HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1456.awrence j. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
State Correction,
Officers' Association,
Defendant
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE
CUMBER AS OF
LAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· NO. 03- 1%7.. CIVIL TERM
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims
;et forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written apPearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set
forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without
you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for
any money claimed in the Complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the
Plaintiff. You may lose money or Property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
.awrence j. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
State Correction,
Officers' Association,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMO
: CUMBERLAND _ N PLEAs OF
: COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· NO. 03-1 ? 5"G CIVIL TERM
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff is Lawrence j. Ludwig, an adult individual, currently res/ding at
1010 Schwanger Road, Elizabethtown, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 17022.
2. Defendant is the Pennsylvania State Correction Officers' Association,
lereinafter "PSCOA," is an legal association and certified labor organization serving as
a bargaining unit for correctional officers employed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania with a current business address of 101 Erford Road, Suite 200, Camp Hill,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011.
3. Plaintiff Ludwig, prior to August 5, 2002,
PSCOA and its President.
was a founding member of
4. On August 5, 2002, at the request of the Executive Board of the PSCOA
Ludwig resigned his position as President in consideration of an agreement Presented
to him by the Executive Board of the PSCOA.
5. The agreement, which is attached hereto and made a part of hereof,
provided the incentive to Plaintiff Ludwig to resign his paid position as President of the
PSCOA and entered into an agreement for the performance of consultation services for
a one (1) year period from August 6, 2002 through August 5, 2003.
6. The Plaintiff, in reliance of the agreement, did resign his position and did
;nter into said agreement, which agreement was prepared by, Under the direction of
~nd at the insistence of the Executive Board of Defendant PSCOA.
7. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Ludwig did perform those minimal
'bligations set forth in the agreement for the Performance of consultation services.
8. On or about November 23, 2002, the Defendant PSCOA did terminate,
unilaterally and without any legal justification the said agreement between itself and
Plaintiff Ludwig and did stop payments to Plaintiff Ludwig pursuant to this agreement.
9. Plaintiff Ludwig was to have been paid, pursuant to the agreement, for the
)erformance of Consultation services $77,509.52 from August 6, 2002 through
August 5, 2003.
10. In addition to these sums, the Defendant PSCOA was to pay into Plaintiff
-udwig's retirement account such sums as necessary to make annual payments,
medical insurance premiums on his behalf, SUpPlemental medical benefits and life
wnsurance premiums. The total amount of the sums are unknown to the Plaintiff but are
in such amount as required to be paid on his behalf by Defendant PSCOA.
11. Defendant PSCOA paid Plaintiff Ludwig pursuant to the agreement for the
Performance of consultation services between August 5, 2002 and November 23, 2002,
the sum of $21,581.63, leaving a contract balance due of $55,9227.89, plus the
unliquidated Sums mentioned above.
12. Plaintiff Ludwig is entitled to payments on the agreement as outlined
above, plus interest from November 23, 2002 and costs of suit.
1 ;3. Plaintiff Ludwig, at all times relevant hereto, performed faithfully his duties
)Ursuant to the agreement for the Performance of consultation services and Defendant
:~SCOA, Without any legal justification, did unilaterally terminate said agreement and,
Iherefore, Violated its contractual obligations due to Plaintiff Ludwig pursuant to the
~greement as set forth more fully above.
WHEREFORE, for all the above reasons, Plaintiff Lawrence j. Ludwig, demands
iudgment in his favor in a sum of $55,927.89 on the Unpaid port/on of the contract, those
~ums as determined by the Court owing to him for retirement payments, medical
insurance Premiums, SUpPlemental medical benefits and life insurance Premiums, plus
interest from the date of breach and costs of this action.
Date
Respectfully Submitted
TURO LAW OFFICES
28 South Pitt Street
Car/isle, PA 17013
('717) 245-9688
Attorney for Plaintiff
Executive V~ce President
_VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct.
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S
{}4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2003-01456 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
LUDWIG LAWRENCE J
VS
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTION
HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTION OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION the
DEFENDANT , at 1345:00 HOURS, on the 2nd day of April , 2003
SUITE 200
by handing to
COORDINATOR, ADULT IN CHARGE
at 101 ERFORD ROAD
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
WILLIAM PARK, ASST GRIEVANCE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 11.04
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
39.04
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this /6 t day of'
~- ~ A.D.
