Pittsburgh argues against release of documents in Fern Hollow Bridge collapse civil case

The City of Pittsburgh is fighting a request by attorneys representing people injured in the Fern Hollow Bridge collapse to turn over inspection reports, maintenance and payment records.

Attorneys for Port Authority bus driver Daryl Luciani, who was driving across the bridge when it collapsed Jan. 28, filed a motion seeking those records as “pre-complaint discovery” in May. Pre-complaint discovery includes documents that would be turned over prior to the filing of an official lawsuit in the matter.

Luciani has filed notice he intends to sue but not yet filed a complaint.

In the motion, the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote that the information is necessary to be able to properly identify and add all of the defendants responsible for the collapse to any potential lawsuit.

The City of Pittsburgh owned the bridge, but under federal law, PennDOT had oversight responsibility for it. All inspection reports are provided to PennDOT, but maintenance and repairs are the responsibility of the bridge owner.

In argument on Thursday before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Philip Ignelzi, the city objected to the request for pre-complaint discovery. It argued that the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the collapse, would not permit the dissemination of any materials. The NTSB has said the investigation could take up to two years.

“It’s not the city refusing to produce the information,” said John Doherty, associate solicitor for the City of Pittsburgh. “It’s the direction of the NTSB.

“The NTSB has indicated they want a clear, clean … investigation.”

Ignelzi gave both sides an additional 30 days to file briefs on the matter before he rules.

The bridge collapsed around 6:40 a.m. with six vehicles – including the Port Authority bus – on it. Nine people were injured. The 447-foot-long, four-lane bridge was built in 1970 and carried both pedestrians and vehicle traffic over Fern Hollow and Nine Mile Run below. About 14,000 cars passed over it daily, according to PennDOT.

During Thursday’s argument, Doherty said that there is no reason why the plaintiffs in the case can’t file their lawsuits first and then proceed with traditional discovery. Discovery is the exchange of documents and evidence in a case that are relevant to the claims alleged.

If necessary, Doherty said, the plaintiffs could add additional defendants to the lawsuit later.

“You have enough to file a complaint against the city,” he said.

But Peter Giglione, who represents Luciani, said that it is clear that entities other than the city bore responsibility for inspecting, maintaining and repairing the bridge, which was inspected in late September — just four months prior to its collapse. That inspection report listed the bridge as a 4, or structurally deficient, but did not show any urgent maintenance needs.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys have been unable to identify any of the other parties involved in the bridge’s inspections and repairs, Giglione said.

He questioned why the city wouldn’t want that information to be released.

“If there are others responsible for this bridge collapse, why wouldn’t they not want us to know?” he asked. “I don’t understand the stonewalling.”

Doherty responded that the city is not stonewalling. He asked the judge — if the city is forced to turn over the documents being sought — to consider giving the parties the chance to ask for individual filings to be reviewed by the court. That way, Doherty said, it there are documents with sensitive information, they can ask to have them placed under a protective order to keep them from public view. He said that materials turned over to the plaintiffs should not be freely disseminated to everyone.

Eventually, Doherty argued, it is likely the case will go to a jury trial, and if information continues to be reported by the media, that it could taint the jury pool.

“There is a great deal of media interest in this story,” Doherty said. “There should be limitations about what they can discuss openly and what they can provide. You can’t go unring the bell.”

However, attorney Steven Barth, who represents Luciani and his wife, Karen, countered that the issue in the case is one that affects the community.

“We’re dealing with a public defendant. We’re dealing with a very important issue for the public at large,” he said. “It’s not my fault you’re going to be embarrassed by what’s in those documents. It’s not my fault there’s a political bomb in there.”

Whether it impacts the administrations of former mayors Bill Peduto, Luke Ravenstahl or Tom Murphy, Barth said, it shouldn’t require a gag order or sealed records.

“These are public roads. These are public bridges,” he said. “It’s a public defendant.”