this is an MS-DOS software from 1990, and it probably does not convert to a ‘txt’ file extension.” Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: . . . Did you personally load the My Advanced [Mail] software? A: No. Q: Did you give it to somebody to load? A: I believe I gave it to Terry [Vaughan], but I don't remember . . . Q: Was there any problem in loading it? - 10 - J-A05004-26 A: I can’t say for sure, but I just remembered that she said it didn’t work right, and that she couldn’t get 1,900 names. And there were a lot of duplicates. Id. at 113-20. When asked if she took any steps to determine if Murpenter had mixed up the disks that Carmen Enterprises gave it, Ms. Murphy said, “No.” Id. at 160. But, she had no idea if Murpenter had “done any investigation to confirm or refute that” it mixed up the two disks. See id. at 160-61. Similarly, Mr. Carpenter had no knowledge of and made no attempt to access the data on the disks. See Carpenter’s Depo., 10/16/02, at 29-30. Instead of investigating whether the disk and software worked, Mr. Carpenter relied upon Ms. Vaughan informing him that she could not “get any information from the list that was supposedly on My Advance Mail list.” Id. at 90. “After repeated conversations with Terry [Vaughan] as to how she was proceeding with getting more information from [Attorney Chasan, Mr. Carpenter] figured that [Carmen Enterprises] did not have [the 1,915 names] and [was] in breach of contract.” Id. at 89 (emphasis added). Mr. Carpenter did not testify that he ever believed Carmen Enterprises had lied to Murpenter or that Murpenter relied upon an allegedly false or misleading statement by Carmen Enterprises. See id. Then, on October 22, 2002, Attorney Goldin deposed Attorney Chasan, in his role as President of Carmen Enterprises. After explaining the difference between the two disks that Carmen Enterprises had provided to Murpenter in the fall of 2001 and how the My Advanced Mail software worked, Attorney - 11 - J-A05004-26 Chasan handed Attorney Goldin a new copy of the disk containing the 1,915 customers’ names. Attorney Chasan testified that he was “turning over to you, today, a copy of a disk that I copied from the MAIL list program on October 14th. I put a Bates label, “Carmen 668.” It has 718 names on Concise-2 and 233 names on Sales-01. And your client can have as many copies of this list as you want . . . I made that copy from the computer hard drive last week.” Chasan’s Depo., 10/22/02, at 145. Next, Carmen Enterprises hired Peter Liebert, an expert in computer programming, to conduct “an independent examination of [the] computer hard drive and various computer disks” that were at issue. Liebert’s December 2, 2002 Affidavit at 1. Mr. Liebert’s findings supported Attorney Chasan’s factual claims, including that “the Concise2 database on the MAIL directory of the subject computer . . . include[s] 1,718 names and addresses,” and “the Sales-01 database . . . include[s] 233 names and addresses.” Id. at 4. After reviewing the emails that Attorney Chasan had discussed with Ms. Murphy during her deposition, Mr. Liebert also concluded: without a doubt, that the disc labeled “Cruise Web at 11/1/01” . . . is not the disk described in MUR 000036-39, because “Cruise Web at 11/1/01” has a file with a ‘txt' file extension. Ms. Murphy’s own email of November 30, 2001 stated that the disc that [Murpenter] received from [Attorney] Chasan in late November 2001 did not have a ‘txt’ file extension. 19. It is notable that the “Cruise Web at 11/1/01” disk . . . was made on November 2, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. and the C drive of [Carmen Enterprises’] computer reveals that the Sales-01.EXP file was created in the “My Advanced Mail List” program at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2001. This - 12 - J-A05004-26 suggests to me that someone was copying and mailing lists from both the CruiseWeb directory and the MAIL directory from the C drive of the subject computer within a seven- minute period on that date. Id. at 7 (emphasis in original). In other words, someone inside Murpenter had exported the full list of Carmen Enterprises customers from Carmen Enterprises’ computer two days after the travel agencies executed their October 31, 2001 Agreement. Despite having the above evidence that Murpenter accessed the full client list two days after the businesses made their deal, and despite receiving a new copy of the full list of Carmen Enterprises’ customers during Attorney Chasan’s October 22, 2002 deposition, Attorney Goldin continued to prosecute Murpenter’s counterclaim of fraud. Eventually, Carmen Enterprises: filed motions for partial summary judgment with regard to Murpenter’s fraud [and conversion] counterclaim[s] and