HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-01399
lJ;
\.9
~~"
~ ~
~
.. d
~ ,
" H
3 '
~"
~
...
\J
N
~
,
l'o
~
~I
\
"
/
United States Bankruptcy Court
HIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VOLUNTARY
PETITION
INne
l/o1p, Rustyn A.
NAME or JOltH Of 01011
NO JOINT DEBTOR
All. olllEn NAMES uud liy Ih, d,hlot In 111,1..111 Y"'I
Rusty I/olp
AU OIII[nNAMESu..dby Ihlpnld,llIut 11111,11..16)''''1
N/A
SOCiAl SEClJr1IlYJlAX I n IlIlMOER
200-66-6296
,nENOjr
SOCIAl. SECUrllYITAX I 0 IIUUOEn
fElEPllOfle
(717) 361-8050 N/A
SH1HJ AlX)RESSOf nUl [)(Dlon
N/A
SIIIEET HX>nESS Of (}{OIOf\
82 Cedar Hanor
Eli.abethtown, PA 17022
COUNIVOf nESIO('ICE onrru'ICIPAl PLACE Of DIlSlI.ESS
Dauphin
MAllING ADonESS or OEOIOl1(11 dlll"lnl I,om ,11I,1 add....)
82 Cedar Hanor
Eli.abethtown, PA 17022
OlllllY Of RESI()(NCE/PnlNCIPAl. MACE OF BUSllless
N/A
JOIN r DEmon MAIl INQ AOOf1ESS (II ddl"lnllfOlfl Ihlllldd"u)
N/A
lOCAllONOf "AIICIPAt. ASSe.S or OIlSINESS OEOlon
_ VEMJE (Chick on. bo.)
~U.bIOl hu be.n domICII.d Of h.. hid. '111d'nu, pnnclf'l'1 pliel 01 buliMSI Of
p1indpala"llt In UU1I Ditllld IOf 180 d"YSllnl'llldlll,ly P'luldmg Ih, dll, oillll.
pet.tlOn Of 101 alongi' ~II uf luch 160 dly.II..n In Iny DU", (lI,l"d
o TlI.II is. N'l~.ullle)' un eOflU'1lI1'U dehlof'. .lhb.I.. O.'It,.1 1~,lnll. OIII.,IIIIIS'''II
p.ntJ"lQln Ihl, U.,llIcI
HOIIMAIKmn "GAIlUINGIJWIOn -
...../ lTrEOfU[OIOn(Ch.elo.on.htu) . C~l IEnornAl,xru,,.ICYCOOEuuurnwtllCllrEllllOllrIlEU
~llldl...IdIl.1 DCOfpo,.honrllblKlylltkJ Ch.pl.,l Dct..plllll DCh.plll 13
o !eMlll (lIu.lJ.IntJ.nd Wll.) 0 COIpculloll "01 l'ubklyll.1d Ch.'lllu 9 0 Ch.plll 12 0 S.ellon 304
0,...11111'1111' 0 Munklfl.loIy SMAll fllJSIUESS (Ch.plll II Ofll}')
DOlhll ______.~_. 0 n.LIDlI...mlllbullnttlasd"ln.dlO II use 101
o IHblOll1 & .I.elllobl cOIltldll.d.. .m.ll IIu.ln"l undll II use 1121(.) (Of.lIon.'1
fIlplrEE
[Q'''"rdlllQ I.. .n.eh.d
o rlllOQ ,..10 be paid IfI in.lallm.nls AU.ell Ilgn.d .pphc.bon pt, flul, loo&lb)
flAME AND Aoonns Of IAWFIAMOf1ATIOfVlEY
N/A
"A lURE or UEDT (Check on. bn.)
~n'OllsUllts/Cotllum.'
o Dillin... ~ Compl.l. AI OMlow
A I"'E Of OUSUlESS
Dr.'rmtlQ
Dr.ol.ltlon.l
o n.I.,I/Whol.sal.
o Rall,o.d
Darrell N. VanOrmer, Jr. 22046
O.,An'poIl.lIon
o M.nul.dullngl
Mi'ling
DSlodbloJ.tI
o Commodlly o,oh,
o Conslruchon
o n..1 hl.l.
DOII1110uSIIl...
DARRELL N. VANORHER, JR.
344 South Harket Street
Eli.abethtown, PA 170222
U (lIlIErI Y OESCIUOE !lATUJtE or OUSIIIESS
N/A
SIAIISlICAJ IAOMINIS'nAIIVE INFOOMAllON(28lJSC 16(4)
(hlln..I.. only) (Ch.ek .ppltc..b1. bo...)
o OtblOl is nolr.p',unl.d by a" .lIom.y ..I.pholl. No 01 OrhlOl nol Iffllt,.,nlftl
by,,,.lIolll'y ( )
DJ>rbllM ..hm.t.. Ih.llundl \1\0.11 be .Ind.bIe 101 di,lllbullon 10 unlleu..d elldrhu
M""o.bIDl.II""..ltt Ihal. .In.. .ny ...mpl p1op.rly i. ..eluded alld ..dmillish.li.... ..penus (lakl
Ihell \1\011I be no h.nd. ......d..bI. 101 d"lllbullon 10 unsKUled ,"d.IOI'I
101101100....1
, t:.~ ;
n ...
,
I
, ,
I"" ,;;;, ::
11115 SPACE FOR CCXJflIIlSE OHl_,
"
, l' . --.....
. 1- ~'''..:.J' i i
I
ESIIMAIEO NUMBER Dr cnEOlTons
'0' 'if 5"0"
UIIMAl EO "'SSE IS (.n lhoullndl 01 doll.,,)
1~1iO 50-99 10()-499
LY 0 0
IOO'lGG
o
100 ...
o
1000-0"'''
o
lOll 000 0....'
o
tifl) ~\ 21fi:J1
500 ...
o
100JO-gm
o
10,000 99999
o
ESTIMATED' IAOllIll[S ('"lhouund, 01 dotl...)
lJ~50 50-9') 1M ..gq bCJO 9~
.IlL 0 [J 0
ESllMAlEUNUMOERor E""'tmEES, CIIAl'I[J1S tl a 1;:>0"1 y
o 1-19 20-99 UX}.C)'J9
ODD 0
llIUII gill)')
o
10011099 9'l'J
,0
[J_
11110 Oy.,
o
(SWA"IEIltllll.mEnor FQlllly SrCllIllly lint llrns - (.Iv.rlrll~ II. 120M Y
o 1 1.. ;'0 '1'1 lllll .'1') !,(1I1 ..~rf
'1 II II II II
,Ill,
'" 1111..... 1\"".1... ~ I ..
.2
5. Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's Night
Club is a business establishment licensed to serve alcoholic and
intoxicating beverages pursuant to liquor control license number H-
5017 and is located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
6. The aforesaid liquor license was issued to Defendant
Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Company, Inc.
7. All of the facts and occurrences hereinafter related took
place on or about the late evening hours of June 10, 1995 and the
early morning hours of June 11, 1995.
8. On June 10, 1995, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer accompanied several individuals including Rustyn
Allan Holp, David Duhovis, Steven Miller, and Deborah Szustowicz to
Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club and the Holiday Inn in
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Wanda's Deck and
Beach Club engaged in the sale of beer and other intoxicating
beverages to patrons for consumption on the premises of Wanda's.
10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants engaged in the
practice of offering discount drinks and encouraging over
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
11. At all times relevant to the facts and occurrences herein
related, the managers, agents and employees who sold and served the
alcoholic beverages to the group of individuals including Rustyn
Allan Holp and David Duhovis, were acting for the benefit of
Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club and within the scope and
course of their employment with Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club and all other Defendants herein.
12. At all times relevant herein, Rustyn Allan Holp and David
Duhovis were customers of Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club,
when agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Wanda's Deck
and Beach Club sold, furnished, gave or permitted to be sold,
furnished, or given intoxicating beverages to Mr. Holp and Mr.
Duhovis.
13. On the evening of June 10, 1995, Rustyn Allan Holp and
David Duhovis were visibly intoxicated while at Defendants' bar.
14. Despite Mr. Holp's and Mr. Duhovis's visible
intoxication, the Defendants and their employees continued to sell
them intoxicating beverages.
15. Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club's sale and service
of the aforementioned intoxicating beverages to Mr. Holp and Mr.
Duhovis, while they were visibly intoxicated was negligent and
constitutes a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47
Pa.C.S.A. ~ 4-493.
16. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 11, 1995, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer decided to leave Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club.
';
17. Rustyn Allan Holp left the premises of Defendant Wanda's
Deck and Beach Club, driving a 19BO Audi BOOO.
lB. Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer was a back seat passenger in
Rustyn Allan Holp's vehicle. Stephen Miller and Deborah Szustowicz
were also passengers in Holp's vehicle.
19. David Duhovis also left the premises of Defendant Wanda's
Deck and Beach Club, driving his Toyota MR2.
20. As Rustyn Allan Holp traveled east on Route 322, he and
David Duhovis began racing, ultimately resulting in Rustyn Allan
Holp losing control of his vehicle, veering off the roadway and
becoming involved in a high speed accident.
21. Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer was ej ected from the car and
injured, and Deborah Szustowicz was killed during this crash.
22. Rustyn Allan Holp's and David Duhovis's inability to
safely operate their motor vehicles and the resulting accident were
the direct and proximate result of their being extremely
intoxicated and unable to properly control their vehicles.
23. Mr. Holp's blood alcohol level, taken after said
incident, was .155, which is over the legal limit.
24. Criminal charges were filed versus Holp and Duhovis.
4
25. On June 6, 1996, a Dauphin County Court convicted Holp
and Duhovis of homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, and
four counts of recklessly endangering another person as a result of
the aforesaid motor vehicle accident.
26. Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer sustained serious and permanent
injuries as a result of the accident and Defendants' negligent
conduct in continuing to serve alcoholic beverages to Rustyn Allan
Holp and David Duhovis after they were visibly intoxicated.
27. All of the injuries and damages as hereinafter related
sustained by Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer are the direct and proximate
result of the willful, wanton, reckless, and negligent behavior of
Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Company, Inc., G.F.
Development, Inc. t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's
Night Club and their employees, acting within the course and scope
of their employment, which consisted, inter alia, of the following:
(a) serving and/or selling Rustyn Allan Holp and David
Duhovis alcoholic beverages at Defendants' licensed
place of business while Mr. Holp and Mr. Duhovis
were visibly intoxicated, all in violation of 47
Pa.C.S.A. ~ 4-493(1);
(b) allowing Rustyn Allan Holp and David Duhovis to
consume alcoholic beverages on Defendants' licensed
premises while they were visibly intoxicated;
(c) failing to establish and implement rules,
regulations, and procedures which would prevent and
preclude the selling of intoxicating beverages to
someone who was visibly intoxicated;
5
spine at TlO-Tll with complete spinal cord injury resulting in
paraplegia requiring surgical fusion and stabilization, impacting
on her functioning at home, work, community, with family and
friends and diminishing the quality of her life.
30. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer, she was forced to incur liability for
medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations, and similar
miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health,
and claim is made therefor.
31. Because of the nature of her injuries, Plaintiff Dana R.
Tozer has been advised and therefore, avers that she may be forced
to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made
therefor.
32. As a result of the aforementioned injuries I Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has undergone and in the future will undergo great
physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out
her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and
claim is made therefor.
33. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has been, and in the future will be, subject to great
humiliation and embarrassment, and a claim is made therefor.
34. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has sustained work loss, loss of opportunity, and a
7
>- In C
l? co.: ~':.:
>== .. ?31~
tt.t(2 -
~,2(~. ::..: ~_i :.:~
0-.-;'" ,:I.. .--,-,
u-l- .-~ '":':
0:; -:;'u')
II,.: '""
0" ...... .'. ~
I
~\~, t- ~:-;w
U::', ' C-l ::.JU-
F c ,..':
L'_ r- ::>
c C\ U
4. On July 29, 1997, counsel for Defendants Mechanicsburg
G. F. Investors Co., Inc. and G. F. Development, Inc. , t/d/b/a
Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's Night Club forwarded to
Plaintiff's counsel objections to Interrogatory Numbers 12, 14 and
35, and "Unknown" as an answer to Interrogatory Numbers 4, 5, 16,
18 and 23 for Set I, while answering the remaining Interrogatories.
Also, Defendants forwarded to Plaintiff's counsel objections to
Interrogatory Numbers 47 and 50 through 54 for Set II. The answers
to Interrogatory Numbers 19 through 21 of Set I and 57 through 61
of Set II are "Unknown at this time." Copies are of the
Interrogatories and Defendants' objections/vague answers are
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and G.F.
Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
Wanda's Night Club also objected to Request for Production of
Documents Numbers 2, 7, 12, 20 and 21 while responding to the
remaining requests. A copy of the objections are attached hereto
as Exhibit B.
5. Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents are without merit.
6. Plaintiff respectfully submits she is entitled to have
Defendants explain all efforts Defendants have made in answering
2
.
.
the Interrogatories and not accept vague statements like "Unknown"
or "Unknown at this time."
7. Defendants Mechanicsburg G. F. Investors Co., Inc. and
G.F. Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
Wanda's Night Club objects on the grounds that requested documents
are overbroad and vague and cannot lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
S. Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents primarily inquire about the Defendant's company policies
regarding alcohol sales to customers who are visibly intoxicated,
all of which relate to the basis of the present lawsuit.
9. All of the discovery sought by Plaintiff through the
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is relevant
to the instant action.
10. Our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the liberal
granting of discovery.
11. Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and
G.F. Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
Wanda's Night Club has failed to comply with the discovery as
required by Pa.R.C.P 4005 and 4006.
12. Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and
G.F. Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
3
.
.
Wanda's Night Club has had more than ample time to respond to
Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents.
13. Pa.R.C.P. 4019 provides that upon motion of a party, the
Court can make an appropriate order when a party "fails to make
discovery." Pa.R.C.P 4019 (a) (viii).
14. Plaintiff, therefore, believes that answering all of
Plaintiff's discovery requests or explaining their efforts made to
attempt to answer would not burden or oppress Defendants
Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and G.F. Development, Inc.,
t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's Night Club.
15. Plaintiff is represented by Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
of the firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 North Front Street,
Harrisburg, PA 17110, (717) 238-679l.
16. Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and
G.F. Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
Wanda's Night Club is represented by Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire, of
the firm Thomas, Thomas and Hafer, 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box
999, Harrisburg, PA 17108. (717) 255-7632.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court order Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., Inc. and
G.F Development, Inc., t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a
Wanda's Night Club to respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and
4
c
t:
lD
i
,
.
For the purposes of these Interrogatories, "vou or "vour"
refers to the defendants and their files and all other oersons.
aaents or reoresentatives of the defendants and their files. "You"
shall further include all persons on whose behalf Defendants
prosecuted this action and all persons who will benefit or be
legally bound by the results of this action. Your answer to the
Interrogatories shall reflect and contain the knowledge of all of
the above persons.
Reference to plaintiff and/or defendant shall be interpreted
as singular or plural, depending upon the particular circumstances
of each case.
The term "description" or "describe" as used herein shall mean
that the defendants shall set forth the name and address of the
author or originator, dates, title or subject matter, the present
custodians of the original and of any copies and the last known
address of each custodian. "Document" shall mean any written,
printed, typed or other graphic matter of any kind, whether
handwritten, typed or printed, whether distributed or
undistributed. It shall include without limitation letters,
memoranda, articles, studies, notebooks, diaries and notes, as well
as all mechanical and electronic sound recordings or transcripts
thereof in the possession or control of the defendants or known by
them to exist. It shall also mean all copies of document by
whatever means made.
Answer each Interrogatory in the space following the
Interrogatory. Supplemental sheets may be attached for answers
which require additional space. Please take notice that you are
required to serve upon the undersigned your answers in writing
within thirty (30) days pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. These Interrogatories are deemed continuing and
supplemental answers should seasonably be provided.
/
ANGINO & ROVNER,
Date: May 8, 1997
'.
8. At the time of the incident referred to in the Complaint,
did you have a valid license to operate Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club? If so, state:
(a) issuing state;
(b) expiration date;
(c) to whom the license was issued;
(d) operator's license number; and
(e) any restrictions, qualifications or conditions on said
license.
ANSWER
See attached Liquor License.
. .
9. With regard to any restrictions, qualifications or
conditions on your license, please state:
(a) a full and complete description including the exact and
precise language or wording on your license; and
(b) the time, in months and years, that such wording appeared
on your license.
ANSWER
See attached liquor license.
13. Have either you or Wanda's Deck and Beach Club received
a citation or summons of a criminal nature as a result of the
incident referred to in the Complaint? If so, state:
(a) the nature of the citation or summons;
(b) the final disposition; and
(c) the court involved.
ANSWER No.