~honot ary t ~
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
04/02/2003
RON TURO
By:
Deputy Sherzff
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Vo
Pennsylvania State Corrections
Officers Association,
Defendant
In The Court Of Common Pleas Of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 03-145;6 Civil Term
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please enter my appearance as
Corrections Officers Association.
counsel on
behalf e,f Defendant, Pennsylvania State
Jennings Sigmond
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Fl.
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612
April 17, 2003
Respectful~/mitted,
THOMAS ~.fl~ENNINGS, ESQUIRE
Attorney t.SDc'No. 09890
113786-1
Certificate of Service
I, Thomas W. Jennings, hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing
document, Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, was served on the 17th day of April, 2003, via first-
class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, upon counsel of record as follows:
April 17, 2003
Ron Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 1701~,~
THOMA~5~E$~NINGS, ESQUIRE
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed
Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service
hereof, or a .default judgment may be entered against
you.
Attorney t~r Defendant, Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 09890
Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612
Attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Pennsylvania State Corrections
Officers Association,
Defendant
In The Court Of Common Pleas Of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 03-1456 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER~ NEW MATTER AND COUNTER CLAIM OF DEFENDANT
Defendant, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
by and through its legal counsel, hereby answers and counterclaims the Plaintiff's Complaint in
the above-captioned matter and pleads new matter as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. It is admitted that the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (hereinafter
"PSCOA") is the certified collective bargaining representative of certain designated employees
(including Corrections Officers) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. PSCOA maintains a
current business address at 101 Erford Road, Suite 200, Camp Hill, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17011-1808.
3. It is admitted that Plaintiff Ludwig was a member of PSCOA and served as its President
for a brief period prior to his voluntary resignation.
4. It is admitted that on August 5, 2002, Ludwig voluntarily resigned his position as
President of PSCOA. It is specifically denied that said resignation was "at the request of the
Executive Board." It is specifically denied that Ludwig's resignation was "in consideration of an
Agreement presented to him by the Executive Board of PSCOA." By way of further response, it
is asserted that Ludwig resigned his position as President of PSCOA in order to avoid an
investigation, and potential initiation of charges, by the Union arising from Ludwig's alleged
violations of the Union's Sexual Harassment Policy that protected the Union's employees from
inappropriate sexual conduct.
5. The authenticity of the Agreement that is attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint is
admitted. It is specifically denied that the Agreement was intended an "incentive" to Ludwig to
resign his paid position as President of the PSCOA.
6. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff "in reliance of the Agreement" resigned his
position and entered into said Agreement. As hereinbefore stated, Ludwig's motivation for
2
resigning his position was to avoid an investigation into his conduct arising from allegations of
his violation of the Sexual Harassment Policy of the Union. It is admitted that the Executive
Board of the PSCOA was aware of and authorized the execution of the Agreement. All
remaining allegations contained in paragraph six are denied.
7. Denied. On the contrary, and as set forth hereinafter, Ludwig engaged in a course of
misconduct that was utterly and irreconcilably inconsistent with his obligations under the
Agreement.
8. It is admitted that on or about November 23, 2002 and as a direct and immediate result of
Ludwig's misconduct, the Defendant PSCOA did terminate any further payments to Ludwig
under the Agreement.
9. It is denied that said termination was "without any legal justification." On the contrary,
and as more fully set forth hereinafter, Ludwig was at all times after August 5, 2002 in material
and substantive breach of the Agreement. The terms of the Contract speak for itself. By way of
further response, it is asserted that no payments were due to Ludwig subsequent to his material
breach of the Contract.
10. The terms of the Contract speaks for itself and no responsive pleading is required..
11. It is admitted that PSCOA paid Ludwig $21,581.63 and that other fringe benefit
payments were made by PSCOA on his behalf. It is denied that there is any "Contract balance"
due in any amount and specifically the amount alleged in paragraph eleven is denied.
12. Denied.
13. It is specifically denied that Ludwig "at all times relevant hereto, performed faithfully his
duties pursuant to the Agreement for the performance of consultation services." On the contrary,
it is specifically asserted that from the inception of the contract Ludwig engaged in numerous
substantive material breaches of said Contract that terminated any right that he might have
otherwise possessed under the terms of said Contract. It is specifically denied that PSCOA did
"unilaterally terminate said Agreement" or that PSCOA "violated its contractual obligations due
to Plaintiff Ludwig pursuant to the Agreement as set forth more fully above."