for sanctions. On January 7, 2003, Murpenter filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Carmen [Enterprises] should be precluded from obtaining counsel fees for services provided by [Attorney] Chasan, because he was essentially a pro se litigant not entitled to counsel fees. On June 17, 2003, the Honorable Steven T. O’Neill entered several orders that . . . denied Carmen [Enterprises’] motion for partial summary judgment . . . and granted . . . partial summary judgment [to Murpenter] on Carmen [Enterprises’] claim for counsel fees. The court, thus, precluded [Attorney] Chasan from receiving any contractual attorney’s fees for his representation of Carmen [Enterprises]. The June 17th Order did not preclude the payment of attorneys’ fees to outside counsel. Judge O’Neill denied Carmen [Enterprises’] motion for reconsideration. Extensive discovery and motions proceedings ensued. Carmen [Enterprises] served its first set of requests for - 13 - J-A05004-26 admissions in response to Murpenter’s fraud counterclaim. Murpenter did not respond, and the requests were deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Carmen [Enterprises] then renewed its motion for partial summary judgment on the fraud counterclaim based on those admissions. Judge O’Neill granted the motion and dismissed the fraud counterclaim on February 2, 2004. Carmen I at *2. Judge O’Neil also granted Carmen Enterprises summary judgment on Murpenter’s counterclaim of conversion. Then, in July of 2004, Carmen Enterprises propounded its Sixth Set of Interrogatories to Murpenter. Interrogatories 26-29 of that document asked who, on Murpenter’s staff, had exported the list of 1,915 customers’ names from Carmen Enterprises’ computer, on November 2, 2001. A year-and-a-half later (and after a court order to compel Murpenter’s responses), Murpenter finally answered the Interrogatories. Its answers to Interrogatories 26-29 were identical. Murpenter said, “This information was elicited by [Carmen Enterprises] during depositions.” Murpenter’s November 7, 2005 Answer to Carmen Enterprises’ Sixth Set of Interrogatories. That response was obviously false. During the initial depositions of Ms. Murphy and Mr. Carpenter, Carmen Enterprises could not have asked who, on Murpenter’s staff, had copied and exported customer lists from Carmen Enterprises’ computer on November 2, 2001. At the time of their depositions, Attorney Chasan had not yet hired Mr. Liebert to examine Carmen Enterprises’ computer. As Attorney Chasan explained to the trial court in this WUCPA case, “The question didn’t come up in [those early] depositions, because it wasn’t - 14 - J-A05004-26 figured out until later on” that Murpenter personnel copied and exported the full list on November 2, 2001. N.T., 1/25/23, at 28. On December 20, 2005, the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County convened a sanctions hearing to review Murpenter’s at-best-evasive answers to the Sixth Set of Interrogatories. As Attorney Chasan explained at that hearing, he “wouldn’t have asked the question if the information was in the depositions.” N.T., 12/20/05, at 87. Attorney Goldin said, “To the extent the court feels this is not an adequate answer - -” Id. at 86. The trial court interjected: No, it’s not an adequate answer, and you know it’s not an adequate answer. I don’t know why you would play these games with [Attorney Chasan,] if you know that anything that you answer like this, that he is going to sit up at nights, and he’s going to read each thing . . . We’ll have the ancillary issue [on sanctions, Attorney] Goldin, so that your answer [hereafter] is not just BS, because you didn’t feel like looking at it or – worse yet – you didn’t feel like answering it. I don’t think it was that hard of a question to answer. It was either nobody, or somebody, or whoever was around. Id. at 86-87. The court gave Attorney Goldin five days to send it a letter identifying where, in the depositions, the witnesses answered Interrogatories 26-29. He sent the trial court a letter that included attachments of sections of the transcripts from the depositions. None of those sections contained answers concerning the events of November 2, 2001. The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County imposed $1,000 in sanctions on Murpenter. No one took - 15 - J-A05004-26 further actions on the Interrogatories at issue during Carmen I. However, as discussed below, Attorney Goldin actually had answers to Interrogatories 26- 29, but he did not produce them prior to or during the sanctions hearing. Years of discovery ensued, and, shortly before the case was set to head to trial, Attorney Goldin directed Murpenter to hire Edward J. DiDonato, Esq. (a partner at Fox