,
I
I'
14. Have you ever had an operator's license suspended or
revoked? If so, state:
(a) time and location of suspension or revocation;
(b) period of time of said suspension or revocation,
including dates;
(c) reason for such suspension or revocation; and
(d) whether such suspension or revocation was lifted.
ANSWER Objected to as irrelevant.
.'
16. Identify all exhibits which you expect to offer into
evidence at the time of trial of this case.
ANSWER Undetermined at this time.
.'
19. During the time Additional Defendants David Duhovis,
Rustyn Allan Holp and John W. Foley, Jr., were present at Wanda's
Deck and Beach Club on June 10-11, 1995, did any employee or owner
of Wanda's Deck and Beach Club observe them? If so, identify the
individual who saw and was seen and for each please state:
(a) whether Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley had any
difficulty walking, standing or sitting up;
(b) whether Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley were loud or
boisterous;
(c) whether Mr. Duhovis's, Mr. Holp's or Mr. Foley's voice or
speech was slurred, incoherent, or otherwise difficult to
understand;
(d) whether there was an odor of alcohol about Mr. Duhovis's,
Mr. Holp's or Mr. Foley's person;
(e) whether Mr. Duhovis' s, Mr. Holp' s, or Mr. Foley's genera 1
appearance was disheveled or unkempt;
(f) whether Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley appeared
depressed or elated;
(g) whether Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley was aggressive
or belligerent in any way;
(h) whether Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley appeared
dazed, bewildered or otherwise confused; and
(i) describe any other out of the ordinary or unusual
behavior exhibited by Mr. Duhovis, Mr. Holp or Mr. Foley.
ANSWER To our knOWledge, !tIr. Foley was not at wonderful Wanda's
the evening in question. As to Messrs. Holp and Duhovis, unknown
at this time.
Ap~-2e~g7 03:5SP
P.02
EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED ON JUNE 10, 1995
~ SOCIAL SECURITY II POSrrlON
BRYAN BARNHARDT 181.54-5935 BARTENDER
MARK MINSKEY 178$2046 BARTENDER
LAUREN TULlI 185-52.2094 BARTENDER
. WIl.UAM SIMMONS 195-5M605 BARTENDER
STACEY BLOOM 185-52.7178 BARTENDER
{' MADONNA ONESKY 181.54-0532 BARTENDER
ANDREW DICESARE 199-<12-6565 BARTENDER
. RANDAlL SCHUL TIES 202.58-5210 BARTENDER
. WILlIAM BOLES 182-64-4044 BARTENDER
. JAMES KRUPA 2Q6.52.2417 BARTENDER
JEREMY BABSKI 171.56-6463 BARTENDER
JERRY BRADIGAN 157.18-2538 BARTENDER
TODD LOJACK 198-56-7285 BARTENDER
WAYNE JONES 165-38-0801 BARTENDER
CAREYRATZ 204-68-0534 COCKTAIL SERVER
TERRA REIDER 196-68.9139 COCKTAIL SERVER
JENNIFER McFADDEN 177-64-7961 COCKTAIL SERVER
COLmE HALL 068-58-5935 COCKTAIL SERVER
. CASEY STOKES 20o.5(l.95n COCKTAIL SERVER
. BRENDA SPEESE 209-50-9185 COCKTAIL SERVER
. BETH REESE 207.54-0153 COCKTAIL SERVER
MELISSA YOUNG 19Q.60-0963 COCKTAIL SERVER
STACEY SOlTIS 195-66-2533 COCKTAIL SERVER
ERICA SHERER 177-64-5517 COCKTAIL SERVER
TERRI DURENLEAU 200.52-4860 COCKTAIL SERVER
JAIME SMI1'H 161$9071 COCKTAIL SERVER
JANEEN WAJ. TZ 202.52-9273 COCKTAIL SERVER
LEAH FREEMAN 196-54-3976 COCKTAIL SERVER
..-==l\ILEEN BERWICK 537.74-9189 COCKTAIL SERVER
. GEORGE BROADDUS 197-40-5763 SECURITY
. HARRY CLAY SECURITY
CL YOE FORBES SECURITY
. RAY GlASS 163-52.5258 SECURITY
. NATE KUNKLE 160-54-8261 SECURITY
. GRETCHEN LAGUS 162-68-3523 SECURITY
. JULI NICHOLSON 208-64-9531 SECURITY
JAMES PARSON SECURITY
. JOHN SABOL 209-50-9058 SECURITY
MARK SCOTT SECURITY
ROBERT SHUMAKER SECURITY
. THOMAS WALTON 173-52.1077 SECURITY
. STeve W1AN SECURITY
. THESE EMPLOYEES ARE STILL EMPLOYED
ConfldlntJ~1
4/28197
Pllge 1
'Apr_2S_97 03:5ep
, .
CL VDE FORBES JEREMY BABSKI MARK MINSKEY
1276 AJ.MA LANE 3111 WESTERLY RDAD (MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA)
MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055 CAMP HILL. PA 17011
258-6004 731-8975 (LEFT ON BAD TERMS)
MARK SCOTT JEROME (JERRY) BRADIGAN LAUREN TULLI
201C STATE STREET 202 RIDGEVlEW ROAD 203 WEST MAIN STREET
W. FAIRVlEW, PA 17025 NEW CUMBERLAND. PA 17070 PALMYRA, PA 17078
731-8863 774-1508 236-0747
732.n88 (LEFT ON BAD TERMS_
ROBERT SHUMAKER THERESA (TERRI) DURENLEAU MADONNA ONESKY
1610 POTTS HILL ROAD 709 ERFORD ROAD (MOVED TO COLORADO)
ETTERS, PA 17319 CAMP HILL. PA 17071
938-0334 n8-9976 (UNLISTED NUMBER)
JAMES (DOUG) PARSON COLETTE HALL CAREYRATZ
307 INDIAN CREEK ORNE 538 FISHING CREEK ROAD 520 DEVON ROAD
MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055 LEWlSBERRY, PA 17339 CAMP HILL. PA 17011
763-1435 (14251) 9:38-8925 737-1916
BRYAN BARNHARDT LEAH FREEMAN TERRA REIDER
280 OLD STONEHOUSE ROAD 266 NORTH 24TH STREET #34 PHEASANT COURT
MECHANICS BURG, PA 17055 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055
258-3741 761-8547 697.5651
AILEEN BERWICK WAYNE JONES JENNIFER McFADDEN
1795 CESSNA STREET 55 PINE HILL ROAD ONE RUSTY ORNE
CARLISLE. PA 17013 ENOLA. PA 17025 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
240.7043 732-2684 (LEFT ON BAD TERMS) 691-6839
STACY BLOOM TODD LOJACK MELISSA YOUNG
909 CEDARS ROAD 270 LOWTHER ST. #8 1444I<lRKWOOD ROAD
LEWISBERRY, PA 17339 LEMOYNE. PA 17043 HARRISBURG. PA 17110
766-0570 n4-5749 238-8341
STACY SOLTIS JAIME SMITH JANEEN WAJ.TZ
23 SUSQUENITA HALL (MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA) 803 ALLENVlEW DRIVE
DUNCANNON,PA17020 MECHANICSaURG, PA 17055
532-0051 691.9606
COnfidential
4/28/97
Pagel
P.03
'.
Ul
... 0: 0:
::> <Il 0> ::l ... w
..c:IllC 0 C 0 01
'1 ::E
.u ..... \..l.c >..... - w
... 'ONO III Ul'O ::E
x:J r-- .4J QJ..,..e CJ "0 >,.... II <Il
:t' ..... Ill.u ... .....c: C Ill..c: ... 'OU
::> \0 '0 0 ..c:CO......u::l,oe-.iIl iIlC
III 0'\ ill \-0 III .u Ill..c: III IIlC '0 .ulll
0'\ 0'\ ... ,",4-J e CO, C Ill.u
0'\ ..... -'0 ... III :>4 O>::l iIlCX'OiIl CUl
..... t.lCiIl ill III c... III '0 ill 0 ill'" o>.c
- III Ill"" ..c: ....>. C :J C.u... '... ::l
- ..... :z: Ul .u .. e-..c -1ll.uXOIll::l UlUl
..... .... t.l......C OJ e-. ll: ill e-. <Il < C Ul <Il
0 U,... III .... .... t.l...........c XOI '0'"
:>4 .....u... 0 ~ U iIl~ 0 .>0:<,... ill C
~ :>4 ll: o-lC'" ..c: ::lUlU Ul.c <Il ill
~ ll: < ::l C t.l o t.l C'iIl 0.>0: ill > ...
. < 0 ll: - 0 a. e-. Ul a..... 01..... U '0 ... o III
~ 0 :z: o 0'1'0 ,... .... .....IllUO 0 .co.
~ ll: 1'1< OCiIl .u III III III ... - ..... Ul C IllUl
l:l ..., OI....~ ... t.l ....'Ot.l....iIlOUiIl '0 C
t.l .. ....::l..... 0 o-l <Il..JO> - Ul >. <Il <Illll
0 c... e-. .. o-lCiIl 0. < lIle< QJ COo,.. CO "'" ..c:...
z UIIl ,... U III .... III III iIl.c ill ee... .u.u
....t.l o-l.uC .u XC ..... > 0 ill <Il
-l C ll:ll: t.lCIll III :>4 e-. :>41ll'OiIl:J........... .ulll
0:: w e-..... e-.OU ..c: < <Il < Ul <Il......u 0..... Ul III
a: :J III a. 00 .u 0 - > 0 :Jill ec ...
w III ....>: X - :z: ~O~iIlill '0 ill'" III <Ilill
III !!l Ot.l '0'0 >. 0 O.c ..c:.......C..c:iIl... C <Il'O
III C ill ...... III :z:1ll1ll....cOIll.ua..u a: UlC
Ill'" C 0:: C::l
'0 ill 0 0 <Il
iIl<ll'O l:l 0'0
.u>C C .... ill
CO ill .... -l ..Je
Ill.c ... 0 III
"'Ill'" '0 ~ ill ...
01 ::l ...... e-. ..c:....
CUl 0 . III .u
>':J Ul 0 t.l 0 >.
r--... .cO'" U ~ u >......
t.l .......... iIl..c: ill '0 1'1 a: .c.c
III 0... ...UlC C III t!l ..... III
:z: Ill.... ill 0 III ll: ll: ... 0 >....
r>l N ..c:<IlO 0 0 1'1 :J ......,...
J U X .uUl '0 e-. l:l I 0 C ::l
~ .... Ullll <Il III III III ::i OUl
~ ..J ...."tJ U'J ... t.l .... III
2 0 .. Ul 0 :> ll: 0 0:: ill -
ll: Z 0 'O<Ilill .u :z: ll: r-- Z Ul'O
0 .... iIl..c:..... Ul .... <t.l..... ;; ::l ill
0 w ..J e.uc Xl<: >.
QI Ul III ::l <Il c... I ...< -l ... III
.... Z CC .c t!l :z:a.a. >- 0.....
..J w 0 - :z: Ul ....0.
U :J '0 >. t!la....r>lt!l Z Ul
:i 0 <Il ill IllC ll:... o-lll: Z '0....
..... >.f"'l eo o X:>4 III 0 '0 W .... '0
4)....\1..1 '... l:llll<...l:l III 0 Q. ......
..c .u.... Ul'" rnll:Oo-lrn ll: ox Ill>'
OU <Illll Ut.l....ll:U 0....< >.....
ill <Il ill o>u ....:z:..J<.... ill ill 0 . Ul
..c:.... 0. Ill.... :z:e-.OU:Z: > r-->X....o,o Ul ::l
.u....Ul ........ <ll:X < oe-. .....0 00 <Il .... 0
<Il <Ilo. X< .....X .c:z: . 0.c0 ...u ::l
.u ill >0. ua.<ou 1llr>l'O Illlllt.l iIlr-- III 'OU
III -.u <Illll t.l I...t.l X ill 0..... C c....
0 a. ..c:'01ll l:l X <e-.Ill X <Il t.l .... c... iIl:Z: III '0 01 III 0.
a: ~ .u <Il '0 ill ..c:rnlll x..c: t.l Ul c.... Ul
0:: 0:: .u 'O.c .uOC r>l.ue-. IllUlQO t.lC
Z 0 -Ill C <Il'" XO> >: ill <Il 0: ..JO
:z: :>4 CO :J .u<.... n.a.JtI1..cX'CZ< l:lU
0:: aI r>l III .u < <lil
> t.l c... 0>,... <IlC III UI <
-l -I 0 Ho.-401-1 . ...'... ..c:C<Il rn..c:c UlUl :Z:iIl
>- 0 a. e-. UI III '0 aI r-- ....1ll'O :z: .u III 010 <Il ~ 5 t!l.c
III ~ X ll:iIl...<Il '0 ..... r>l co UI poNIA. ....
Z < t.l '0 '...... ... ill 0 :>4'OUI u>'C.f"'4...... " rn....
z X U 0.0 0'" l.C III c...<Il<ll ....rx.<IlNN ~ rnUl
w 0 I UlX> III .....uUl .,J....+J.rt <::l
Q. U III 0 O<llill<ll .uc a. f4 c.... e-. c....... e
LL a: .....:z: e-.UI ... ......01 < ll:llle o ll: III 0 0 ~o: e-.
0 0 III < .... ill Ill'... t.l...<Il Or>l.....c: aWo 0""
I ..J rn e..c: ... XUl U 0'1'" o U 0>'" Ul ::! :z:,...
~ :J .....ll: ... <Il"" 0 ill OJ e-. 0. c... ::l ... 5!
0 Nt.l ... '0'0 .... 0>' o >'Ill::l ... UI 'iIl
::i l:l III 0. 01 '0 C ~ e-..c ill 1Ile-..c 0 .... ...
0:: ;:~ .... C <Il IllUl <Il..c: ll: <Il -..c: <Il
w 0:: X ill'''' '0 ill t.l 1Il....u o III ... r>l .... iIl..c:
== Z e-.u e-...c: '0 C ...Ul a. ....iIl 0... CUIll ill j:o~o:> UI :J
Z ;; .... .u::lCU 0'... ..c:... X ..c::z:..c: >. C
0 ..J - .....0. ::le e-. III 0 III t.l .... III ... .. cu -
~ >! < 3:"'UlIl C'iIl :z: ...UI.... O...UlU 'OUl< .... uc
~ a. .. OOC::l '... ... r>l x.... tzl :c.... .... c ffl w en ,... 0
III ....:>4 :z: ~.... U1 ..Jo. x e-. e-. oe-. o-lill>'ZUl W '-J,...
0 Z ue-. t.l '0.... :z: '0 cu C >ow ~ ...
u z ....:z: rn - cu ~ t.l-<IlO:JIll~j: 0:: Ullll
W :Z:O 0 3:e e-.3:eo.u .... U
Q. S!8 X Olllt.l >:0 III 0 ill C ..c:o
< :z:ca. t.l:z crx..c 0 e-......
'. 01f~0/91 13:35 F~~ 711Q01~111
D~'1 IL~TCH
Ilio~
,
LIQUOR PRICING STRUCTURE
~h. "}-'S" $2,75 53,25
MILLER UTE /lR" '* '. ZIMA
MILLER GENUINE'Ic"o ~ BUD MICHELOB
REO DOG ICD 0 ';I. BUD LITE AMSTEL
ROCK COORS UTe MOLSON ICE
SHARPS NA LAGER HEINCKEN
SAN PELLlGRINO MINERAL WATER BLACK & TAN CORONA
Mdltr Reel. Ic..oc- HONEY BROWN BE~S OK
Lo.. Ooir:.
$3.50 53.75 55.75
COORS UTE 1eOZ CHARDONNAY FOSTERS OILCANS
COOLERS LAMBRUSCO
CHABUS CABERNET SAUVIGNON
W Z1NFANOa BURGUNDY
'.
'.
47. Please answer the following:
(a) What quantities of each type or category of
alcoholic beverages served and sold at Wanda's
was served and sold during 1995, what is the
specific alcoholic content of each type or
category, what was the price for each type or
category sold and how was each type or
category sold and served?
(b) What quantities of each type or category of
alcoholic beverages served and sold at Wanda's
was served and sold during June of 1995, what
,is the specific alcoholic content of each type
or category, what was the price for each type
or category sold and how was each type or
category sold and served?
(c) What quantiti.es of each type or category of
alcoholi.c beverages served and sold at Wanda's
was served and sold on June 10, 1995, what is
the specjfic alcoholic content of each type or
category, what was the price for each type or
category sold and how was each type or
category sold and served?
