HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-03112
The items to be produced for inspection and photocopying are the following:
1. Any and all medical, dental, mental, psychological, psychiatric records of any individual
pertaining to evaluations, examinat.ionsl diagnoses, care. treatment and/or prognoses .
pertaining to the injures you claim have been caused by the incident referred to in the
complaint;
2. All reports of all diagnostic tests which have been prefonned for conditions you claim
have been caused by the incident referred to in the complaint;
3, All diagnostic films, tapes and/or other diagnostic procedures which have been done in
connection with any conditions which you claim result from the incident referred to in
your complaint:
4, All diaries, notes, tapes, videosl journals or other materials or documents prepared by you
and/or anyone in your behalf pertaining to the events referred to in your complaint and/or
the injuries or damages you claim to have been caused thereby;
5, All re~ords of any inpatient and/or outpatient examinations. evaluations, care or treatment
at any hospital. rehabilitation facility, medical, mental, psychological or psychiatric
facility to which you have been referred or in which you have received any evaluation.
examination, care or treatment for conditions you claim have been caused by the incident
referred to in your complaint:
6, Your income tax returns. state and federal, for the years 1994 to the present;
7, All bills or invoices or other records of payment for all professional services provided to
you which you claim were necessitated by the incident referred to in your complaint;
8. All exhibits which you intend to use at the trial of this case,
MITCHELL. MITCHELL, GRAY & GALLAGHER
A Professional Corporation
BY:
. r;--'
(/'t/ '/ t?.{(/~~ (
- c. Edwar- S. ~iitchell I.D.#07222
Attorneys for Defendant
10 West Third Street
Williumsport. PA 17701
(570)323-8404
-2-
,
II. ~SUE
.SIjQULD THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
TJiE DEFENDANTS' 03/18/99 DISCOVERY REQUESTS BE GRANTED
PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4006,
AND 4009.12 IN THA T THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SERVE
ANSWERS TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN THE REQUIRED
TlIWE PERIOD UNDER THOSE RULES?
Suggested answer: Yes,
III. ARGUMENT
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 requires answers to interrogatories
within thirty (30) days after the date of service, Sanctions may be imposed for failure to
serve timely answers to interrogatories, Voqel v, Berkl~, 40 D & C 3d 339 (1985),
affirmed, 511 A,2d B7B (Pa, Super, 19B6), Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019
provides for sanctions, to include an order of court compelling a party to serve answers
to interrogatories and requests for production of documents,
Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009,12 requires a party served
with requests for production of documents to serve answers to such requests within
thirty (30) days after service, A motion to compel answers is a proper method of
seeking answers to discovery when a party fails to timely reply with the discovery rules
under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Linker v, Churnetski TransDortatim
Inc, 520 A,2d 502 (Pa, Super, 19B7),
In this case, the Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
2
'- I() ;-~
~:F 1.(; l"
,~~ . . ;::
I ,II r', "', ~ .f"
I _,.':O.t
, \
u: - ~;,
(;:) I w... ':::/t5
,I (
{.'-r " ,~,) "(I)
I , i , ('J 'J>..:
,.1 , ~;::_; J;:?.'
iJ,~
i )1U
"oJ c.d;.
" n'-~
~~.l C';") :,:J
Vl 0
,
PB.lIECIPE fQBJ"IST!NG J~,'~SI;,EQf3..e.RGUMEm
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY;
Please list the within mailer for the next Argument Court,
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
CURTIS S, AllEMAN,
Plaintiff
liS,
WilLIAM R. CURRIE, DDS, and
CURRIE & HECHT ORAL &
MAXillOFACIAL SURGEONS, PC,
Defendants
No, 98-3112 Civil Action-law 1998
1, State mailer to be argued:
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions
2, Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for Plaintiff Pro Se
Address: 229 Meadow Drive
Shippensburg, PA 17257
(b) for Defendant: C, Edward S, Mitchell or Darryl R, Wishard
Mitchell, Mitchell, Gray & Gallagher
10 West Third Street
Williamsport, PA 17701
3, I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4, Argument Court Date:
MITCHEll, MITCHELL, GRAY & GAllAGHER
a professional cor~mratlo 1;/'/
'--/~
------ \ //
BY Y,.