Rothchild) to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy petition stayed the proceedings in Carmen I and delayed the trial for a year. Carmen Enterprises moved for the bankruptcy court to vacate the stay, which that court granted. See In re Murpenter LLC, 12-CV-5060, 2012 WL 6645538 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (“Murpenter I”). As President Judge Emeritus Panella further explained: Carmen [Enterprises] then filed a sanctions motion in bankruptcy court, [which] . . . agreed and awarded fees to Carmen [Enterprises], including counsel’s fees for [Attorney Chasan. Carmen Enterprises appealed and argued that the award was too low. In a judgment order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit adopted the opinion of the district court and affirmed. See In re Murpenter LLC, 550 F. App’x 114 (3d Cir. 2014) (“Murpenter II”).] In April 2013, a bench trial in [Carmen I] ensued before the Honorable Richard P. Haaz. On July 9, 2013, the court found in favor of Carmen [Enterprises] . . . and awarded damages of $45,057.47. Carmen [Enterprises] filed a post-trial motion to mold the verdict to include . . . contractual attorneys’ fees, and post-judgment interest. Murpenter filed a post-trial motion asking the court to vacate its decision or order a new trial. Carmen [Enterprises] filed two motions for sanctions against [the Law Firm] alleging dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious conduct during the course of the litigation. After oral argument, the court granted Carmen [Enterprises’] motion to mold the verdict and denied [its] motions for - 16 - J-A05004-26 sanctions and Murpenter’s post-trial motion . . . [T]he court entered a final order of judgment in favor of Carmen [Enterprises] for $160,833.34, plus post-judgment interest. The order included attorneys’ fees for Carmen [Enterprises’] four outside counsel[. However, the order] did not include fees for legal services performed by [Attorney] Chasan . . . Both parties appealed. Carmen I at *2-3. We affirmed the $45,057.47 non-jury decision in favor of Carmen Enterprises. Regarding Carmen Enterprises’ motion for Murpenter to pay Attorney Chasan’s fees and costs, “Murpenter maintained that [Attorney] Chasan, as Carmen [Enterprises’] principal counsel and owner, was essentially representing himself and Carmen [was] not entitled to counsel fees for pro se representation.” Carmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Murpenter, LLC, 185 A.3d 380, 383 (Pa. Super. 2018), reargument denied (2018), appeal denied, 201 A.3d 725 (Pa. 2019) (“Carmen II”). A majority of the Carmen I panel “disagreed . . . and remanded for the trial court to determine a reasonable fee.” Id. at 383–84. On remand, the trial court ordered Murpenter to pay Carmen Enterprises $450,400 for Attorney Chasan’s fees and costs. The parties cross-appealed. On April 25, 2018, we affirmed. See id. Carmen Enterprises then moved for the Montgomery County trial court to mold the judgment to add the attorney’s fees and costs that it incurred during the cross-appeals in Carmen II. The court granted that motion and amended the final judgment in favor of Carmen Enterprises to $581,233.34, plus interest. By then, Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Murphy had formed new travel - 17 - J-A05004-26 agencies and had transferred all of Murpenter’s assets to those entities. Murpenter was therefore judgment proof. B. The Current WUCPA Litigation About two years later, on February 22, 2021, Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan filed this WUCPA action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against Murpenter, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Murphy, Attorney Goldin, Attorney DiDonato; and Fox Rothschild. Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan accused them of engaging in unlawful civil procedures during Carmen I. Murpenter, Mr. Carpenter, and Ms. Murphy filed no pleadings opposing the complaint. Carmen Enterprises took default judgments against them with damages to be determined at a future trial. At that point, this became a suit by Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan against the Law Firm. According to Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan, the Law Firm’s defensive tactics: were designed and intended to delay and/or to make the litigation so expensive and burdensome that [Carmen Enterprises] would be forced to withdraw and discontinue its meritorious complaint. As such, the [Law Firm] . . . had improper purposes. Some of the tactics the Defendants in this matter engaged in, in [Carmen I], included the following: (a) filing a baseless fraud counterclaim and baseless amended fraud counterclaim (which eventually was