(d) Identify any record maintained concerning the
quantities of each type or category of
alcoholic beverage served and sold at Wanda's
during 1995, June of 1995 and on June 10,
1995, the specific alcoholic content of each
type or category, the price for each type or
category sold and how each type or category
was sold and served,
ANSWER
Objected to as overbroad, onerous and not designed to lead to relevant or
discoverable evidence. This case involves Plaintiff's allegation that on June
lO, 1995, Defendant served alcoholic beverages to Messrs. Holp and Duhovis while they
were visibly intoxicated. Discovery to date establishes that the Additional
Defendants were drinking draft beer from pitchers.
52, State in detail how and where Wanda's advertised any type
of promotional strategies, including music providers, food
specials, drink specials, party themes, holiday or other special
themes or sporting events during March, 1995 through June, 1995.
~SWR
See objection to Interrogatory 47.
, .
54. Was any type of drink, food, theme, music, or other type
of special promotional, marketing, advertising, or other event in
progress in connection with the operation of Wanda's on June 10,
1995? If yes, state:
(al the type of drink, food, theme, music, or other
type of special promotional, marketing,
'advertising, or other event in progress in
connection with the operation of Wanda's on
June 10, 1995;
(b) the name and address of any and all advertising
firms, consultants, or marketing strategists used
to promote any type of drink, food, theme, music,
or other type of special promotional, marketing,
advertising, or other event in progress in
connection with the operation of Wanda's on
June 10, 1995; and
(c) how and where Wanda's advertised any type of drink,
food, theme, music, or other type of special
promotional, marketing, advertising, or other event
in progress in connection with the operation of
Wanda's on June 10, 1995,
Additionally, identify any records maintained concerning the
type of drink, food, theme, music, or other type of special
promotional, marketing, advertising, or other event in progress in
connection with the operation of Wanda's on June 10, 1995.
ANSWER
See objection to Interrogatory 47. Without waiving this objectio~. Defendants'
answer that there was no "special" for pitchers of draft beer on June lO, 1995.
Cups of draft Hiller Lite were offered for sale for $l.OO.
'.
"
55. State whether or not Rustyn Allan Holp and/or David
Duhovis were served any alcoholic beverages while at Wanda's on
June 10, 1995,
ANSWER
Unknown although Defendant understands, based on discovery to date, that Messrs.
Holp and Duhovis consumed draft beer from pitcher at Wanda's.
. .
61. State the names and addresses of any person, persons, or
establishment, other than Wanda's, who to your knowledge sold,
served, or gave any alcoholic beverages to Rustyn Allan Holp and/or
David Duhovis on June 10, 1995,
ANSWER
Unknown other thsn as discussed on the Police Report.
. .
12, Objected to as overbroad and vague, Without waiving this objection, all
such documents are attached except statements received in the course of discovery
and the Ms, Tozer's and Mr, Holp's medical records which are available on request,
13. None at this time.
14. Undetermined,
15. None,
16. To be supplied.
17. Ms. Tozer's sworn statement and the Police Report, including statements,
copies of which are already in Plaintiff's counsel's possession.
18. See copy of liquor license, attached hereto.
19. None other that documents filed with the Recorder of Deeds.
20. Objected to as irrelevant at this time.
21, Objected to as overbroad, vague and onerous, Without waiving said
objection, none.
22, None other than the documents subpoenaed from the Liquor Control
Board and in Plaintiff's counsel's possession,
23. See attached.
Apr~2e~97 03:58P
EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED ON JUNE 10, 1995
~.
BRYAN BARNHARDT
MARK MINSKEY
LAUREN TULLI
. WIl.UAM SIMMONS
STACEY BLOOM
{' MADONNA ONESKY
ANDREW DICESARE
. RANDALL SCHUL TIES
. WILlIAM BOLES
. JAMES KRUPA
JEREMY BABSKI
JERRY BRADIGAN
TODD LOJACK
WAYNE JONES
CAREYRATZ
TERRA REIDER
JENNIFER McFADDEN
COLmE HALL
. CASEY STOKES
. BRENDA SPEESE
. BETH REESE
MELISSA YOUNG
STACEY SOlTIS
ERICA SHERER
TERR'DURENLEAU
JAIME SMI1'H
JANEENWAJ.TZ
LEAH FREEMAN
.-=f.ILEEN BERWICK
. GEORGE BROADDUS
. HARRY CLAY
CL YOE FORBES
. RAY GLASS
. NATE KUNKLE
. GRETCHEN LAGUS
. JULI NICHOLSON
JAMES PARSON
. JOHN SABOL
MARK SCOTT
ROBERT SHUMAKER
. THOMAS WALTON
. STEVE WlAN
SOCIAL SECURITY II
181.54-5935
17~S.2046
185-52.2094
195-5M605
185-52.7178
181.54-0532
199-42-6565
202.58-5210
182-64-4044
2Q6.52.2417
171.56-6463
157-18-2538
193-56-7285
165-38-0801
204-68-0534
196-68.9139
177-64-7961
068-58-5935
200.50-9572
209-50-9165
207.54-0153
19Q.60-0963
195-66-2533
177-04-5517
200.52-4860
161-68-9071
202.52.9273
196-54-3976
537.74-9189
197-40-5763
POSrTlON
163-52.5258
160-54-8261
162-68-3523
208-64-9531
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
BARTENDER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
COCKTAIL SERVER
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
2Q9.5(l.9058
173-52-1077
. THESE EMPLOYEES ARE STILL EMPLOYED
Confldlntl~1
4/28197
P.02
I
,
I.
. j
I,
I
i
I
I.
I
I
Pllge 1
Apr~2S:97 03:5ep
. .
CLYDE FORBES JEREMY BABSKI MARK MINSKEY
1276 AJ.MA LANE 3111 WESTERLYRDAD (MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA)
MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055 CAMP HILL. PA 17011
258-6004 731-8975 (LEFT ON BAD TERMS)
MARK SCOTT JEROME (JERRY) BRADIGAN LAUREN TULLI
201C STATE STREET 202 RIDGEVlEW ROAO 203 WEST MAIN SiREET
W. FAIRVlEW, PA 17025 NEW CUMBERLAND. PA 17070 PALMYRA. PA 17078
731-8663 774-1508 236-0747
732.n88 (LEFT ON BAD TERMS_
ROBERT SHUMAKER THERESA (TERRI) DURENLEAU MADONNA ONESKY
1610 POTTS HILL ROAD 709 ERFORD ROAD (MOVED TO COLORADO)
ETTERS, PA 17319 CAMP HILL. PA 17071
938-0334 728-9976 (UNLISTED NUMBER)
JAMES (DOUG) PARSON COLETTE HAJ.L CAREY RATZ
307 INDIAN CREEK ORNE 538 FISHING CREEK ROAD 520 DEVON ROAO
MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055 LEWIS BERRY, PA 17339 CAMP HILL. PA 17011
763-1435 (1425?) 938-8925 737-1916
BRYAN BARNHARDT LEAH FREEMAN TERRA RE!DER
260 OLD STONEHOUSE ROAD 266 NORTH 24T1-1 smEET #34 PHEASANT COURT
MECHANICS BURG. PA 17055 CAMP HILL. PA 17011 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
258-3741 761-8547 697.5651
AILEEN BERWICK WAYNE JONES JENNIFER McFADDEN
1795 CESSNA STREET 55 PINE HILL ROAD ONE RUSTY DRIVE
CARUSLE. PA 17013 ENOLA. PA 17025 MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055
240.7043 732-2684 (LEFi ON BAD TERMS) 691-6639
STACY BLOOM TODD LOJACK MELISSA YOUNG
909 CEDARS ROAD 270 LOWTHER ST. liB 1444 KJRKWOOD ROAD
LEWISBERRY, PA 17339 LEMOYNE. PA 17043 HARRISBURG. PA 17110
766-0570 774-5749 238.8341
STACY SOLTIS JAIME SMITH JANEEN WALTZ
23 SUSQUENITA HALL (MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA) 803 ALLENVlEW DRIVE
DUNCANNON,PAI7020 MECHANICS8URG. PA 17055
532-0051 691.S6C6
Confldentlal
Ai28197
P.03
Pagel
Ul Z
" <( It It
~ III Cl ::l " :l: w w
.cIllC 0 C 0 aI
'01 :l:
..... 0.-4......c; >t.... W
... 'tlNO III Ul'tl :l:
0 ,... ..u ClJ.... QJ 'C >,0.-4 QJ III
:t ..... III ..... " ......c C 1lI.c " 'tl U
~ \D 'tl 0 .cCO..........::l'tle-1ll III C
ll'l 0\ III \-C U"l ..... 1lI.c III enc 'tl .....1lI
0\ 0\ " ".....ec 0 . C Ill.....
0\ ..... .'tl " en >< Cl::l IIICX'tl1ll C Ul
..... CilCIll III III c.. 1lI'tl1ll 0 Ill" o>.c
en Ill"'" .c ...>. C ;J C....." '... ::l
. ..... Z Ul ..... .. e-.c .1lI.....X0 1lI::1 i UlUl
..... M CiI.....C OJ e- P: III e- III ..e C Ul III
0 Uol"4 n3 ..... ... CiI"...".c Xo> 'tl.....
>< ........" 0 ~ U Ill~ 0 ...:..e....1ll C
, >< P: ...:IC..... .c ::lUlU Ul.c III III
l P: ..e ::l C CiI 0 CiI 0' III 0"': III ~~ > "
4 ..e 0 P: . 0 0. e- Ul 0..... 0>..... U 'tl ..... o III
. 0 Z o O>'tl '... '... .....IlIUO 0 .co.
, P: N..e OCIll ..... en en en ,,- .....UlC . IlIUl
l%I ,.., OI''''~ " CiI ...'tlCil.....IllOUIll 'tl C
CiI .. ...::1..... 0 ...:I Ill...:l 0 > - Ul >.Ill III III
0 c.. e- .. ...:ICIll 0. ..e ene..e III CO.... III " .c"
z uen '... U en ... III en Ill.c III ee" ..........
...CiI ...:I.....C ..... XC ..... >Olll III
..l C P:P: CilCIlI III >< e- >< 1lI'tl III ;J " .......... .....1lI
<< W e-... e-OU .c ..e Ill..e Ul Ill..... ..... 0.,... Ul III
X :J en 0. OU ..... 0 . > 0 ;J III e C "
w en ...>: X . Z 3: OZIll III 'tl1ll"1lI III III
VI !!! OCil 'tl'tl >. 0 O.cO.c".....C.cIll" C Ill'tl
III C III ..... en ZllIen......colll.....O'..... a: UlC
III " C <( C ::l
'tl III 0 0 III
Illlll'tl m U'tl
.....>C C ,... III
CO III .... ..l ...:Ie
1lI.c " 0 III
"Ill" 'tl a: Ill"
0> ::l ..... . e- t- .c.....
CUl 0 . en 2: .....
>';J Ul 0 CiI 0 >.
,...... .co" u 3: u >......
CU .......... Ill.c III 'tl N a: .c.c
en 0... "UlC C en c.:l ..... 0 III
Z ll'lM III 0 III P: P: ... >......
CU N .cillO 0 0 N :J .....'...
J U X .....Ul 'tl e- m I 0 C ::l
~ ... Ullll III en en U"l ::; o Ul
~ ...:I ...."0111 " CiI ... U"l
2 0 .. Ul 0 :> P: 0 <( III .
P: 2: 0 'tlllllll ..., Z P: ,... Z Ul'tl
0 ... Ill.c..... Ul ... ..eCil..... ;; ::l III
0 w ...:I e.....c :c:<: >.
QI III III ::l III c.. I.....e ..l " III
.... 2: cc .c c.:l zo.o. > 0.....
...:I w 0 . Z III .....0.
U ;J 'tl >. c.:lO'...Cilc.:l 2: Ul
::; o III III IllC P:... ...:IP: 2: 'tl....
~ >..... eo o:c><eno 'tl w ,...'tl
4J.,.. ..... '... ltlen..e...l%I eno 0. .....
.c..u..... Ul..... en P: 0...:1 en p:ox Ill>'
U U III III UCil...P:U o.......e >.....
III III III OlU ...Z...:l..e... III III 0 . Ul
.c..... 0. Ill'... ze-ouz > ,...>:c.....0'tl Ul::l
.......... Ul "..... ..eP::c ..e oe- .....0 00 III .... 0
III III 0. x..e .....x .cz . o.co ....... ::l
..... III >0. uo...eou IllCil'tl U"lIllCU Ill,... III 'tlU
III ...... III III CiI I...CiI X III 0..... C c'...
0 0. .c'tllll l%I X..e e-U"l X IllCil..... c.. III Z 1lI'tl 0' III 0.
a: 3: .....Ill'tl III .cenlll X.cCilUlC.... Ul
<( <( e- ..... 'tl.c .....Oc CiI.....e- IlIUlcC cuc
Z 0 . III C Ill..... XOl >: III III It ...:10
Z :><co ;J .u .ceol"'t .......CiI.cX'tl z<( l%IU
<( l%I CilIll .......e <(0
CiI r&. C"l..... IllC III Ul ..e
> ..J 0 ......... .u . ".... .cCIll en.cc UlUlal Zlll
..J
> 0 0. e- Ul Ill'tl l%I ,... .....Ill'tl z..... III 0'0 III l:!5 c.:l.c
III !: x P: Ill" III 'tl ..... CiI COUl:) p.NIA. ...
2: ..e CiI'tl,......: " III 0 ><'tlUl u>t'O.rt....-4 " en.....
2: 2: :c u 0.0 0..... to U"l c..1ll1ll ...c.. III NN ~ enUl
w 0 I Ul >: > III ........Ul ..J.....+J.... ..e::l
0. u U"l0 o III III III .....c 0. e- c.... e- C "..... e
II. a: .....z e-Ul " .....0' ..e P:llIe 0P:1ll00 i~ e-
o 0 U"l..e '... III Ill.... CiI"1ll OCil".c 0.....
:J I ...:I en e.c " XUl .. UOl" o U 0'..... Ul z....
X .....P: ...1ll.....0 III OJ e- o. c.. ::l"
t- o NCiI " 'tl'tl ... 0>' o >'1lI::l Ul'1ll
..l ::; ltl en 0. Ol'tl C ~ e-.clll ene-.c 0 .... "
<( <( ..x ... CIll IllUl Ill.c c:: C1J...c III
w ><0 :c Ill.... 'tl III CiI en"..... Olll"CiI :16 Ill.c
:?; Z e-u e-.c'tlC "Ul 0. ...Ill 0... III en III J: ........0:) Ul;J
2: ;; ... .....::llll 0.... .c" :c .c z.c >....0 C
0 ...:I . ..... 0. ::l e e- en 0 en CiI ..... III ..J ~ III .
::E ..J ..e 3:"UUl 0'1ll Z ...Ul..... 0... Ul U 'tl CII<( UC
::E > 0. .. OOC::I .... " CiI :c,... rd:c....eMC ff}w VI .... 0
III ...>< :z "'-I.... 111 ...:10. X e- e- oe- ...:I1ll>'ZCII w i-J....
0 2: ue- CiI 'tl... Z 'tl III C ... W ~ '"
U 2: ...z en . III X CiI'IllO:OIll~i: << Ullll
W ZO 0 3:ep: e-3:eo..... .... U
0. S!8 X OIllCil >:OIllOIllC .co
< zco. CilZ cc...c 0 e-.....
07~80/97 13:38 F~~ 717697~711
, .
D~'( 1l~'ICH
Illo~
,
LIQUOR PRICING STRUCTURE
:$2, ?-5' $2,75 S3,2S
MILlER UTe lID o:+- '. ZItv'A
MILLER GENUINE'I("o~ BUD MICHELOB
REO DOG 1(., 0 ;), BUD LITE AMSTEL
ROCK COORS UTe MOLSON ICE
SHARPS NA LAGER HEINEKEN
SAN PEWGRINO MINERAL WATER BLACK & TAN CORONA
Mdler Red. 16>0<'- HONeY BROWN BE~S OK
La. 0.*:;
$3.50 $3,75 $5,75
COORS UTE 160Z CHARDONNAY FOSTERS O1LCANS
COOLERS LAMBRUSCO
CHABUS CABERNET SAUVIGNON
W Z1NFANOEL BURGUNDY
'.
. ,
.'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JEFFREY B. RETTIG, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have sarved a trua and
correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Request For Production
of Documents, on the following person(s) by placing sama In the United States mall,
postage prepaid, on the :b day of July, 1997:
Richard A. Sad lock, Esqulra
ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C,
4503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110.1799
David Duhovls
4244A Catalina Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
Darrell N, Van Ormer, Jr" Esquire
344 S, Market Street
Ellzabethtown, PA 17022
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
By:
Ig, Esquire
"
4. Any and all investigation reports, except those protected
from discovery, prepared by you or by anyone on your behalf in
regard to the evaluation and litigation of the instant action.
S. Any and all curriculum vitae for each and every person
whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
6. Any and all expert reports from each person whom you
expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
7. Any and all writings, memoranda, reports, statements and
records, etc., which you, your company and/or client possess
concerning the case, investigation or review of the Plaintiff and
his case.