D r'yl R. ishard ID #56862
Attorneys for Defendants
10 West Third Street
Williamsport, PA 17701 (5'10) 323-8404
'~~QSC t \c- ~;~ I
\~,;S~ \ ':) C\cj.~\l'::"::>\Iv
'-~h\s 0\ ex ,~~(Iq \kl
. ,Y\ \\tor'\f\)) \'O~o\-
he; ~~((\\ (u.x' --\- I '
-"",
'- (') "'>..
rJ~ c=- l-:;;
t~: <..
.. 7,,!,,,'f
LLir~l 9 f_).-:-'J
Coo')" .... ;.~) :{~I
\" c> .<'~~ ""'. ~'I.
~ ',,- ...:! "->j
l)L',' /J~..
G' ,"", :'~-"en
'11.:, ':) ,;;.~
":ll-.c h'im
['ii' ...,1
t.,'_;_ ::, ~,~,i:
(. -'J .~"
Lt... U'I ~.;!
0 en U
"
"
10, On 06/08/99, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel answers to their
discovery requests A copy of that Motion to Compel is attached to this Motion as
Exhibit "1" and Incorporated herein by reference,
11, On 06/11/99, the Court, by Order of Judge Hess, granted the Defendants'
Molion to Compel, and required the Plaintiff to answer the Defendants' discovery
requests within 15 days of the date of service of the Order on the Plaintiff, A copy of
the Court's 06/11/99 Order is attached to this Motion as Exhibit "2" and incorporated
herein by reference,
12, On 06/17/99, the Defendants' counsel, via certified mail and first class
regular mall, served the Plaintiff with a copy of the Court's 06/11/99 Order at the
Plaintiff's address as listed in the Plaintiff's Complaint. A copy of that correspondence
is attached to this Motion as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by reference,
13, The certified mail copy of the Defendants' letter sending the Court's
06/11/99 Order to the Plaintiff was returned unclaimed,
14, The first class regular mail copy of the Defendants' letter sending the
Court's 06/11/99 Order to the Plaintiff was not returned,
'15, On 06/23/99, the Defendants filed a Celiifieate of Service with the
Prothonotary indicating that service of the Court's 06/11/99 Order was made on the
Plaintiff by the Defendants on 06/17/99 via certified mail and first class regular mail _
postage prepaid
16, To date, the Plaintiff has not answered the Defendants' discovery requests
as requir9d by the Court's 06/11/99 Order,
17, Fifteen days have elapsed since the Court's Order was served on Pllllnliff
on 06/17/99
18, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019(a)(1 )(viii) states that the Court
may, on motion, make an appropriate order is a party fails to obey an order of court
regarding discovery.
19, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019(c)(3) states that the Court may I
on motion, enter a judgment of non pros against a party disobeying an order of court
regarding discovery
20, The discovery sought by the Defendants is not privileged, is relevant to the
subject matter of the action, and is required to properly defend this action at trial.
21, In addition, the discovery requested, including the discovery of the expert
opinions and reports of the Plaintiff's experts regarding the standard of care and
causation in support of this dental malpractice action, are required in order for the
Plaintiff to state a prima facie case at trial,
22, The Plaintiff has shown a lack of due diligence in failing to comply with the
Court's 06/11/99 Order, and has shown no compelling reason for the delay.
23, The Defendants are prejudiced by the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's 06/11/99 Order and failure to answer the Defendants' discovery requests,
24, The Defendants' counsel sought concurrence from Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff
has an unlisted telephone number, could not be contacted telephonically, and did not
respond to the Defendants' previous written request to respond to the discovery and to
the Court's 06/11/99 Order at the address listed as the Plaintiff's address on the
Plaintiff's Complaint. Thus, the Defendants assume that the Plaintiff does not concur
with the foregoing Motion,
CURTIS S, ALLEMAN,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA,
: No, 96-3112
vs.
WILLIAM R CURRIE, D,D,S, and
CURRIE & HECHT ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, PC,
Defendants
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFE CANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO RE ES
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORies.