NEW MATTER
Pursuant to Rule 1030 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant,
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, by and through its legal counsel, hereby
asserts the following new matter to the Defendant's Complaint in the above-captioned matter:
FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
14. Defendant, PSCOA, hereby incorporates its answers to ¶¶ 1-13 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint as set forth above as if fully set forth hereinafter.
15. The essence of the Contract between the parties 'was that Plaintiff Ludwig was to
provide good and faithful service to the PSCOA for the period of the Contract.
4
16. In complete and irreconcilable breach of his obligations under the Contract, Ludwig
immediately commenced from the effective date of the Contract to participate in a course of
conduct characterized by disloyalty to PSCOA, improper disclosure of confidential information,
the making of disparaging remarks regarding the organization, its officers and activities and
other conduct that was totally and completely inconsistent with his obligations under the
Contract.
17. Ludwig's conduct rendered it impossible for PSCOA to utilize his services as set forth
in the contract.
18. As a direct and immediate consequence of Defendant's conduct, there was a total
failure of consideration underlying the Contract in that PSCOA was unable to utilize the services
of Ludwig.
JUSTIFICATION
19. Defendant, PSCOA, hereby incorporates its answers to ¶¶ 1-13 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint as set forth above as if fully set forth hereinafter.
20. By virtue of Ludwig's misconduct as hereinbefore described, Ludwig's services were
rendered meaningless and valueless to the PSCOA. Accordingly, PSCOA was justified in
terminating the agreement.
SET OFF
21. Defendant, PSCOA, hereby incorporates its answers to ¶¶ 1-13 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint as set forth above as if fully set forth hereinafter.
22. Subsequent to the termination of the contract by PSCOA, Ludwig could have and
belatedly did accept employment. To the extent that he did received or could have received
compensation up through and including August 5, 2003, such compensating must be deducted
from any amount that might be determined to be owing to him by PSCOA.
COUNTER CLAIM
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
V.
LAWRENCE LUDWIG
collective bargaining representative of approximately ten thousand employees
Departments of Correction and Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association ("PSCOA") is the certified
of the
PSCOA.
Until August 5, 2002, Lawrence Ludwig ("Ludwig") was the President of the
o
On August 5, 2002, Ludwig resigned his position as President of PSCOA.
6
4. On that date, he entered into an Agreement with PSCOA whereby he would provide
various consulting services to the PSCOA.
5. In order to provide such services, it was necessary that Ludwig possess and continue
to possess the trust of PSCOA.
6. Immediately after executing the Agreement and continuously thereafter, Ludwig entered
upon a course of conduct through which he exhibited complete and total disloyalty to the
PSCOA, its goals and purposes. This course of conduct included, but was not limited to:
(a) Actively encouraging members of PSCOA to disavow their interest and support in
PSCOA and to decertify the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the
bargaining unit; and
(b) Disclosing confidential information regarding the operation and administration of
the PSCOA to numerous outsiders;
(c) Speaking and writing disparagingly of PSCOA
members of the bargaining unit; and
and its efforts on behalf of
(d) Actively undermining the ability of the PSCOA, through its lawful officers, to
conduct its business.
7. As result of Ludwig's efforts, he rendered himself completely and totally incapable of
performing the duties and responsibilities set forth in the August 5, 2002 Agreement.
7
8. From August 5, 2002, the PSCOA, unaware of Ludwig's duplicity and misconduct, paid
Ludwig the determined amount on a weekly basis as well as provided various fringe benefits.
9. On November 23, 2002 and as a direct and immediate result of Ludwig's misconduct as
aforesaid, the PSCOA terminated its Agreement with Ludwig and refused to make any further
payments. By that time, the PSCOA had paid the sum of $21,581.63 to Ludwig and had made
various fringe benefit contributions on his behalf.
10. PSCOA's decision to terminate any further payments to Ludwig as of November 23,
2002 was premised upon Ludwig's abrogation of his responsibilities under the Agreement and
his conduct that rendered him totally untrustworthy and that left his services without value.
11. The payments made to Ludwig between August 5, 2002 and November 23, 2002 were
made without PSCOA's knowledge of Ludwig's duplicity.