8. Copies of all statements, memoranda, summaries of other
writings, documents, diagrams and pictures obtained from your
investigation, your insurance company's investigation or your
attorney's investigation into the incident involved. You need not
supply any attorney's "work product" or other material which is
specifically excepted as privileged by the above rule.
9. All documents in your possession, custody or control
prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial of this case,
except those documents which disclose the mental impressions of
your attorney or your attorney's conclusions, opinions, memoranda,
notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories, and except
those documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by your
representatives to the extent that they would disclose the
"
representatives' mental impressions, conclusions or opinions
respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense.
10. To the extent that you have not already provided the same
in response to previous requests herein, all statements obtained
from any witnesses' statements made or obtained during the course
of the investigation or matters re~ating to this lawsuit, and all
such statements, memoranda or records made by parties to this
lawsuit or their representatives.
11. To the extent not already provided in response to
previous requests herein, all statements made by any party to this
action, including written statements, signed or otherwise adopted
or approved by the perso~ making it, or stenographic, mechanical,
electrical or other recording or transcription thereof, which is a
substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement and
contemporaneously recorded, as allowed by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 and/or
F.R,C.P. No. 34.
12 . To the extent that you have not already provided the
same, copies of all records, documents and memoranda which have any
bearing upon the matters alleged against the requesting party or
upon the responsibility of the requesting party for the matters
alleged against the requesting party.
13. To the extent not already provided, copies of all
experts' reports made or secured by you in connection with your
investigation of the matters relating to this lawsuit.
I
14. To the extent not already provided, copies of all
exhibits which you intend to offer into evidence at the trial of
this matter.
15. To the extent not already provided, all photographs,
motion pictures, diagrams, maps, surveys, plans and models of the
site of the incident and of the vehicles in question that are in
your possession.
16. Copies of Declaration Sheets for each and everv policy
insuring you against the claims made in the instant action.
17. Any and all documents which evidence any facts on the
basis of which you will assert a defense against the cause of
action stated in the Complaint.
18 , Any and all documents that describe the ownership of
Wanda's Deck and Beach Club real estate and/or liquor license
and/or any other real or personal property associated with Wanda's
Deck and Beach Club from the time of original purchase to the
present including but not limited to sales agreements, corporate
documents, minutes, etc.
19. Any and all documents including sales agreements, deeds,
mortgages, etc. that reference the purchase and/or ownership and/or
any interest in properties by any of the individual Defendants.
20. Any and all accounting documents and/or other business
records that describe the assets, sales, expenses, profit and loss,
~ ,,1)
C": ~
t::: .;~
,:, ::?<.
LlJS 11:;;';0
,--0"";;' :L: C)~'
C' ' ....
J_" 0.. (:I~j
~- f.-'
0" "I :..:.[.'1
pr.
L"\'" C-l .\: ~~'!.
c.::" ~;:. .'~ ~ \I
.1: - "u.
". ..:l .
,. 1- :5
0 C" U
,
6. The Plaintiff was a passenger In the 1989 Audl operated by Additional
Defendant, Holp.
7. While proceeding eastbound on Route 3221n Swatara Township, Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania, the Additional Defendants, Holp and Duhovis, began to race
with one another.
8. In the course of racing, Additional Defendant, Holp, lost control of his
vehicle, collided with an emnbankment and landad on its roof.
9. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured.
Count I
Defendants v. David Duhovls
10. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 9 above are Incorporated herein
by reference thereto.
11. The accident referred to above resulted in whole or in part from the
negligence of the Additional Defendant, David Duhovis, which negligence consisted
of the following:
a)
b)
c)
driving his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
engaging in a race with Additional Defendant Holp;
operating his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
beverages;
d) maneuvering his vehicle into the left lane of eastbound Route 322
In an unsafe fashion.
"
WHEREFORE, In the event the Defendants are held liable to Plaintiff, which
liability is expressly denied, then the Additional Defendant, David Duhovis, Is solely
liable for the Plaintiff's injuries or liable over to the Additional Defendants on Plaintiff's
claims or, in the alternative, liable for Indemnification and/or contribution.
Count II
Defendants v. Rustvn A. HolD
12. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are incorporated herein
by reference thereto.
13. The accident referred to in the Pleintiff's Complaint resulted in whole or
in part from the negligence of the Additional Defendant. Rustyn A. Holp, which
negligence consisted of the following:
a) operating his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
b) racing with the vehicle being operated by the Additional Defendant,
Duhovis;
c) operating his vehicle while under the influence of Intoxicating
beverages; and
d) failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner as to enable him to
maintain control of the vehicle.
WHEREFORE, if the Defendants are held liable to Plaintiff. which liability is
expressly denied, then the Additional Defendant Holp is solely liable to Plaintiff, liable
6
Exhibit A .
R'R m '57 re: 18PM GAAI'lO rtiD ADDIS 610 832 2100
P.SI'~4
.
.
"
.
.
DANA R. TOZER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COmt'l' OF COMMON PI.EAS
ctlMBERLlWD COUNTY, ,PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
MBCHANICSBURG G.F. INVESTOR~ NO.
,CO., INC. AND G.F. DEVELOPMEN":',
INC., t/d/b/a WA.~A'S DECK ~~
'BEACH CLUB a/k/a WANDA'S NIGHT I
: CI.UB, I
Defendants 1 JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED
COMPLAl:Il'l'
.'
1. PlaintHt pana R. "Tozer, is an aoult individual, citizen
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who currently resides at 2056
Gramercy Place, Hummeletown, Dauphin County, PennBylvp~a.~.. Vr
C<i 11 6 Ill" fV'. S
, ,
2. Defendant :-lechanic;sburg G.l'. Investors,,, Company, Inc. ie
'a limited partnershig regularly doing business in Cumberland
p,
l..
County, Pennsylvania, looated ae 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg,
.~
Pennsylvania. \ O~~
3. Defendant G.F. Deve~o!lment, Inc. is a Pennsylvania ~iP
corporation and owoer of Defendant MechanicSQurg G.F. Investors,
Company, Inc. and is also located at 5401 Carlisle pike,
'Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
. '
4. Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Company, Inc. and
G.P. Development, Inc. own, operate, trade, and do business as
n.iJtt)
Wanda's Deck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's Night Club. . ~u
i ,IllV'
L J't\f\\
1052G5/CLM " ~.J1
~~
.!.tltt .!.6.t:-t ~dld
SOd StS "'I:;lNOJ93~ Idd/rN-.,Id,...O~
APR 01 '97 0S:18PM GARNO AND ADD,S 610 032 2100
P.6/14
.
.
.
.
5. Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach club a/k/a Wanda's Night
Club is a husineoo establishment licenseo to serve alcoholic and
intoxicating beverages purauant to liquo= control license nUl1\l)er H-
5017
and
is
located at
5401
carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg,
vJvJ
issued to Defendant l
CUl1\l)erland County, Pennsylv~~a.
6.
The aforesaid liquor license was
Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Company, Inc.
7. All of the facts and occurrencee hereinafter related took
place on or about the late evening hours of June 10. 1995 and the
early morning hours o~ June 11, 1995.
8. On June 10. 1995, at approximately 10; 00 p.m., Plailltitf
Dana R. Tozer accompanied several individuals including Rustyn
Allan HOlp, pavid Duhovis, Steven Miller. ano Peborah szustowicz to
Defendant Wanda's Deck and Beach Club and the Holiday Inn in
Mechanicsburg, Cul1\l)erland County, Pennsylvania.
9. At a:a t.imes relevant. herein, Pefendant Wanda'8 Peck and
Beach Club engased in the sale of beer lineS other intoxicating
beverages to patrons for consumption on the premises of Wanda's.
10. At all times relevant hel:ein, Defendants engaged in the
practice of otfering discount. drinks and encouraging over
consumption of alcoholic beverageo.
11. At all times relevant to t.he facts and occurrences herein
rela.ted, the managers, agentB anci employelts who sole! and 811rvltd the
.!.t: tt .!.6.l:'t ;:Jd\::j
ged ~ T ~ ,\::jNO I !:13;:J t'd.... i'N- ,\::j,~O;:J
~
\\~
r~f oj
,\~ '" 0
\ rJP, ~C
\) q~
~ ;.00 ~bl
lO?
l'f'R <11 '57 es: 19PM GARriO rtiD ADD:S 610 832 210~
P.7/14
.
.
alcoholic beverages to the group of individuals incluoing Rustyn
Allan Holp and David Iluhovis, were acting for the benefit of
Defendant Wande.' sPeck ano Beach Club and within the Bccpe and
course of their employment with Defeno~nt Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club and all other Ilefendants herein,
12. At all times relev,ant herein, Rustyn Allan Holp and David
,
Duhovis were cUBtomerB of Defendant Wanda's Deck and Bsach Club,
when agents, servants and/~r employees Of Defendant Wanda's Deck
and Beach Club sold, tur::ished, gave or permitted to be Bold,
Puhovis.
furnished, or given intoxicating beverages to Mr. Holp and Mr.
"..---..
~
13. On the evening of June 10, 1995, Rustyn Allan Holp and
David Duhovis were viBi~ly intoxicated while at Defendants' bar.
14. Despite Mr. Help's ano Mr. Duhovia's vioibla
intoxication, the Oefendants and their employees continued to sell
them intoxicating beverages.
15. Defendant Wanda's,Deck and Beach Club's sale and service
ot the aforementioneo into~icating beyerages to Mr. Holp and Mr.
Duhovis, while they were v.ieibly intoxicated was negligent and
constitutes a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47
Pa.C.S.A. 5 4-493.
16. At approximately 1100 a.m. on June 11, 1995, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer decided to leave Defenoant Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club.
8t:t1 .!.6.t:"1 ~dl::l
.!.Bd 515 Il::lNOJ83~ l::ld/rN-,l::l^O~
A?R 01 'S7 B5:15P~ G~RMO ~~J Huul5 6.a'332 21~a
P.EV14
'.
17. RuseynAl1an Holp left the premises of Defendant Wanda's
Deck and Beach Club, ~riving a 1980 Audi 8000.
lB. Plaintiff pana R. Tozer was a back seat passenger in
Rl.:lltyn Alla."1 Holp's veh.icle.: Stephen Miller and Deborah Szustowicz
were also passengers in'Holp's vehicle.
19. David Puhovis alBClleft the premises of Defimoant Wanda's
psck anci Beach Club, driving his Toyota MR2.
20. AS RU6~yn Allan HOlp traveled eAst on Route 322, he and
David Puhovis bega~ racing,' ultimately resulting in Rustyn Allan
Holp losing control of hia:vehic1e, veering off the roadway and
becoming involved in a high'speed accident.
21. Plaintiff Dana. R; Tozer wall ejected from the car and
injured, and Peborah Szustowicz was killed during this crash.
22. Rustyn Allan Holp' 9 and David Duhovis' B inability to
sately op,era.te their motor vehicles and the reSUlting accident were
the direct and proximate result of their being extremely
intoxicateo and unable to p~operlY control their vehicles.
23. Mr. Holp's bloo~ alcohol level, taken after said
incident, was .155, which i~ over the legal limit.
.
24. Criminal charges ~ere filed versUS Holp and Duhovis.
4
at:tt ~6.vt ~dl;:j
88d StS II;:jNOI83~ I;:jd/rN-,I;:j^O~
~PR 01 '97 0S:1SPM GARNO ~~ ADDis 610 832 2100
P.9/14
"
.
.
2S. On JUne 6, 1996, a Dauphin County Court convicted Holp
and Duhovis of homicide by vehicle, invaluncary manslaughter, a~d
four counts of recklessly enda~gering another pereon as a x-ellult of
the aforesaid motor vehicle. accident.
26. Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer sustained serioue and permanent
injuriee as a result of the accident and Petendant6' negligent
conduct in continuing to serve alcoholic beverages to Rustyn Allan
Holp and David Duhovis after they were visibly intoxicated.
27. All of the injuries and damages as hsreinafter related
eustained by Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer are the direct anci proximate
result of the willful. wanton. reckless, and negligent behavior of
Defendants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors company, Inc., G.P.
Development, Inc. t/d/b/a Wanda's Deck and Beach Club alkla Wanda's
Night Club and their employees, acting within tbe course and scope
of their employment, which coneisteci, inter alia, of the following I
(a) serving and/or selling Rustyn Allan }Jolp and David
Duhovie alcoholic beverages at Defendants' licensed
place of business while Mr, Holp anci Mr. Duh~vi6
were visiblY intOXicated, a1). in viOlation ot 47
pa.C.S.A. 5 4-493(1)1
allowing Rustyn Allan Holp and David Duhovi. to
consume alcoholic beverages on Defendants' licensed
premises while th~y were visibly intoxicated,
failing to establish and implement rules,
regulations, and p:ocedures which would prevent and
preclude the selling of intoxicating beverages to
someone who was visibly intoxicated,
(bl
6.:.. .!.6;~. ~dl::l
(c)
5
68d S.S II::lNOI83~ I::ld/rN-,I::l^O~
HPR 131 '57 0'5: 20PM GARNO AND ADDIS 610 832 2100
P. ~0/14
ld)
.'
lei
failing to prop~rly train and supervise its
employees so as to prevent them from selling or
furnishing beer 'and/or alcoholic beverages to
invitees who are visibly intoxicated,
tailing to enforce training gui~e1ine8' so as to
prevent employees from selling or furnishing beer
or alcohol:l.c beverasell to ib'litees who are viuibly
1ntoxicatedl
failing to monitor the amount of alcohol being
servecl to Mr. Holp and Mr. Duhovis and to stop
selling alcohol to them at a time'when it knew or
shoulcl have lmown, that they were intOXicated,
failing to prevent Rustyn Allan Holp and !)avid
Duhovis from operating a motor vehicle after
serving tr.em alcoholic beverages while ther were
visibly intoxicated despite the obvious r sk to
others including Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer, and
violating tne law of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvallia regarc:ting the servins of alcoholic
beverages to visibly intoxicateci persons.
If)
(g)
(h)
CLAIH I
Dana R. Toze~ V. Me~~~~i~ghu~9 O.P. InvQ~to~g Comoartv. Irte.
and G.F~ D~vAloDmen~: +n~. t/d/b/a W~ndR'K DR~k ~~d
Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's Nioht Club
28. parllsrapho 1 thrQugh 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by refe~ence.
29. Plaintiff Pana R.: Tozer sustained painful, severe and
permanent injurieu which include, but are not limited to. a right
infraocular contusion and a fracture dislocation of the thoracic
;
6. ql .!.6.t:'1 odl:j
6
eld SlS I~NOI83o l:jd/rN-,l:jAOo
RPR 0~ '97 05:20Pn GARNO AND ADDIS 6~a83~ 210a
P.1V14
. .
.'
.
.
spine at T10-Tl1 with complet;e spinal cord injury resulting in
paraplegia requiring surgical fusion and stabilization, impacting
on her functioning at home. work, community, with family and
friends and diminishing the'quality of her life.
30. By reason' of the aforesaid injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Dana R. Tozer, she waD forced to incur liability for
medical treat;:r.ent, medicaeions, hospitalizations, and similar'
miscellaneous expenses i~ an effort to restore herf~lf to health,
and claim is made therefor.
31. Because of the na~ure of her injuries, Plaintiff Dana R.
Tozer bas been advised and ~herefore, avers that; she may be forced
t.o incur similar exper.ses, in tbe future, and cli.dm is made
therefor.
32. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has undergone and in the future will undergo great
physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out
her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and
claim is made therefor.
33. As a result of the aforementioneci injuries, 1illaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has bee!?, and in t.he future will be, subject to great
humiliation and embarrassment, and a claim is made therefor.
34. As a result of t~e afo~ementioned injuries, Plaintiff
Dana R. Tozer has sustained, work loss, loss of opportunity. and a
7
1<I;:::'t't ~6.t>'t ~d\::l
't'td S'tS "l::l~lOJ93~ \::ld/rN-"\::l,l..O~
APR el '97 05:20PM GARNO ~~D noDIS 610'832 2100
P.12/14
.
.
pe~ent diminu~ion of her' earning power and capacity. and claim
is made therefor.
35. plaintiff Dana R. Tozer continues to tie plagued tly
persistent pain and limitation, notwithstanding paraplegia, and
therefore, avers that her injuries are of a permanent nature,
causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and a
claim is made therefor.
36. As a result of the aforesa1ci accident and rQs~'lting
injuries, Plaintif~ ~ana R. Tozer has sustained scars which will
result in a permanent disfigurement and claim is made therefor.