1, This is a dental malpractice action,
2. The Plaintiff initiated this action by Writ of Summons, dated 06/3/96,
3. On 06/16/96, the Cumberland County Prothonotary issued a Rule on the
Plaintiff to file his Complaint
4. On 07/06/96, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint
5, The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections on 07/23/96,
6. On 10/06/98, the Court, by President Judge Hofferl Judge Oler, and Judge
Guido, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Preliminary Objections I and
directed the Defendants to file an Answer within twenty (20) days,
7, On 10/26/96, the Defendants filed an Answer and New Matter,
6. On 03/16/99, the Defendants served Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents on the Plaintiff, A copy of those discovery requests are
attached to this Motion as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference,
9, On 04/23/99, the Defendants served a letter on the Plaintiff requesting
answers to the Defendants' discovery requests, A copy of that letter, dated 04/23/991 is
attached to this Motion as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference,
CURTIS S, ALLEMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
VS, : No, 98-3112
WILLIAM R CURRIE, D,D,S, and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CURRIE & HECHT ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, PC,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
q~"
DARRYL R WISHARD, hereby certifies that on this __ day of July, 1999, he
filed to foregoing with the Cumberland County Prothonotary by U,S, Mail, postage
prepaid, first class rates,
He further certifies that a true and correct copy has been mailed to the following
by U,S, Mail, postage prepaid, first class rates:
Curtis S, Alleman
229 Meadow Drive
Shippensburg, PA 17257
(1971 ),
In ~awrence v, General Medicine Association Lid" 602 A,2d 1360 (Pa, Super,
1992), the defendants served the plaintiff with interrogatories and request for
production of documents, which the plaintiff failed to answer, The defendant then filed
a motion to compel, which the court granted, When the plaintiff failed to comply with
the court's order, the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, and the court entered a
judgment of non pros against the plaintiff, On appeal, the court in Lawrence affirmed,
holding that a judgment of non pros was an appropriate sanction under RLlle 4019 for
the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order compelling answers to the
defendant's discovery, in light of the plaintiff's lack of due diligence, lack of compelling
reason for the delay, and prejudice to the defendant in light of the discovery sought by
the defendant. The court in L~Jill9!l. further noted that the defendant's discovery
sought expert opinions from the plaintiff's experts, and, given the fact that the plaintiff's
action was for medical negligence, the information sought was determinative of the
entire controversy, went to the heart of the plaintiff's medical negligence action, and
was required for the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case, !..awrence, 602 A.2d at 1364,
See McSlov v, Jeanes Hospital, 546 A,2d 684 (Pa, Super, 1988) (affirming a judgment
of non pros entered by trial court under Rule 4019),
In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to act with due diligence, The Plaintiff has
not complied with the Court's 06/11/99 Order The Plaintiff has failed to answer the
Defendants' discovery requests, Further, the Plaintiff has failed to present any
compelling reason for his delay, This action stems from the Defendants' alleged acts of
3
"-,
I . I
I
Ul I
. I
~ Q
.~ I
Q Q I
..:I ~
.< M .S
~ t1l~ t? .... 3 I
HO l1.0 I
~ Ulr-, S if
W ~.... ....
I~~ - ::>:r:..:I .~ 4
uu<uw< J i~
W H . Q l1. ~
N .:r: U p.. Z I
.... ~ <C <. I
.... IUl~ "'~UlXW i I
M I H ~ OZW..:I I
I jUl.... W..:IO..:lUl I
co HZ >-1H..:IW<"1 I
C1\ ...."1 ..:I ~ H l:> .~ I
~< ..:I~~O::CO~ I
i '::>..:1 H::> .::>M ><I: I
IUl1. :J:UXUlMU I
... 4 'P
\
..,.~ "J r~:
tl~
" C-,
t.' "J \ """
t!1 )
~ .~ { ~i~
ll.,
{ , ;
r ,) ec,
[jii , !
. I. ~",-, i,d)
-r ,
I.. f' ",J i'i{L
--J ,
, , W "")
() l;il 0
,-"
l~
"
,'"
..... (\J
Ie; \,\,
I-.'-! ..
l.u(':-i (\}
(J~if ,.,.,
I!::', .
fi..