dismissed on summary judgment); (b) filing a baseless counterclaim for conversion and a baseless amended counterclaim for conversion (dismissed on summary judgment); - 18 - J-A05004-26 (c) filing a motion to disqualify Attorney Chasan on grounds that he was a necessary witness (said motion was denied); (d) filing a motion for partial summary judgment to hold Attorney Chasan ineligible for contractual attorney’s fees (said motion was granted, but the order granting it was reversed on appeal); (e) filing a motion for leave to amend to add a baseless 4th counterclaim for alleged breach of contract (which the court granted, but Murpenter later agreed to dismiss the fourth counterclaim with prejudice rather than respond to discovery); (f) not responding to discovery which forced Carmen Enterprises to file multiple discovery motions; (g) not complying with discovery orders which forced Carmen Enterprises to file multiple motions for sanctions; (h) not making the sales files of Uniglobe Wings Travel available for audit, as required by the contract between Carmen Enterprises and Murpenter; and (i) filing a meritless bankruptcy petition for Murpenter on the eve of trial in order to obtain the automatic stay available under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and thus delay trial. Second Amended Complaint at 11-12. The Second Amended Complaint contained five counts. The first three counts alleged violations of the WUCPA against Murpenter, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Murphy, and the Law Firm, based on Murpenter’s counterclaims of (1) fraud, (2) conversion, and (3) breach of contract, respectively, in Carmen I. The fourth and fifth counts alleged that Murpenter filed its bankruptcy petition in Murpenter I on advice of Attorneys Goldin and DiDonato to delay Carmen - 19 - J-A05004-26 Enterprises’ bench trial in Carmen I, which, according to Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan, also violated the WUCPA. The Law Firm filed several preliminary objections to the operative complaint, which the trial court assigned to Judge Leon Tucker. While the preliminary objections were pending, Carmen Enterprises and Attorney Chasan served the Law Firm with requests for production of documents. The Law Firm objected to producing the documents based on relevancy, attorney- client privilege, and the work-product rule. It asserted the second and third objections on behalf of the Law Firm’s former clients (i.e., Murpenter, Mr. Carpenter, and Ms. Murphy). On February 2, 2022, Judge Tucker sustained the Law Firm’s preliminary objection to Attorney Chasan’s lack of standing and dismissed him from the litigation. Because Attorney Chasan was not a party to Carmen I, Judge Tucker determined that he could not bring a cause of action under the WUCPA. Judge Tucker also dismissed counts four and five with prejudice, based on federal preemption and ended Attorney DiDonato’s role in this lawsuit. Next, on April 12, 2022, Judge Tucker entered an order overruling most of the Law Firm’s objections to Carmen Enterprises’ motion for production of documents. However, he sustained an objection to producing Document No. 8, because Judge Tucker deemed that document to be irrelevant. See T.C.O., 4/12/22, at 1 n.3. In the April 12, 2022 Order, Judge Tucker made no ruling regarding the Law Firm’s claims of attorney-client privilege or work product. Still, he added a sentence directing the Law Firm that, “in complying with this - 20 - J-A05004-26 ruling [i.e., producing documents], any further objection on the basis of an alleged privilege by [the Law Firm] must include . . . either redactions or a privilege log.” Id. at 1-2 (citing Fisher v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 258 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc)). Discovery lasted for two years, during which, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County reassigned this matter to Judge Paula Patrick. During discovery, the Law Firm produced two documents labeled as “FD001962” and “FD001963.” These documents were copies of the Sixth Set of Interrogatories that the “Law Office of Ely Goldin” had faxed to someone on December 20, 2005, at 1:14 p.m. – i.e., 36 minutes before the sanctions hearing in Carmen I. December 20, 2005 Fax at 14-15. The fax did not identify its recipient. See id.; see also N.T., 1/25/23, at 31 (Attorney Chasan stating, “I guess he sent it to the client, [but] I don’t know.”). The fax had handwritten answers to the Interrogatories. It read, in relevant part, as follows: 26. Identify all employees or officers of Murpenter . . . who were involved in exporting or attempting to export the “Sales-01” file at 4:35 p.m. on November 2, 2001 from the MAIL directory of [Carmen