CLAD! II
pana R. Tozer v. Mechanicohura G.F. I~vp-stors Comnanv. Ino
and G.~. Develooment. Inc. t/d/b/a Wanda'a Deck and
Beach 'Club a/k/a Wanda'S Ni~ht Club
37. paragraphs 1 through 36 of the complaint are incorporated
, h~rein by reference.
38. DefendQ.ntl>' conduct of selling alcohol to a vi'sibly
intoxicateci person constitutes outrageous conduct and a reckless
indifference to the rights ,of other persons. Defendants knew or
'should have known that selling alcohol to a visibly intoxicated
person, knowing the person intended to drive ~hile intoxicated,
createci a high ciegree of risk to other persons.
B
1212:: tt l.G .l>'t ~dl::l
2:td StS Il::lNOI83~ l::ld/rN-Il::l^O~
PPR el '97 05:21PM GARNO ~ND ADDIS 6ie 832 2100
P.13t'14
,
"
.
39. Said conduct of Defendant constitutes wanton and willful
negligence, is outrageous ~nd entitles Plaintiff to an awa~d of
I
Ii
I-
I
I
,
,
I,
punitive damages.
WHEREPORE, Plaintitf ~ana R. Tozer demands jUdgment against
-; the Defenciants Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Company, Inc. and G.F.
- .
Development, rnc. t/d/b/a Wa;nda' S Peck and Beach Club a/k/a Wanda's
I
Night Club in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) exclusive of i~terest and costs and in excess of any
jurisdictional amount requifing compulsory arbitration.
,
ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C.
ard A, oCk, Esquire
D. . 47281
North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1799
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
,Date: Marcb 14, 1997
"
.Z:t. <!.6.l>'. ~dl::l
S.d s.s II::lNOI83~ I::ld/rN-,I::l^O~
exhibit B
THOMAS. THOMAS I HAFER
'YI J.ff"y 8, R.ttlll. E.qul"
IDENIIFICATIONNO.: 19616
JOJ Nonh ftaIlr $"..,
1'.0. '" IIJ
H~'A I7IOI.Q,,,
17' 71 '15.113'
Attorn.YI for D.fend/lntl
DANA R. TOZER,
Pleintlff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA,
V.
CIVIL ACTION n LO 0
~ -.J on
- ::J:
NO. 97-1399 CIVIL ;:HfU 'n ~Tl
;..; ~;~ -< Ij1~
,~r. I "~
~. -J :')
~t.\ CO
;r~(.. ~ i!:a
~C\ -' ~?')
~(': c- o'"
..
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED "" rJ
::'1 ::t
-< ~
MECHANICSBURG G.F. INVESTORS
CO., INC., and G.F. DEVELOPMENT,
INC., t/d/b/a WANDA'S DECK AND
BEACH CLUB a/k/a WANDA'S NIGHT
CLUB,
Defendants.
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiff and her counsal,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
DATE: May 6. 1'1'17
Jef erB. ettig, E ulre
I' , #19616
05 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 1710B-0999
(717) 255-7639
Attorneys for Defendants
4. Denied as stated. Defendant Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co., a
Partnership, owns and operates the premises located at 5401 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is admitted that there is a
restaurant/night club on those premises referred to as Wanda's Deck and Beach Club,
and also known as Wanda's Night Club.
5. Denied as stated. Wanda's Deck and Beach Club, also known as
Wanda's Night Club, is a restaurant/night club which is part of the premises located
at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
6. Admitted, except the correct name is Mechanicsburg G,F, Investors Co.,
a Partnership.
7.-B. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
9, Denied as stated. It is admitted that alcoholic beverages were sold at the
restaurant/night club referred to in this allegation,
10. Denied. It is denied that Defendants encouraged over consumption of
alcoholic beverages. To the contrary, Defendants encouraged responsible
consumption of alcoholic beverages. The allegation regarding the offering of discount
drinks cannot be responded to. Defendants do, on occasion, offer a draft beer on
special.
2
11. Denied as stated. Without identifying the alleged managers, agents and
employees who allegedly sold and served alcoholic beverages, Defendants are unable
to respond to this allegation.
12. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
13. Denied, Based on information and belief, if it is established that
Messrs. Holp and Duhovis were served intoxicating beverages while at Defendants'
premises, it is denied that they were visibly intoxicated at the time.
14. Denied. The answer to Paragraph 13 above is incorporated herein
by reference thereto.
15. Denied. It is denied that Messrs. Holp and Duhovis were served
alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated. The balance of the allegations of this
paragraph represent conclusions of law to which no reply is required.
16.-25. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
26. Denied as stated, It is denied that the Defendants were negligent
as alleged. As to the balance of the allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable
investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of these allegations and proof thereof is demanded,
3
27. These allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029. In
addition, the answer to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
Claim I
Dana R. Tozer v. Defendants
28. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 27 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
29.-36. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
Claim II
Plaintiff v. Defendants
37. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 36 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
38. Denied. These allegations represent conclusions of law to which
no reply is required.
39. Denied. This allegation represents a conclusion of law to which
no reply is required.
WHEREFORE. Defendants request that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
without cost to them.
"
NEW MATTER
40. Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages fail to state claims upon
which relief may be granted in this case.
41, Plaintiff's claims are barred or reduced by her own negligence,
which negligence consists of the following:
a) agreeing to get into the vehicle operated by Mr. Holp when she
knew, or should have known. that he was incapable of operating that vehicle safely;
b) agreeing to travel with Mr. Holp when she knew he tended to drive
at an excessive rate of speed;
c) continuing to occupy as a passenger the vehicle occupied by Mr.
Holp after Mr, Holp began racing with Mr. Duhovis;
d) failing to remonstrate with Mr, Holp to stop speeding, slow down
or stop his vehicle so that she could get out.
42. Plaintiff's claim is barred or reduced by virtue of her own negligence.
43. Plaintiff's claims are subject to the provisions of the Pennsylvania
Financial Responsibility Act, the limitations of which are incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
44. This accident and Plaintiff's injuries were due solely to the negligence of
Rustyn Holp and David Duhovis,
45. An award of punitive damages under the facts of this case would be
unconstitutional.
6
~ -
t:t'
g: ri
~ ~ ~
~ I.tl .- ~ ~
..:: ("';
.. ., . ~
f -,
- '.'1~~ ~
:?. -
?l :c ,):~ ~
-"= -:):;-
c 1.0 ..,So! <:l
(J. ; ~!1 <;::l
,~. ~~ ::::;: I .
[ttJ1 :;1': ,;j(O V'\
~ ::;J ,Ole: ~
-I
LI. ra; :5
0 u
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NOI 1997-01399 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
TOZER DANA R
VS.
MECHANISBURG G F INVESTORS CO
R. Thomas Kline . Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inqUiry for the within
named defendant, to wit I HOI.P RUSTYN AI.l.AN
but was unable to locate ______-1!~~____ in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN COUNTY County, Pennsylvania.
to serve the within COMPLAINT
On Mav 29th. 1997
the attached return from
this office was in
DAUPHIN COUNTY
County,
receipt of
Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's COStSI
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
6.00
.00
2.00
So answers:/'" //
/ ),y /.c//
~~~# ~~"
R. Thomas K.l1ne, her1%.:t
1;;8.00 THOMAS THOMAS & HAFER
OS/29/1997
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this "-1 o;:L day of r^-<
I
19 q 7 A. D.
(\ n h" .~'f. , ~
'-f~1>r~"i'fY ' -
Office of the Sheriff
Mary Jane Snyder
Rool eslole Doputy
William T, Tully
Solicitor
Ralph G. McAllister
Chlol Doputy
Michael W, Rinehart
AllSistont Chiol Doputy
Dauphin Counly
Horrisburg, [lonnsylvonla 17101
(717) 2&&,2660
J. R. Lotwick
Sheriff
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
SHERIFF'S RETURN
No. 0848-T - - -97
OTHER COUNTY NO. 97-1399
AND NOW, Hay 8, 1997 at 10120AH served the within
WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT upon
FOLEY JOHN W. JR. by personally handing to
RONICA FOLEY - WIFE 1 true attested copy! ies) of
the original WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
him/her the contents thereof at 894 FRONT ST.
HERSHEY, PA 17033-0000
and making known to
Sworn and subscribed to
before me this 8TH//d~y of HAY, 1997
0) J 1
~ 1_, \ ^' I
VW'\") j'l" I /11 f....-)
I'~' ,;. 0 ',j L.- , I ' '/ (i./ :.t.fl...::t.
PROTHONOTARY
S~AR~
~erfJ)aUPhin
A.
BY .
DEPUTY SHERIF
.,
Sheriff's Costs I
$51.25 PD 05/06/97
RCPT NO 094480
DB
, ,
Office of the Sheriff
Mary Jane Snyder
Roal Estalo Doputy
William T, Tully
Sollcllor
Ralph G, McAllister
Chlof Doputy
Michael W. Rinehart
Asslstant Chlof Dopuly
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, PI,nnsyl,.nla 17101
(717) 2b5'2660
J. R. Lotwick
Sheriff
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
SHERIFF'S RETURN
No. 0848-T - - -97
OTHER COUNTY NO. 97-1399
AND NOW I May 7, 1997 at 11.00AM served the wi thin
WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT upon
HOLP RUSTYN ALLAN by personally handing to
KIM SHADEL - DIRECTOR OF WORK RELEASE
1 true attested copy(ies) of
the original WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
and making known to
him/her the contents thereof at C/O DAUPHIN CO. ADULT PROB. WORK RELEASE
917 GIBSON BLVD.
STEELTON, PA 17113-0000
Sworn and subscribed to
before me this 8TH day of MAY, 1997
, ,
DB
S~l;;U
".ri~ Dauphin County, Pa,
BY f!.y~~
'4...1.'...
Sheriff's Costs. $51.25 PD 05/06/97
RCPT NO 094480
, " .
\ . I; ."..'. '. ,
_",I" r~' v.' I vi PR~H~NO~~; ";""
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Me~hanicsburg G.F. Investors Company et al
\'5.
Rustyn Allan Holp
No. 97-1399 Civil Term 19_
Now, May 5
Dauphin
19.1L.I SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA do hereby deputize the SherllTof
County to execute this Writ, this deputation being mode at the request and risk of the PlalntllT.
f'~-J<~
Sheri IT of Cumberland County. Po,
Affidavit of Service
Now,
within
19
.at
o'clock
:\1. served the
upon
at
by handing to
a"ested copy of the original
the contents thereof,
a true and
and mode known to
So answers,
Sheriff of
County, Po,
COSTS
Sworn and subscribed berore
me this day of
19_
SERVICE
MILEAGE
AFFIDA VIT
s
s
reference.
42. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be
deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of
amplification, as previously stated herein, Plaintiff was I).ot
negligent in any way, Therefore, Plaintiff's claim is not barred
or reduced in any fashion.
43. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required, To the extent the averment may be
deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied, By way of
amplification, all of Plaintiff's injuries and damages are
recoverable in the instant action. The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law in no way limits the damages Plaintiff
may recover herein.
44, Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be
deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of
amplification, the instant accident was due to the negligence,
recklessness, wantonness, and carelessness of the instant
Defendants.
45. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be
deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of
amplification, an award of punitive damages is appropriate under
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Betty K. Sheaffer, an employee of the law firm of Angino &
Rovner, P,C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true
and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS
on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States,
requested addressed as follows:
Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
.etets~!~-
Date: May 19, 1997
>- \,n :-
a; C'~ 1..4
<.
,.. .. )..~
LUr~ - ),'-
'-' '.
[""I' ~~ .'
... .'~ :..-
11..,', ,".:j
010.
Ie N '": (n
1:)':
UJ' c" ' ,
.~ :
l: ~ I. :>- ;:;~
rc -:.:
"'-
", ...... ::5
0 ,,~ 0
THOMAS, THOMAS" HAFER
.V: J.ffflY B, R.tdlJ, E.qui"
/DtNTIFICATIONNO.: 19616
305 Nonh FrM, S"",I
P.O... II'
HNrlIlNtJ. PA r 7 '01.0"1
/7110""'" AIIDIn.Y. fDr D.f.nd.nll
DANA R. TOZER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA.
v. CIVIL ACTION
MECHANICSBURG G.F. INVESTORS NO. 97-1399 CIVIL
CO., INC., and G.F. DEVELOPMENT,
INC.. t/d/b/a WANDA'S DECK AND
BEACH CLUB a/k/a WANDA'S NIGHT
CLUB,
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiff and her counsel,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
DATE: May 6, 19q7
Attorneys for Defendants
4. Denied as stated. Defendant Mechanlcsburg G,F. Investors Co., a
Partnership, owns and operates the premises located at 5401 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is admitted that there is a
restaurant/night club on those premises referred to as Wanda's Deck and Beach Club,
and also known as Wanda's Night Club.
5. Denied as stated. Wanda's Deck and Beach Club, also known as
Wanda's Night Club, is a restaurant/night club which is part of the premises located
at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanlcsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
6. Admitted, except the correct name is Mechanicsburg G.F. Investors Co"
a Partnership.
7.-B. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
9, Denied as stated. It is admitted that alcoholic beverages were sold at the
restaurant/night club referred to in this allegation.
10. Denied. It is denied that Defendants encouraged over consumption of
alcoholic beverages, To the contrary, Defendants encouraged responsible
consumption of alcoholic beverages. The allegation regarding the offering of discount
drinks cannot be responded to, Defendants do. on occasion, offer a draft beer on
special.
2
11. Denied as stated. Without identifying the alleged managers, agents and
employees who allegedly sold and served alcoholic beverages, Defendants are unable
to respond to this allegation.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliaf as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded,
13. Denied. Based on information and belief, if it is established that
Messrs. Holp and Duhovis were served intoxicating beverages while at Defendants'
premises, it is denied that they were visibly intoxicated at the time.
14, Denied. The answer to Paragraph 13 above is incorporated herein
by reference thereto.
15. Denied. It is denied that Messrs. Holp and Duhovis were served
alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated. The balance of the allegations of this
paragraph represent conclusions of law to which no reply is required.
16.-25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
26. Denied as stated, It is denied that the Defendants were negligent
as alleged. As to the balance of the allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable
investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of these allegations and proof thereof is demanded.
3
27. These allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. 1029. In
addition, the answer to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
Claim I
Dana R. Tozer v. Defendants
2B. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 27 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
29.-36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations
and proof thereof is demanded.
Claim II
Plaintiff v. Defendants
37. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 36 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
3B. Denied. These allegations represent conclusions of law to which
no reply is required,
39. Denied. This allegation represents a conclusion of law to which
no reply is required,
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
without cost to them.
"
NEW MATTER
40. Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages fail to state claims upon
which relief may be granted in this case.
41. Plaintiff's claims are barred or reduced by her own negligence,
which negligence consists of the following:
a) agreeing to get into the vehicle operated by Mr. Holp when she
knew, or should have known, that he was incapable of operating that vehicle safely;
b) agreeing to travel with Mr, Holp when she knew he tended to drive
at an excessive rate of speed;
c) continuing to occupy as a passenger the vehicle occupied by Mr.
Holp after Mr. Holp began racing with Mr. Duhovis;
d) failing to remonstrate with Mr, Holp to stop speeding, slow down
or stop his vehicle so that she could get out,
42, Plaintiff's claim is barred or reduced by virtue of her own negligence.
43. Plaintiff's claims are subject to the provisions of the Pennsylvania
Financial Responsibility Act. the limitations of which are incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
44, This accident and Plaintiff's injuries were due solely to the negligence of
Rustyn Holp and David Duhovis.
45. An award of punitive damages under the facts of this case would be
unconstitutional.
6
B
.
..... .....
i .e,
'M
Z
~ -~
. i
l<.
III
. :;c
Cl
~ "-
III
.g
. tJ
u
I::
H 'fi
J ;..~ I~
~j~ ..... ~ to
~ ~ ~~ e
- l!
I j ~ ~ <
1 .
. ~
H ~ . '::1 Q~ i~ :5
H :a ~~ .....
. III "> ... '" 0
l<. ! ~ . < .....
~ o Q. 01 . r-
~ . ~'M . .....
Cl ..... ...,~ ....."'.....
~ . . ~ I..........cn ~
B III ~ J Ql'" Po<
g :il ~Z 1>:"'.....'"
;i' .....1::'"
"- . ~~ ~ i
. ~ :g ~ 8
p: 'M .....
j J . ~ ~Q I ~.;i ,
. ....0 .
u ~ .... 100
I:: 2l ~ OJ .0 .
I. H ">HMP.
>, C'J
,- .-
.' N
I
UJI- i:; .
( )- ,,'
["
i..