(i'.c, C":J
s:);:
";C't. f". , I
ft, .., ;'..:'.1
/. i . .~};
II ('I)
0 (,.1' U
. -..........--
PRAECIPE FOR LISTIN_G CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(HUst be typewJ:i,tten and subnitted in dupliC4te)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the wit:h.in matter far the next Arg\ll1ent Court.
------------------------.-----------------------------"---------------------------~~~---
CAPTION OF CASE
(entu-e caption must be stated in full)
CURTIS S. ALLllMAN
(Plaintiff)
VB.
WILLIAM R, CURRIll, D,n.S. and
CURRH~ & HllCHT ORAL &
MAXILWFACIAL SUIWIWNS, l'. C.
( Defendant)
f'b. 98-3112 Civil Action-Law 19 98
1. State matter to be argued (Le.. plaintiff's IlDtion for new b.-ial, defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.):
Defendants' PreUmIna ry Db.! ectIolls to PlaIntif l" s Complafnt (Hotioll to StrIke and,
in the alternatIve, Hotion for Hore Specffic Complafnt.)
2. Identify counsel wl10 will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff:
Address:
Pro Se
(b) for defendant:
Address:
C. Edward S. NHchell or narryl Wishard
Hftchell, HItchell, Gray & GallaAher
10 West l~ird Street
Williamsport. I'A 17701
3. I will notify all parties in writing wit:h.in 00 days that this c-..ase has
been lis ted for arglI1lf.m t.
4. Arglment Court Date:
October 7, 1998
DrIted: 8/18/98
(~tG~~7
Attorney for f. ,~; 01'1 c:(~-rt7cr
,J
I
'I
:>-.
t.J['
I'
llJ~
(:J
(l'
'.1.
(.'1_
'{ ,
\,n,
:Uj',
''',.II
li,
(';
..
N
,
"
(J\
('-'
I
,fl"
""-4
II
C)
n
0\
~)
'tw-'......
111
CURTIS S. ALLEMAN, I
Plaintiff I
I
I
I
V, I
I
I
WILLIAM R. CURRIE, D,D.S. and I
CURRIE & HECHT ORAL & I
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, P,C., I
Defendants I
IN THE COUR'I' ()[o' COMMON PIII~A8 OF
CUMBERLAND COUN'I'Y, l'ENNIlYLVANI:A
NO, 98w3112 CIVIL TRRM
IN RE I DEFENDANT' 8 PRILIHItfAB.lLJmlllQUQ1lI
BEFORE HOFF!ULJ...J.JL..L-QLlIL..JlIlID.O..,~tl.&L
QRDER 9r Q2.!H\t
AND NOW, this __,~ day of OCTOBER, 1998, after
argument, Defendant's Preliminary Objoot.Jonlf I\ro GRANTED 1/\ part
and DENIED in part. The Preliminary ObjeoUonH art:! GRANTED
insofar as the following pOl,tions of the oomplaint are STRICKEN'
(a) The phrases "but is not limited to" and "such
other acts or omissions that Hhall beoome known in the
course of discovery" from paragraph 16.
(b) Subparagraph (h) of paragraph 16,
(c) The phraso "and other oonlfideratJ,onll" from
paragraph 21.
The remaining Preliminary ObjeatiOll1l are DENIED,
Defendant is directed to file an Answer wit.hin twenty (20) days
of receipt of this Order.
Curtis S. Alleman, Pro Se
C. Edward S. MitChell, Esq,
For the Defendants
..
Isld
&rf-u...... ,,,.ytJ', i'
Ic/tllftI,
"j, rtJ,
Edward E. Guido, J.
"
'}, SFP" ,.J ~1: 1\ l~
l" I', :' """
'....-"0;'.._';;-'- ,'.,_' \,._/di'lll
, 1":'1' 1""'1'\1" I','
lJ-I'h)\ .,/1:\:/\
-
~. ~
::l-
~ !Y
IJ,.~ ~
'A ~
~
t~ ?-
I:r '
.::: '1
~
r1 -
(J'"'
CE.
<:ro
"t