OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Co., KGL Logistics, and KGL Transportation Co. K.S.C.C. (collectively "KGL") appeal from the July 6, 2018, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Agility Public Warehousing Co. K.S.C. ("PWC"), Agility DGS Logistics Services Co. K.S.C.C., PWC Transport Co. WLL., Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc. (collectively "Agility"), and "John Doe" (a/k/a "Scott Wilson"). After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history have been set forth previously by this Court, in part, as follows:
KGL is a family of Kuwaiti-based companies that provides shipping, transportation, warehousing, and logistics services to the United States Government in Kuwait and Southeast Asia. Agility is a family of logistics companies, including three of their separate, but wholly owned, subsidiaries that competes with KGL for government contracts.
In February 2011, the United States Government's Defense Logistics Agency ("DLA") awarded a contract to KGL to operate a military storage and distribution depot in Kuwait. On March 10, 2011, Intermarkets Global ("Intermarkets"), a company not related to any party in this matter, protested the award of that contract to KGL. KGL alleges that on March 22, 2011[,] and March 24, 2011, a person under the pseudonym "Scott Wilson" sent two letters ("the Wilson Letters") to contracting officers at the DLA and the United States Army Sustainment Command ("USASC"). The Wilson Letters informed the DLA and the USASC that KGL had violated the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act ("CISADA") by maintaining business relationships with Iranian entities[, namely Valfajr Shipping, an Iranian shipping company,] and urged them to investigate this issue. The Wilson Letters also contained email chains in support of these allegations. [Specifically, the emails purportedly reported KGL leased a cargo ship to Valfajr Shipping.]
KGL alleges that Intermarkets supplemented its protest of the above-referenced contract with copies of the Wilson Letters, characterizing KGL as an irresponsible contractor. KGL asserts that it sustained losses and costs associated with defending this protest, but that it was able to get the protest dismissed, and that the DLA eventually awarded the contract to KGL. KGL also alleges that it competed for a "Heavy Lift 7" contract from the USASC and that the Wilson Letters affected the award of this contract because the USASC would not give the contract to KGL unless KGL addressed the Wilson Letters and proved that it was a responsible contractor. KGL again contends that it sustained losses and costs associated with addressing the USASC's concerns, but that it was able to provide the USASC with a satisfactory explanation and that it received the "Heavy Lift 7" contract. [Thus, while KGL admits that the Wilson Letters did not cause them to lose any contracts and they received all contracts on which they bid, KGL alleges that it suffered costs associated with defending itself against bid protests and addressing concerns of the DLA and the USASC.]
On March 21, 2012, KGL filed suit against Agility and "John Doe" alleging liability for defamation, tortious interference with contractual and other business relationships, respondeat superior , conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and negligent supervision[, arising out of the two Wilson Letters sent to the U.S. Government.] KGL further alleged, and PWC admitted, that employees of PWC authored the Wilson Letters [using the pseudonym "Scott Wilson"] and were acting within the scope of their employment [for purposes of respondeat superior liability. KGL alleged that the allegations in the Wilson Letters were false.]
KGL filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On August 14, 2012[,] and September 4, 2012, Agility filed preliminary objections that the trial court overruled on November 15, 2012[,] and October 19, 2012, respectively. On September 14, 2012, KGL served discovery requests on each known defendant, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions, each with the primary purpose of identifying "Scott Wilson." Agility objected to these discovery requests based on its First Amendment right to speak anonymously and on Pilchesky v. Gatelli , 12 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2011), which Agility argued requires KGL to satisfy four requirements before it could obtain discovery identifying an anonymous pseudonymous speaker. On December 4, 2012, KGL moved to strike Agility's objections to discovery requests and to compel discovery responses. [On December 5, 2012, Agility filed separate answers to the amended complaint. They denied liability on several grounds, including that the factual statements in the Wilson Letters were substantially true and, in any event, did not cause any damage to KGL.]
On February 20, 2012, the trial court heard argument on [the December 4, 2012,] motion. Finally, on May 21, 2013, the trial court granted KGL's motion to strike Agility's objections to discovery requests and to compel discovery responses insofar as the objections relate to Pilchesky.
* * * [T]he trial court granted KGL's motion because it found that Pilchesky did not apply to the Wilson Letters. The trial court ruled that the Wilson Letters were commercial speech, as opposed to "literary, religious, or political" speech, and that the First Amendment affords less protection to commercial speech.
Agility...filed [an] appeal.
Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Co. v. Doe , 92 A.3d 41, 43-44 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations to record omitted).
On appeal, Agility argued the trial court erred in ordering discovery compelling the disclosure of "Scott Wilson's" identity because the First Amendment preserves the right to speak anonymously and pseudonymously. In addressing Agility's issues, we relevantly held the following:
[W]e find that the Wilson Letters constitute anonymous or pseudonymous political speech, thus receiving extensive constitutional protection under the First Amendment. We conclude that the Wilson Letters represent political speech because the award of substantial government contracts to contractors who are claimed to illegally engage in business with a prohibited foreign government directly implicates "the manner in which government is operated or should be operated." We also have no problem concluding that the Wilson Letters discuss affairs of government which are at the heart of the First Amendment protections. "Scott Wilson" wrote the Wilson Letters to the DLA and the USASC to inform them that he believed that KGL maintained business relationships with Iranian entities in violation of CISADA. KGL is a government contractor performing multi-million dollar contracts for the United States military. The DLA and the USASC are two government agencies responsible for the operation of the United States military. Additionally, KGL's alleged misconduct involved its possible connection to Iran businesses, misconduct that is a national and newsworthy issue. Thus, at their core, the Wilson Letters represent political speech involving the operation of the government and the questionable expenditure of public funds. The Wilson Letters directly implicate the appropriateness of the relationship between the United States Government and some of its contractors and those contractors' relationships with a foreign government in conflict with the United States.
Furthermore, we note that the Wilson Letters cannot be categorized as commercial speech. The Wilson Letters do not "propose a commercial transaction," or propose the sale of a specific product at a specific price. Moreover, the Wilson Letters: (1) are not an advertisement; (2) they do not reference any specific product; and (3) we are unable to determine whether or not the author had an economic motivation for making the communication. Although PWC admitted that its employee authored the Wilson Letters, there is no evidence indicating whether he did so as a concerned citizen or whether he did so to advance the interests of Agility. Likewise, even if we knew that the author wrote the Wilson Letters with an economic motivation, that knowledge alone is insufficient to compel the classification of the Wilson Letters as commercial speech. Therefore, given the political nature of the Wilson Letters, they are entitled to the highest level of protection and not the intermediate level of protection that commercial speech receives under the First Amendment.
Accordingly, we find that the Wilson Letters are anonymous political speech under the First Amendment subject to Pilchesky's four-part test for disclosure of anonymous or pseudonymous speakers.
Id. at 49-50 (quotation, citations, and footnote omitted). Consequently, we vacated the trial court's order compelling discovery of the identity of "Scott Wilson" and remanded the case to the trial court for the proper application of the Pilchesky test. Upon remand, the trial court applied the Pilchesky test and, ultimately,...