,- ' '-.0
C'"
;-'1' j
C ':'.1
u"' I
.
u.:; >- ,
.'. .. :~d
I'. '--~
:- -,
~ .
c' <'J
SHfRIF~'S ~C1U~N ' REGULAR
CASE 110: 1997 - 01399 P
CIJMMOIlWEAL TH IW PI::NNSYL V AN IA:
CUUNTY UV CUMij~RLAND
TlJZ~:R DAliA R
VS,
M~:C::HAllISBURG I; V INV!::S mils CU
TtMOTIlY REIn: . Sherif.( or I)eputy Shoriff of
CUM8eNt.AND County, Pennsylvan1a. who be1ng duly sworn according
to law. saya. the w1thin COMPI.AIIIT
was served
upon G V DEVELOPM~:NT INI; T/O/H/A WANDA'S DECK!'. IH:ACH CI.UB !::CT th€'
dofC'ndant. at '305:00 HUURS. on th;? 20th day of March
lYY'l at
510l CARLISLi:: PIKE
MFCIlANJCSUUNG" PA 17055
.CUMDERLAND
County. Pennsylvania. by hand1.ng to MLI.AIIIL KAHSHAK. GUEST SEI\VICE
Am:NT ANI) PI::RSlJN fH CHARlj!::
a true and att;?stert copy of the CUMPLAINT
together with NOTICE
and at the same t1me directing Iler attent10n to the contents thereof,
Sheriff's Costs:
Docl~etinQ
SerV1Cf? '
Affidavit
Surcharge
So 3nsw"'rS:r~.Ar.""..c.~
H.. lhomas Kl~ne, Sher1.l1
6,00
.00
.00
2.00
$8.00
ANGINO AND ROVNEI\
03/21/1997
.-'--- "-
r7- ~et'
''''pu
by
Sworn and subscr1b'?d to before me
'f!::.
thts day of
1"1 97 A.D,
(17l.A- a. ~ lJ.J,a::
'--t Prothouc't.:.:JI1};-'-'
Gf4
~EP 2 Ii 1997
THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER
BY: JlffrlY 8, Rlttig. Esquirl
IJENTflCATIOIf NO, 19818
305 Norlll Fronl SIIIIl
P,O. BII 899
IfInisbIq. PA 17l1Jl.0999
17171 255-7839
AttornlYs lor DlllndanlS
DANA R. TOZER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MECHANICSBURG G.F. INVESTORS
CO., INC. and G.F. DEVELOPMENT
INC., t/d/b/a WANDA'S DECK AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BEACH CLUB, a/k/a WANDA'S
NIGHT CLUB,
Defendants
v, NO. 97-1399 CIVIL
DAVID DUHOVIS and RUSTYN ALLAN
HOLP,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEI.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I
This is a dram shop suit instituted by the Plaintiff against
the owners and operators of Wanda's Deck and Beach Club. The case
is currently in discovery.
In the course of discovery, the Plaintiff has served
Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents on the
Defendants. In due course, the discoyery requests have been
answered, documents have been provided and objections have been
made to certain requests. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel
seeking a ruling on objections and a determination as to the
eufficiency of certain responses.
Before discussing the specific discovery requests at issue
here, a clarification of the parameters of Plaintiff's claim is in
order. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants' employees
served Messrs. Holp and Duhovis (the Additional Defendants)
alcoholic beverages at Wanda's while they were visibly intoxicated.
Plaintiff herself has already testified under oath in a sworn
statement that the six people in her "party," including Holp and
Duhovis, were drinking draft beer from pitchers while at Wanda's.
(See Exhibit "A", p. 17) Moreover, she also testified that she did
not think that Holp and Duhovis were incapable of driving safely
when the left Wanda's. (See Exhibit "A", p. 21) She noticed
nothing unusual about Holp's demeanor and he was not argumentative
or more talkative than usual. (Exhibit "A," p, 15) He did not
appear impaired by alcohol to her. (Exhibit "A", p. 20)
This brief responds to the contentions raised in Plaintiff's
Motion.
- 2 -
her companions alcoholic beverages while they were visibly
intoxicated. That is the issue in the case.
Interrogatory No. 14 asks the Defendants whether they have
ever had their Operator's License suepended or revokeci. This
Interrogatory was objected to as irrelevant, but the fact of the
matter is that the Interrogatory does not make much sense. The
Defendants are entities and not holders of driver's licenses. This
Interrogatory appears to have been included by mistake. Neither of
the Defendants have an "Operator's License" which could be
suspended.
Interrogatory No. 35 asks for the identity of persons
interviewed by the Defendants and requests various details of the
interviews. This Interrogatory was objected to on the basis that
it was overbroad and calls for attorney/client and attorney work
product information which is privileged. Although the written
response to this Interrogatory does not reflect it, this inquiry
was answered by the furnishing of a report from API Investigations.
All of the information requested in Interrogatory No. 35 is
contained in this report.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel also seeks a ruling on six
objections stated to Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories Set II.
- 4 -
Interrogatory No, 47 seeks extensive information concerning
the type or category of alcoholic beverages eerved and sold at
Wanda's, the alcoholic content of each type or category of
beverage, the quantities of each type or category of beverages
served and sold at Wanda's during June of 1995, the quantities and
types of alcoholic beverages served and sold at Wanda's on June 10,
1995, and an identification of various records concerning the
quantities and types or categories of alcoholic beverages sold and
served at Wanda's in June of 1995. This Interrogatory and its
subparts were objected to as overbroad, onerous and not designed to
lead to relevant or discoverable evidence. By way of further
answer, the Defendants' response to Interrogatory No. 47 explained
that discovery to date in this case has established that the
Additional Defendants (two of which are the drivers of the vehicles
involved in the accident which injured Ms. Tozer) were drinking
draft beer from pitchers. Information concerning various types of
beverages which are available at the Defendants' Club have no
bearing on the question of whether or not the Additional Defendants
were served draft beer after they became visibly intoxicated. The
requests are clearly onerous, overly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the
objection stated to this Interrogatory should be sustained.
- 5 -
Interrogatory Nos. SO-54 of Plaintiff's Set II were also
objected to largely on the same basis as stated for Interrogatory
No. 46. These Interrogatories generally seek information about
Wanda's promotional strategies. food and drink specials.
advertising and marketing strategies and other such information at
or around June 10, 1995. None of this information has a bearing on
the issues in the case since, again, discovery indicates that the
Additional Defendant drivers were consuming beer from pitchers and
were not partaking of drink specials. As for the cost of draft
beer, that information was provided. As for promotional
strategies, entertainment and social events, the Defendants do
operate a club which does from time to time engage in promotional
activities designed to bring in clientele. How those activities
have anything to do with whether or not the Plaintiff's companions
were served alcohol while visibly intoxicated on June 10, 1995, is
unclear. Interrogatory Nos. SO - 54 request information which is
unduly burdensome, overly broad and not calculated to lead to
discoverable or even useful information in this litigation. The
objections to Interrogatory Nos. SO-54 should be sustained.
Plaintiff also seeks a determination of five objections made
to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents.
Request for Production No. 2 requests "any and all documents
containing information related to any answer to any interrogatory. II
- 6 -
This request is overbroad and vague on its face. Specific
information responsive to specific requests was provided.
Request for production No. 7 seeks all writings, memoranda,
reports, statements and records, etc., which the Defendants possess
and which pertain to the Plaintiff's case. Besides the fact that
this request does not delineate a request for specific documents,
it is overbroad in that it arguably includes privileged information
and attorney/work product.
Request for Production No. 12 is really the same request as
No.7. For the same reasons stated for No.7, No. 12 is also
objectionable. Additionally, this vague request for documents was
actually answered and the response speaks for itself.
Request for Production No. 20 requests "any and all accounting
documents and/or other business records that describe the assets,
sales, expenses, profit and loss, etc., for Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club from the time of its inception to the present." This
particular request is overly broaci and unduly burdensome and would
require the production of volumes of documents to which the
plaintiff currently has no right,
The simple fact that a claim for punitive damages has been
stated in a complaint does not automatically entitle the Plaintiff
to asset and profit and loss information through discovery. ~,
Kodak v, Watson, 105 Dauph. 309 (1984); Soraaue v. Walter, 23 D&C
- 7 -
3d 638 (1982). These cases set forth a test which balances the
interests involved and requires an examination of the pleadings,
discovery which has and has not taken place and the general status
and stage of the case. Kodak, at 310, Only where these factors
indicate that a bona fide claim for punitive damages is present can
discovery of financial information take place. ~
In this case, no depositions have been taken and discovery is
still in the early stages. Not only is there a lack of information
to substantiate a punitive damages claim at this stage of the case,
there is no evidence that the Defendants were even negligent. No
witnesses have been identifieci who will testify that the Additional
Defendants were visibly intoxicated when they were served and, in
fact, the written statements which have been reviewed to date
indicate that the exact opposite was true. (See,.!L..9..:.., excerpt
from Plaintiffs recorded statement under oath attached hereto as
Exhibit A). As a result, at this stage of the case, there is no
proof of a bona fide claim for punitive damages and financial
discovery should be held in abeyance until the Plaintiff can
produce such proof.
Request for Production No. 20 seeks information regarding
liquor license insurance, particularly referencing the relationship
between the amount of beer and liquor sold versus the sale of
foods. For reasons previously stated, this request is overly
- 8 -
broad, vague and onerous. The request is also anewered and the
answer is "none."
B. Pefendants' Answers to Interrogatories are sufficient.
Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of certain of Defendants'
Answers to Interrogatories which state that the information
requesteci is either "unknown" or "undetermined at this time." A
review of these Interrogatories demonstrates that the answers are
adequate since sometimes the best and only answer is either unknown
or undetermined at this time.
Interrogatory No. 4 of Set I asks for particular information
about Wanda's employees on June 10, 1995. To the extent this
information is known by Wanda's, a list of names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, job descriptions and telephone numbers has been
provided. The information concerning the particular hours that
each employee worked is not known and this information cannot be
provided.
Interrogatory No. 5 seeks the identification of all
individuals who served any alcoholic beverages to the Additional
Defendants. The simple answer to this Interrogatory is that the
Defendants do not know. The traffic accident which occurred in
this case occurred after the Plaintiff and the Additional
Defendants left the premises and notice of suit was not received
- 9 -
until later. The Defendants simply do not know and have not
ascertained who served alcohol to the Additional Defendants on the
night in question.
Interrogatory No. 16 asks the Defendants to identify "all
exhibits which you expect to offer into evidence at the time of
trial in this case." For obvious reasons, until discovery has been
completed, no decision can rationally be made concerning what
exhibits are expected to be offered into evidence if and when the
case ultimately comes to trial. The fact of the matter is that as
for trial exhibits, they are "undetermined at this time."
Defendants expect to seasonably supplement this response.
Interrogatory No. 18 asks whether any of the dozens of
employees or the owner of Wanda's knew the plaintiff or any of the
Additional Defendants by appearance or by name. Again, this
particular inquiry does not lend itself to a simple answer since a
line up of all past Wanda's employees and all of the individuals
named in Interrogatory No. 18 would be necessary to determine
whether any of the individuals are known by appearance.
Interrogatory Nos. 19-21 and 23 of Plaintiff's Set I request
information pertaining to Wanda's employees and their observations
of the Additional Defendants asking specific questions about those
observations. conversations and whether or not the Additional
Defendants ordered food on June 10-11, 1995. It bears repeating
- 10 -
that the accident which gave rise to this suit happened away from
Wanda's premises and notice of suit did not occur until much later.
Assuming that the Additional Defendants were present on the
Defendants' premises, they were undoubtedly observed, but to the
best of the Defendants' knowledge, specific observations by
particular employees for the night in question are unknown. A
summary of the investigation efforts made by the Defendants is
contained in the API Investigation report which is appended to the
Answers to discovery. An investigation has been undertaken and the
answer to these Interrogatories is that the Defendants just do not
know.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel also questions the sufficiency of
certain Answers to Interrogatories Set II.
Interrogatory Nos, 57-61 request information concerning the
events of June 10, 1995, action of Wanda's employees, whether the
Additional Defendants ran a tab, whether the Adciitional Defendants
used a credit card to purchase food or drink and whether anyone
other than Wanda's sold or served alcohol to the Additional
Defendants on June 10, 1995. These inquiries have been answered
"unknown," "not to our knowledge" and the responses also refer
Plaintiff to the indiviciuals discussed on the police report. As
with the Interrogatories above, an investigation has been made and
the Answers to these Interrogatories are accurate to the best of
- 11 -
the Defendants' knowledge, information and belief as attested to in
the Verifications attached to the Interrogatory responses.
In closing, the Court should take note that the Plaintiff has
answered Interrogatories with some of the same type of responses
which counsel now finds objectionable in the Defendants' Answers.
(~, excerpts from Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories attached
hereto as Exhibit B).
Several of the Plaintiff's answers to
discovery are virtually identical to those answers provided by the
Defendants. These Answers by the Plaintiff highlight the fact that
sometimes the correct and honest answer to a question is "I don't
know" or "I don't know right now."
IV. CONCLUSION I
For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request
that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel be denied, that the
Defendants' Objections to Interrogatories be sustained and that the
Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories be deemed adequate.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
DATE: f/z. 0/1/7
By.
~ , ~qui=
I. .1119616
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7639
Attorneys for Defendants
exhibit A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
A ~.
Q DId he do anything that suggested to you that his
driving was a little reckless?
A ~,
Q About what time did you get to Wanda's?
A Around 11:00,
Q How long were you at Wanda's before leaving?
A Maybe an hour and a half,
Q Were you inside or outside at Wanda's?
A Both.
Q There were six of you there, is that right?
A Correct.
Q Did you meet up with anyone else there or was your
group confined to the six of you?
MR. SADLOCK: Do you mean anyone that she knew or
just that they associated with while they were there?
BY MR, BANKO:
Q I want to know were the six of you at one table
basically?
A Yes. Well, can you -- because that question can
have several answers.
Q All right. When you got to Wanda's, when you
first got there, did you go inside or outside?
A We went outside, out to the deck,
Q There are tables with umbrellas on the deck,
17
1 correct?
2 A 'I know there are tables, I don't'recall whether
3 there were umbrellas or not,
4 Q Did the six of you sit at one table?
5 A We went down to -- we went off the deck and down
6 to the volleyball court. There were two tables right next to
7 each other, and we kind of put them together,
8 Q Was that essentially the group then at those two
9 tables that were put together, or did other people join up with
10 you?
11 A The people that -- the various people who they had
12 been -- the group had been playing volleyball, who we did not
13 know, were the people that we were associating with,
14 Q Did you consume any alcohol while you were at
15 Wanda's?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Were you drinking draft beer from pitchers?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Was anybody drinking anything other than glasses
20 of beer from a pitcher?
21 A No.
22 Q Do you recall what klnd of beer it was?
23 A No.
24 Q Do you know how many pitchers of beer were
25 purchased for the group during the period of time you were at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
Wanda's?
A No,
Q Can you say -- and I don:t want you to guess
but can you say whether it was more or less than five?
A No.
Q This is probably a real dumb question, but do you
have any idea of the size of the pitcher, how many ounces they
would contain?
A No.
Q Did you notice whether Mr. Holp was drinking beer
from glasses from the pitcher?
A Yes,
MR, SADLOCK:
MR. BANKO:
At what time, or just in general?
Just in general while they were at
Wanda's.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BANKO:
Q Do you have any idea how many beers he consumed?
A No,
Q Do you know what size glasses the beer from the
pitcher was being poured into?
A They were plastic cups about that size
(indicating) .
Q So about 8 ounces, 7 ounces?
A Yeah, they weren't any bigger than this
19
1 (indicating) ,
2 Q, That's the one-sip size. On the'way to Wanda's,
3 was there any gamesmanship or racing between Duhoyis and Holp on
4 the way?
5 A No,
6 Q While you were at Wanda's and before you left, did
7 you notice anything unusual about Mr. Holp? In other words,
8 were his eyes glassy, to your knowledge?
9 A No.
10 Q Did he have slurred speech?
11 A No,
12 Q Was his clothing disheveled? I know you were
13 probably playing volleyball, so, '.
14 A Again, because they were all playing volleyball, I
15 can't answer that question.
16 Q r know that you were also consuming beer, but do
17 you have any recollection of an odor of alcohol on Mr. Holp?
18 A It was on his breath because he was consuming
19 beer, but as far as on his clothing or anything like that, no.
20 Q Was there anything unusual about his demeanor?
21 Was he more talkative than he had been earlier, was he
22 argumentative?
23 A No.
24 Q Were there any arguments or fights among the group
25 or with members of the group outside the group?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
20
1
A
No,
2
Q
Did he look to be impaired as a result his alcohol
I
3 consumption when you saw. him at Wanda's?
4
A
No.
5
Q
His car was parked out in the parking lot?
6
A
Correct.
7
Q
Was it closer to the front of the building or was
8 it closer to Route 11, to the road?
9 A If I recall, is there like an extended part of the
10 parking lot? It goes past the building,
11 Q Back by the hotel rooms?
12 A Like if the front of the building is here
13 (demonstrating)--
Q
Right.
A
the parking lot runs across the hotel, It was
more towards the far end.
Q As you were looking at the building on the left?
A On the right. It was down - - like if you were
coming out of the building, it would be on the left-hand side
and closer to the highway than to the building,
Q
Did you notice whether on the way to the car
22 Mr. Holp was staggering or having difficulty walking in any
23 fashion?
24
25
A
No,
Q
The six of you apparently came to the consensus to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
leave Wanda's. Why?
A We were going to go to-J, P. ~allard's,
o Was there any discussion by anybody, any comments
or any discussion by anybody, while you were still inside
Wanda's as to who should drive? Mr, Holp shouldn't drive,
Mr. Duhovis shouldn't drive, somebody else ought to drive?
A Not to my knowledge, but I can't speak for all six
of the people,
o But you didn't make any statements, is that
correct?
A Correct,
o Did you have any thoughts that maybe somebody
other than Duhovis or Holp ought to drive?
A No.
o You didn't hear anybody else make any type of
comments?
A No.
o Has anybody said to you since that they did say
something that night about either Duhovis or Holp driving?
A No.
o You left Wanda's, you went outside to the car,
Was there any discussion among the four of you that were in the
car -- that being you and Deb and Miller and Holp -- as to
Mr, Holp's ability to drive as a result of his alcohol
consumption?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
A No,
Q At tha~ time did you have any concerns about your
safety in getting in the car with him?
A No,
Q And you were on your way over to J. p, Mallard's
which is in Derry Township or Hershey?
A Correct,
Q Did you go through the construction on Route s81?
A Yes.
Q And that's single lane going in the direction you
were going, east?
A East is coming back -- yeah, correct,
Q When you went into the single lane, which car was
first, Duhovis or Holp?
A I don't recall. I can tell you from what the
police thing
Q I want to know what you --
A I don't recall.
Q That's fine, Now, during that stretch of highway
that you were in single lane coming out where 83 connects up to
581, had Mr, Holp had any problems in d~iving?
A I don't recall.
Q Do you have any recollection of the events from
the time you left Wanda's and got on to 581 until the time of
the accident?
26
1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
SS
2 COUNTY'OF DAUPHIN'
3 I, Susan M. Simon, do hereby certify that before
4 me, a Notary Public in and for the County and Commonwealth
5 aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared
6 DANA R. TOZER
7 who was then by me first duly cautioned and (sworn, affirmed) to
8 testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in
9 the taking of (his, her) oral deposition in the cause aforesaid;
10 that the testimony given as above set forth was reduced to
11 stenotype by me in the presence of said witness and afterwards
12 transcribed by me or under my direction.
13 I do further certify that said deposition was
14 taken at the time and place in the foregoing caption specified.
15 I do further certify that I am not a relative,
16 counselor attorney for either party, nor am I otherwise
17 interested in the event of this action.
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my tand
19 this 22nd day of October, 1995.
20
NOTARIAL SEAL
SUSAN M. SIMON, Notary Public
Harrisburg. Oauphln County
My Commission expires Oct 30. 1998
7i12t~1 'iJ1. 0-71-
Susan M. Simon
Reporter-Notary Public
21
22
23 The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to
any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the
24 direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.
25
exhibit B
.
29. State the names and present or last known residence or business addresses bf any and
all persons known to you, your agents or your attorneys who sold, served or gave
intoxicating liquors or beverages to the Additional Defendants, Duhovis and Holp.
i;
I
I
ANSWER:
Employees at Wanda's Deck and Beach Club
Defendants. In due course, the discovery requests have been
answered, documents have been provided and objections have been
made to certain requests. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel
seeking a ruling on objections and a determination as to the
sufficiency of certain responses.
Before discussing the specific discovery requests at issue
here, a clarification of the parameters of Plaintiff's claim is in
order. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants' employees
served Messrs. Holp and Duhovis (the Additional Defendants)
alcoholic beverages at Wanda's while they were visibly intoxicated.
Plaintiff herself has already testified under oath in a sworn
statement that the six people in her "party," including Holp and
Duhovis, were drinking draft beer from pitchers while at Wanda's.
(See Exhibit "A", p. 17) Moreover, she also testified that she did
not think that Holp and Duhovis were incapable of driving safely
when the left Wanda's. (See Exhibit "A", p. 21) She noticed
nothing unusual about Holp's demeanor and he was not argumentative
or more talkative than usual. (Exhibit "A," p. 15) He did not
appear impaired by alcohol to her. (Exhibit "A", p. 20)
This brief responds to the contentions raised in Plaintiff's
Motion.
- 2 -
II. STATEMENT OP ISSUES PRESENTED:
A. WHETHER THE DEPENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED?
(Suggested answer: Yes.)
B. WHETHER THE DEPENDANTS' ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES ARE
SUFPICIENT UNDER THE RULES OP CIVIL PROCEDURE?
(Suggested answer: Yes.)
III. ARGUMENT:
A. The Defendants' objections to discovery should be
sustained.
For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, each of the
objections to the discovery requests will be explained in turn.
There were three objections to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories
Set I.
Interrogatory No. 12 asks whether Wanda's Deck and Beach Club
had ever received any citation or summons of a criminal nature
resulting from the operation of the club. This Interrogatory was
objected to as overbroad and not designed or likely to lead to the
discovery of relevant information.
The fact that this
Interrogatory is not restricted at all as to time renders the
request on its face overbroad.
Furthermore, the request has
nothing to do with whether or not Wanda's served the Plaintiff and
- 3 -
her companions alcoholic beverages while they were visibly
intoxicated. That is the issue in the case.
Interrogatory No. 14 asks the Defendants whether they have
ever had their Operator's License suspended or revoked. This
Interrogatory was objected to as irrelevant, but the fact of the
matter is that the Interrogatory does not make much sense. The
Defendants are entities and not holders of driver's licenses. This
Interrogatory appears to have been included by mistake. Neither of
the Defendants have an "Operator's License" which could be
suspended.
Interrogatory No. 35 asks for the identity of persons
interviewed by the Defendants and requests various details of the
interviews. This Interrogatory was objected to on the basis that
it was overbroad and calls for attorney/client and attorney work
product information which is privileged. Although the written
response to this Interrogatory does not reflect it, this inquiry
was answered by the furnishing of a report from API Investigations.
All of the information requested in Interrogatory No. 35 is
contained in this report.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel also seeks a ruling on six
objections stated to Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories Set II.
- 4 -
Interrogatory No. 47 seeks extensive information concerning
the type or category of alcoholic beverages served and sold at
Wanda's, the alcoholic content of each type or category of
beverage, the quantities of each type or category of beverages
served and sold at Wanda's during June of 1995, the quantities and
types of alcoholic beverages served and sold at Wanda's on June 10,
1995, and an identification of various records concerning the
quantities and types or categories of alcoholic beverages sold and
served at Wanda's in June of 1995. This Interrogatory and its
subparts were objected to as overbroad, onerous and not designed to
lead to relevant or discoverable evidence. By way of further
answer, the Defendants' response to Interrogatory No. 47 explained
that discovery to date in this case has established that the
Additional Defendants (two of which are the drivers of the vehicles
involved in the accident which injured Ms. Tozer) were drinking
draft beer from pitchers. Information concerning various types of
beverages which are available at the Defendants' Club have no
bearing on the question of whether or not the Additional Defendants
were served draft beer after they became visibly intoxicated. The
requests are clearly onerous, overly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the
objection stated to this Interrogatory should be sustained.
- 5 -
Interrogatory Nos. 50-54 of Plaintiff's Set II were also
objected to largely on the same basis as stated for Interrogatory
No. 46. These Interrogatories generally seek information about
Wanda's promotional strategies, food and drink specials,
advertising and marketing strategies and other such information at
or around June 10, 1995. None of this information has a bearing on
the issues in the case since, again, discovery indicates that the
Additional Defendant drivers were consuming beer from pitchers and
were not partaking of drink specials. As for the cost of draft
beer, that information was provided. As for promotional
strategies, entertainment and social events, the Defendants do
operate a club which does from time to time engage in promotional
activities designed to bring in clientele. How those activities
have anything to do with whether or not the Plaintiff's companions
were served alcohol while visibly intoxicated on June 10, 1995, is
unclear. Interrogatory Nos. 50-54 request information which is
unduly burdensome, overly broad and not calculated to lead to
discoverable or even useful information in this litigation. The
objections to Interrogatory Nos. 50-54 should be sustained.
Plaintiff also seeks a determination of five objections made
to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents.
Request for Production No. 2 requests "any and all documents
containing information related to any answer to any interrogatory."
- 6 -
This request is overbroad and vague on its face. Specific
information responsive to specific requests was provided.
Request for production No. 7 seeks all writings, memoranda,
reports, statements and records, etc., which the Defendants possess
and which pertain to the Plaintiff's case. Besides the fact that
this request does not delineate a request for specific documents,
it is overbroad in that it arguably includes privileged information
and attorney/work product.
Request for Production No. 12 is really the same request as
No.7. For the same reasons stated for No.7, No. 12 is also
objectionable. Additionally, this vague request for documents was
actually answered and the response speaks for itself.
Request for Production No. 20 requests "any and all accounting
documents and/or other business records that describe the assets,
sales, expenses, profit and loss, etc., for Wanda's Deck and Beach
Club from the time of its inception to the present." This
particular request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and would
require the production of volumes of documents to which the
Plaintiff currently has no right.
The simple fact that a claim for punitive damages has been
stated in a complaint does not automatically entitle the Plaintiff
to asset and profit and loss information through discovery. ~,
Kodak v. Watson, 105 Dauph. 309 (1984); Soraaue v. Walter, 23 D&C
- 7 -
3d 638 (1982). These cases set forth a test which balances the
interests involved and requires an examination of the pleadings,
discovery which has and has not taken place and the general status
and stage of the case. Kodak, at 310. Only where these factors
indicate that a bona fide claim for punitive damages is present can
discovery of financial information take place. IQ.
In this case, no depositions have been taken and discovery is
still in the early stages. Not only is there a lack of information
to substantiate a punitive damages claim at this stage of the case,
there is no evidence that the Defendants were even negligent. No
witnesses have been identified who will testify that the Additional
Defendants were visibly intoxicated when they were served and, in
fact, the written statements which have been reviewed to date
indicate that the exact opposite was true. (See,.!L..9..:.., excerpt
from Plaintiffs recorded statement under oath attached hereto as
Exhibit A). As a result, at this stage of the case, there is no
proof of a bona fide claim for punitive damages and financial
discovery should be held in abeyance until the Plaintiff can
produce such proof.
Request for production No. 20 seeks information regarding
liquor license insurance, particularly referencing the relationship
between the amount of beer and liquor sold versus the sale of
foods. For reasons previously stated, this request is overly
- 8 -
broad, vague and onerous. The request is also answered and the
answer is "none."
B. Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories are sufficient.
Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of certain of Defendants'
Answers to Interrogatories which state that the information
requested is either "unknown" or "undetermined at this time." A
review of these Interrogatories demonstrates that the answers are
adequate since sometimes the best and only answer is either unknown
or undetermined at this time.
Interrogatory No. 4 of Set I asks for particular information
about Wanda's employees on June 10, 1995. To the extent this
information is known by Wanda's, a list of names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, job descriptions and telephone numbers has been
provided. The information concerning the particular hours that
each employee worked is not known and this information cannot be
provided.
Interrogatory No. 5 seeks the identification of all
individuals who served any alcoholic beverages to the Additional
Defendants. The simple answer to this Interrogatory is that the
Defendants do not know. The traffic accident which occurred in
this case occurred after the Plaintiff and the Additional
Defendants left the premises and notice of suit was not received
- 9 -
until later. The Defendants simply do not know and have not
ascertained who served alcohol to the Additional Defendants on the
night in question.
Interrogatory No. 16 asks the Defendants to identify "all
exhibits which you expect to offer into evidence at the time of
trial in this case." For obvious reasons, until discovery has been
completed, no decision can rationally be made concerning what
exhibits are expected to be offered into evidence if and when the
case ultimately comes to trial. The fact of the matter is that as
for trial exhibits, they are "undetermined at this time."
Defendants expect to seasonably supplement this response.
Interrogatory No. 18 asks whether any of the dozens of
employees or the owner of Wanda's knew the Plaintiff or any of the
Additional Defendants by appearance or by name. Again, this
particular inquiry does not lend itself to a simple answer since a
line up of all past Wanda's employees and all of the individuals
named in Interrogatory No. 18 would be necessary to determine
whether any of the individuals are known by appearance.
Interrogatory Nos. 19-21 and 23 of Plaintiff's Set I request
information pertaining to Wanda's employees and their observations
of the Additional Defendants asking specific questions about those
observations, conversations and whether or not the Additional
Defendants ordered food on June 10-11, 1995. It bears repeating
- 10 -
Exhibit A
. -,
. ~ 1 DANA R. TOZER,
PLAINTIFF
2
V.
UNDERINSURED MOTORIST
ARBITRATION
3
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
4 DEFENDANT
,
5
6
7
8
SWORN STATEMENT OF
DANA R, TOZER
9
TAKEN BY:
BEFORE:
DEFENDANT
10
SUSAN M. SIMON
REPORTER-NOTARY PUBLIC
11
PLACE:
ANGINO & ROVNER
4503 NORTH FRONT STREET
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
12
'.
.. 13
..
DATE:
OCTOBER 19, 1995
BEGINNING 9:55 A.M.
14
15
16
17
18 APPEARANCES:
19
ANGINO & ROVNER
BY: RICHARD A. SADLOCK, ESQUIRE
FOR - PLAINTIFF
20
21
REYNOLDS & HAVAS
BY: STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE
FOR - DEFENDANT
22
23 ALSO PRESENT:
.
24
KAREN BURY, CLAIMS SUPERVISOR
ERIC LAMBERT, CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
,
, 1
~ -J
25
ORIGINAL.
15
1 A No, on the way to Wanda's I was next'to the
2 window well, I was on the right-hand side of. the back. seat ,
3 Q Then Deb was in the center, and as I understand,
4 on the other side was a big speaker?
5 A Yes,
6 Q When you left Duhovis' house, was there anything
7 that you noticed unusual about Mr. Holp? In other words,
8 anything about his eyes, his speech, his gait or how he was
9 walking, the manner of his clothing or anything like that that
10 was out of the ordinary?
11 A No.
12 Q Did he appear to you to be intoxicated when you
13 left Duhovis' house?
14 A No,
15 Q Were there any stops by Mr. Holp between leaving
16 Duhovis' house and getting into the parking lot at Wanda's?
17 A No,
18 Q Was there any alcohol consumed by anyone in the
19 car from Duhovis' house to Wanda's?
20 A No.
21 Q On the way to Wanda's, did he do anything in his
22 driving that was unusual to you or that caused you any concern?
23 A No,
24 Q Was he traveling at any excessive speed, to your
25 knowledge, during that trip?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
1 A No.
2 Q Did he do anything that suggested to you that his
3 driving was a little reckless?
4 A No,
5 Q About what time did you get to Wanda's?
6 A Around 11:00,
Q
A
Q
How long were you at Wanda's before leaving?
Maybe an hour and a half,
Were you inside or outside at Wanda's?
A Both,
Q There were six of you there, is that right?
A Correct.
Q Did you meet up with anyone else there or was your
group confined to the six of you?
MR, SADLOCK: Do you mean anyone that she knew or
just that they associated with while they were there?
BY MR, BANKO:
Q I want to know were the six of you at one table
basically?
A Yes. Well, can you -- because that question can
have several answers,
Q All right. When you got to Wanda's, when you
first got there, did you go inside or outside?
A We went outside, out to the deck,
Q There are tables with umbrellas on the deck,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
correct?
A 'I know there are tables. I don't. recall whether
there were umbrellas or not,
Q Did the six of you sit at one table?
A We went down to -- we went off the deck and down
to the volleyball court. There were two tables right next to
each other, and we kind of put them together,
Q Was that essentially the group then at those two
tables that were put together, or did other people join up with
you?
A The people that -- the various people who they had
been -- the group had been playing volleyball, who we did not
know, were the people that we were associating with.
Q Did you consume any alcohol while you were at
Wanda's?
A Yes.
Q Were you drinking draft beer from pitchers?
A Yes,
Q Was anybody drinking anything other than glasses
of beer from a pitcher?
A ~,
Q Do you recall what kind of beer it was?
A ~,
Q Do you know how many pitchers of beer were
purchased for the group during the period of time you were at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
Wanda's?
A No,
Q Can you say -- and I don:t want you to guess
but can you say whether it was more or less than five?
A No,
Q This is probably a real dumb question, but do you
have any idea of the size of the pitcher, how many ounces they
would contain?
A No.
Q Did you notice whether Mr. Holp was drinking beer
from glasses from the pitcher?
A Yes,
MR, SADLOCK:
MR, BANKO:
At what time, or just in general?
Just in general while they were at
Wanda's.
THE WITNESS: Yes,
BY MR. BANKO:
Q Do you have any idea how many beers he consumed?
A No,
Q Do you know what size glasses the beer from the
pitcher was being poured into?
A They were plastic cups about that size
(indicating) ,
Q So about 8 ounces, 7 ounces?
A Yeah, they weren't any bigger than this
19
1 (indicating) .
2 Q. That's the one-sip size, On the 'way to Wanda's,
3 was there any gamesmanship or racing between Duhovis and Holp on
4 the way?
5 A No,
6 Q While you were at Wanda's and before you left, did
7 you notice anything unusual about Mr. Holp? In other words,
8 were his eyes glassy, to your knowledge?
9 A No.
10 Q Did he have slurred speech?
11 A No.
12 Q Was his clothing disheveled? I know you were
13 probably playing volleyball, so",
14 A Again, because they were all playing volleyball, I
15 can't answer that question,
16 Q I know that you were also consuming beer, but do
17 you have any recollection of an odor of alcohol on Mr, Holp?
18 A It was on his breath because he was consuming
19 beer, but as far as on his clothing or anything like that, no,
20 Q Was there anything unusual about his demeanor?
21 Was he more talkative than he had been earlier, was he
22 argumentative?
23 A No,
24 Q Were there any arguments or fights among the group
25 or with members of the group outside the group?
20
21
20
1
A
No.
2
Q
Did he look to be impaired as a result his alcohol
.
3 consumption when you saw. him at Wanda's?
4
A
No,
5
Q
His car was parked out in the parking lot?
6
Correct,
A
7
Q
Was it closer to the front of the building or was
8 it closer to Route 11, to the road?
9 A If I recall, is there like an extended part of the
10 parking lot? It goes past the building.
11 Q Back by the hotel rooms?
12 A Like if the front of the building is here
13 (demonstrating)--
14
Q
Right,
15
the parking lot runs across the hotel. It was
A
16
more towards the far end.
Q As you were looking at the building on the left?
A On the right. It was down - - like if you were
coming out of the building, it would be on the left-hand side
and closer to the highway than to the building,
17
18
19
Q
Did you notice whether on the way to the car
22 Mr. Holp was staggering or having difficulty walking in any
23 fashion?
24
25
A
No,
Q
The six of you apparently came to the consensus to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
leave Wanda's, Why?
A We were going to go to' J, p, ,Mallard's,
Q Was there any discussion by anybody, any comments
or any discussion by anybody, while you were still inside
Wanda's as to who should drive? Mr. Holp shouldn't drive,
Mr, Duhovis shouldn't drive, somebody else ought to drive?
A Not to my knowledge, but I can't speak for all six
of the people.
Q But you didn't make any statements, is that
correct?
A Correct,
Q Did you have any thoughts that maybe somebody
other than Duhovis or Holp ought to drive?
A No,
Q You didn't hear anybody else make any type of
comments?
A No,
Q Has anybody said to you since that they did say
something that night about either Duhovis or Holp driving?
A No.
Q You left Wanda's, you went outside to the car,
Was there any discussion among the four of you that were in the
car -- that being you and Deb and Miller and Holp -- as to
Mr, Holp's ability to drive as a result of his alcohol
consumption?
22
1 A No.
2 Q At that time did you have any concerns about your
3 safety in getting in the car with him?
4 A No,
5 Q And you were on your way over to J, p, Mallard's
6 which is in Derry Township or Hershey?
7 A Correct.
8 Q Did you go through the construction on Route 581?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And that's single lane going ill the direction you
11 were going, east?
12 A East is coming back -- yeah, correct.
13 Q When you went into the single lane, which car was
14 first, Duhovis or Holp?
15 A I don't recall, I can tell you from what the
16 police thing
17 Q I want to know what you --
18 A I don't recall.
19 Q That's fine, Now, during that stretch of highway
20 that you were in single lane coming out where 83 connects up to
21 581, had Mr, Holp had any problems in d~iving?
22 A I don't recall.
23 Q Do you have any recollection of the events from
24 the time you left Wanda's and got on to 581 until the time of
25 the accident?
26
1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 COUNTY'OF DAUPHIN'
SS
3 I, Susan M, Simon, do hereby certify that before
4 me, a Notary Public in and for the County and Commonwealth
5 aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared
6 DANA R, TOZER
7 who was then by me first duly cautioned and (sworn, affirmed) to
8 testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in
9 the taking of (his, her) oral deposition in the cause aforesaid;
10 that the testimony given as above set forth was reduced to
11 stenotype by me in the presence of said witness and afterwards
12 transcribed by me or under my direction.
13 I do further certify that said deposition was
14 taken at the time and place in the foregoing caption specified,
15 I do further certify that I am not a relative,
16 counselor attorney for either party, nor am I otherwise
17 interested in the event of this action.
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my tand
19 this 22nd day of October, 1995,
20
NOTARIAL SEAL
SUSAN M. SIMON, Notary Public
Harrisburg, Dauphin County
My Commission Expires Oct 30, 1998
7i12'l~ I 'iJ1, 0-71-
Susan M. Simon
Reporter-Notary Public
21
22
23 The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to
any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the
24 direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter,
25
I
t
exhibit B
29. State the names and present or last known residence or business addresses bf any and
all persons known to you, your agents or your attorneys who sold, served or gave
intoxicating liquors or beverages to the Additional Defendants, Duhovis and Holp.
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
I
I
,
I
I
I
"7
I
I
,
!
ANSWER:
Employees at Wanda's Deck and Beach Club
1~1:ll,:"~~~
ll~~ ~ I
1111t~ ,.~ I
.1/ jr. !
~l IV; 0 I
' <ill::'.l III .
rIll ."7",",'1-:,'
. j~ .:.: -4r;'.>
.( I'" ..'~ c .J.
- ....;..1--.<
r' \ ,',' ,'i'"
, l' '-',_
'.. "'l
" \,)~G
I~ d
I it, CL)
~, ~...tu.../
I
I
1
I
I
I-
~S I-
tC~ w ~
w ~
a:
I- ::
.. ... <II a: $
~ ~ l- e "
z e ..
e ~ ~ "
a: . e
I. . r .. or
"
~ E r . ci '"
~
. in .. on
a: 1<
.. e or -
. :::: z "
~~ ~ r
I
\OJ
~
I
III
III
III
o
I
<Xl
o
M
I'
M
~ E-<
I!I
~&ll~
~~~ m
EJOr<.OlCl
:ElS~g:!5
tJ 0: CQ
~O><CIl
a1)JZg~H
~Olll
l:!lS~~
~"" ..
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
OP COMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL J. KHAN, JR.,
Plaintiff
NO. 94-6120 CIVIL TERM
v.
DONALD M. HEALEY, HEALEY
ASSOCIATES, HEALEY PINANCIAL
CORP., and THE MUTUAL LIPE
INSURANCE COMPANY OP NEW
YORK,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
AND NOW, this
ORDER
day of
, 1997, it is
hereby ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to
comply with Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents
is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby ordered to produce all requested
documents within
days of the date of this order.
BY THE COURT:
If -I--l;
~ki~l~(
f2tU()r:.fop,8
J.
as they were material and essential to the employment contract
negotiated between the parties; interference with contractual
relations based on false statements made by the Defendants to the
Plaintiff's clients; defamation or disparagement of services based
on false statements made by the Defendants to Plaintiff's clients;
and punitive damages based on the willful and reckless nature of
the Defendants' conduct and the effect of that conduct on the
economic welfare of the Plaintiff.
2. Since the filing of the complaint, the parties have
proceeded to completed several rounds of depositions and the
exchange of records and documents.
3. On December 13, 1996, this Court issued an Order denying
a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants as to
Counts I, V and VI of the Plaintiff's Complaint and deferring
action as to Count VII,
4. Following the Court Order on the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, the parties proceeded to continue discovery which
included a damages deposition of the Plaintiff on March 26, 1997
and exchange of some documents.
5, On March 12, 1997, the Defendants provided to Plaintiff's
counsel copies of documents in response to the Plaintiff's Second
Request for Production of Documents. Those documents were alleged
- 2 -
by the Defendants to be proprietary and are now covered by a
Confidentiality Agreement signed by all parties.
6. The parties are continuing discovery and Defendants have
noticed a rescheduled deposition for Joseph DiMento at 11:00 a.m,
on October 22, 1997.
7. Plaintiff has retained an expert witness to review
documents, including those covered by the Confidentiality
Agreement, and to testify for Plaintiff. After his review of
documents, Plaintiff's expert witness advised that Plaintiff
request additional documentation concerning the Defendants Donald
M. Healey and his MONY Agency,
8. After discussion between counsel, Plaintiff filed a
formal Request for Production of Documents on or about September
15, 1997. See Exhibit "A."
9, On or about September 24, 1997, Defendants responded with
a formal objection to Plaintiff's discovery, See Exhibit "B."
10. In reply to Defendants' objections, Plaintiff will agree
to handle the documents he has requested as proprietary and
therefore covered by the previously agreed to Confidentiality
Agreement, but the Defendants further object on the basis that the
documents sought are not "reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence,"
- 3 -
A, The term "identify" shall have the following meanings:
1. When referring to a person or persons, the term shall
mean a statement of the current name, address of residence,
business address, telephone number, present or last known employer,
official titles held, job description and nature of affiliation
with any party to this litigation with respect to each person about
whom information is sought.
2. When used with respect to an action (including any
omission, communication, occurrence, statement, or conduct, all of
which shall be collectively referred to in this paragraph as the
"action"), the term refers to a description of the substance of the
events constituting the action, a statement of the date on which
the action occurred, the identification of each and every person
participating in the action, the identification of all other
persons present when the action occurred, a statement as to whether
minutes, notes, memoranda, or other records exist with respect to
the action, and identification of the person or persons presently
having possession, custody, or control of such documents.
3. When used with respect to a document, the term refers
to the provision of the following information:
(a) The date of the document;
(b) The title of the document;
(c) Any identifying number on the document:
(d) Any identifying designation for the document;
(e) A description of the document;
(f) The subject matter of the document;
(g) The name, title, address, and telephone number
of each person who wrote, signed, prepared, dictated, participated
in preparation of, created, initialed, or otherwise had any
function respecting preparation of the document or review of the
document;
- 2 -
(h) The name, title, address, and telephone number
of each addressee on the document, as well as the same for each
person receiving a copy of the document;
(i) The present location of the document and the
name and address of the custodian of the document;
(j) If a document is not an original, the location,
name, and address of the custodian of the original; and
(k) Any other designation necessary to identify the
document for purposes of obtaining a copy thereof.
B. The term "documents", when used herein, shall mean all
written, typed, printed, recorded, or graphic matter of every type;
and description, however and by whomever prepared, produced,
reproduced, disseminated, or made, in any form, now or formerly in
the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom this
Request is addressed, its officers, agents, employees, and
attorneys, or any of them, including, but not limited to letters,
correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, records, minutes of all types
of meetings, contracts, subcontracts, agreements, intra and
interoffice communications, purchase orders, requisitions, plans,
studies, summaries, analyses, results of investigations, reviews,
bulletins, proposals, estimates, appraisals, recommendations,
critiques, trip reports, engineering calculations, bills of
materials, drawings, sketches, blueprints, charts, indices,
notices, diaries, books, desk calendars, appointment books,
messages, instructions, work assignments, notes, notebooks, tape
recordings, partial or complete reports of telephone conversations,
photographs, slides, public statements, newspaper or other media
releases, public and governmental filings, opinions, and any other
writings, drawings or recordings. If any document was, but is no
longer, in the possession of the party to whom this Request is
addressed or subject to such party's control, identify the
documents.
- 3 -
C, When used herein, the term "person" shall mean any
individual, partnership, joint venture, firm, association,
corporation or business or any governmental or legal entity.
D. When used herein, the term "communication" shall mean any
and all transmissions of information, the information transmitted,
the process by which the information is transmitted, and the term
shall expressly be inclusive of all written and oral
communications.
E. When used herein, the terms "relate to", "relating to", or
"in relation to", shall mean constituting, reflecting,
representing, supporting, contradicting, referring to, stating,
describing, recording, noting, embodying, containing, mentioning,
studying, analyzing, discussing, evaluating, or relevant to. As
indicated, the term necessarily includes information which is in
opposition to as well as in support of the position(s) and claim(s)
of the party to whom the Request is addressed,
F, When used herein, the term "reflect" shall mean embody,
contain, record, note, refer to, relate to, describe, be relevant
to, state, or mention.
G. When used herein, the term "Plaintiff" shall refer to
Michael J. Kman, Jr., Plaintiff herein.
H. When used herein, the term "Defendant" shall refer to all
named Defendants unless the term is clearly referring to one or
more specific Defendant.
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. Whenever a request for documents is framed in the
conjunctive, it shall also be taken in the disjunctive and vice
versa.
B. Whenever a request for documents is framed in the
singular, it shall be taken in the plural, and vice versa.
- 4 -
C. The use of any tense of any verb shall be considered also
to include within its meaning all other tenses of the verb so used.
D, All documents produced shall be segregated and identified
by the paragraphs to which they are primarily responsive. Where
required by a particular paragraph of this Request, documents
produced shall be further segregated and identified as indicated in
that paragraph. For any documents which are stored or maintained
in files in the normal course of business, such documents shall be
produced in such files, or in such a manner as to preserve and
identify the file from which such documents were taken.
E. If you object to the production of any document on the
grounds that the attorney-client, attorney work product or any
other privilege is applicable thereto, you shall, with respect to
that document:
(1) State its date;
(2) Identify its author;
(3) Identify each person who prepared or participated in
the preparation of the document;
(4) Identify each person who received it;
(5) Identify each person from whom the document was
received;
(6) State the present location of the document and all
copies thereof;
(7) Identify each person who has ever had possession,
custody or control of it or a copy thereof; and
(8) Provide sufficient information concerning the
document and the circumstances thereof to explain the claim of
privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of that
claim.
F. All documents produced in response to this Request shall
be produced in t2tQ notwithstanding the fact that portions thereof
may contain information not requested. The documents shall include
- 5 -
interim as well as final editions of a document, and shall include
all editions or copies of a document which are not identical to
(whether due to handwritten notations, or revisions. or otherwise)
the original or other produced copy of a document,
G, This Request shall be deemed to be continuing so as to
require a supplemental answer by the person to whom this Request is
directed, or such person's agents, employees, representatives, or
attorney if such pe~son(s) obtain any information relevant to this
Request between the time of response hereto and the trial of this
case.
III. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
You are requested to produce the following:
a) The 24 month persistency reports for the Healey Agency
for the years 1989 through 1995;
b) The reports and method used by Mom to determine the
profitability of the Healey Agency for the years 1989 through 1995
- this report might be called a profit and loss report; and
c) The year-end reviews of Donald Healey and the Regional
Vice President's summary letter of review to Mr. Healey for the
years 1989 through 1995.
Date: S'.ept4"J.J~II,- 19:;?-
Respectfully submitted,
By: r;[;~~~~t~'
Supreme Court I.D. # 30622
Attorney for Plaintiff
1721 North Front Street
Suite 101
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 236-9585
- 6 -
a:I
I
1
/
.
i
<
I
I
.
I
~
.
~
.
~
MICRAEL J. KHAN, JR. .
.
PLAINTIFF I
I
.
.
v. I
I
DONALD M. HEALEY; HEALEY .
.
ASSOCIATES; HEALEY FINANCIAL I
CORPORATION; AND THE MUTUAL .
.
LIFB INSURANCB COMPANY .
.
OF NEW YOU, DEFENDANTS I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-6120 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATION OP SERVICE
i
! t.
I hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed
below a true and correct copy of DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS in the
above-captioned matter this date by regular mail.
Gregory H. Knight, Esquire
1721 North Front Street
suite 101
Harrisburg, PA 17102
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER
COLEMAN AND GOGGIN
DATED: september~, 1997
BY:
. McMahon, Esqu re
for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL J. KMAN, JR.,
plaintiff
NO. 94-6120 CIVIL TERM
v.
DONALD M. HEALEY, HEALEY :
ASSOCIATES, HEALEY FINANCIAL
CORP., and THE MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW
YORK,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner
indicated below:
Service by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid,
addressed to:
Timothy J, McMahon, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehy, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine Street
4th Floor
P. O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
Date:,O ~I~k 1.9.97-"
Respectfully submitted,
6) .
By: Gr::Jy~, K~~~
Attorney for Plaintiff
1721 North Front Street
Suite 101
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 236-9585