12. By failing to conduct himself in a manner consistent with his obligations under the
Agreement, Ludwig materially breached the Agreement of August 5, 2002 from its inception and
wrongfully received payment of the $21,581.63 and other fringe benefits as aforesaid.
8
WHEREFORE, the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association hereby
requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Complainant's Cmnplaint against the Pennsylvania
State Corrections Officers Association, enter judgment on behalf of the Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association in the amount of $21,581.63 plus the value of fringe benefits
paid on Ludwig's behalf, direct that Ludwig pay all court costs and enter such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate at time of trial.
T~)MAS W. JE1YI~IINGS, I~SQUIRE
Attorney for Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association
Attorney I.D. No. 09890
Jennings Sigmond
The Penn Mutual 'rowers, 16th Fl.
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612
April 25, 2003
9
VERIFICATION
I, Donald McNany, state that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, and that the facts set froth in the foregoing
Answer, New Matter And Counter Claim Of Defendant are true and correct to the best of my
information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. {}4904 relating to unswom falsifications to authorities.
DONALD MCN3rN¥~-----~
Date:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 09890
Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612
Attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Vo
Pennsylvania State Corrections
Officers Association,
Defendant
In The Court Of Common Pleas Of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 03-1456 Civil Term
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THOMAS W, JENNINGS, ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a tree and correct copy of
the attached Answer, New Matter And Counter Claim Of Defendant was forwarded via United
Parcel Service Next Business Day Delivery and via facsimile, on the date set forth below to the
following individual:
Date:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
THOMAS W. JENN~GS
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania State Correction, '
Officers' Association, '
Defendant
· NO. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER
AND COUNTER CLAIM.
14. No response required.
15. The terms of the contract speaks for itself and no responsive pleading is
required·
16. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied and
proof of the same is demanded at trial.
17. Denied· At all times relevant hereto the Plaintiff performed as required
under the contract and it was PSCOA which unilaterally violated the terms
of the contract and PSCOA is now solely liable to the Plaintiff as set forth
above in his complaint.
18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which
no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive is required the Plaintiff
re-alleges his total compliance, at all times, with the contract at issue·
19. No response required·
20. Denied. Plaintiff re-alleges that he, at all times, complied completely with
the term and conditions of the contract and it was the Defendant, PSCOA,
which unilaterally terminated the agreement in violation of its terms and is
now liable solely to the Plaintiff·
21. No response required.
22. Admitted and Denied. It is admitted that Ludwig did accept employment
subsequent to the entry of the contract but it is denied that such acceptance
of employment, in anyway, was a violation of the terms of the contract. By
a way of further answer the contract specifically allows Ludwig to have
8. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that PSCOA did pay Ludwig pursuant
to the contract for a period of time and there after unilaterally terminated
the agreement. It is denied that Ludwig was involved in "duplicity and
misconduct" and Plaintiff re-alleges his allegations above.
9. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the Defendant paid the sums set
forth and further admitted that the Defendant terminated the agreement
however it is denied that Ludwig, in any way, caused the termination and
the Defendant is liable to Ludwig on the agreement as set forth above.
10. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that PSCOA terminated payments. It
is specifically denied that Ludwig, in anyway, "abrogated" his
responsibilities in the agreement.
11. Neither admitted nor denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph
are not within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and proof of the same is
demanded at trial.
12. Neither admitted nor denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. Proof of the same
is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against the
defendant in the amount set forth in his complaint.
DATE
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter and
Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. {}4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date
Lawrence Jori ~w~g
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· NO. 03-1456
Pennsylvania State Correction,:
Officers' Association, '
Defendant '
CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's
Answer to New Matter and Counter Claim upon Thomas W. Jennings,
Esquire, attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers
Association by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class,
postage pre-paid on the /~'~. day of ~"k4 t//, 2003, from Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: //
Thomas W. dennings, Esq
Jennings Sigrnond, P.C.
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street, Independence Square
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
TURO LAW OFFICES
Ro~ro, Esquir~
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
Attorney for Plaintiff
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
I.D. NO. 45701
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attomeys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendant Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association ("PSCOA"), by and
through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court to enter an Order pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
4019 compelling Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Ludwig ("Ludwig"), to respond to certain discovery
requests propounded to Ludwig by PSCOA in this matter.
In support of this Motion, Defendant avers as follows:
1. The instant Civil Action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint on March
31, 2003. Defendant PSCOA filed an Answer to the Complaim: on April 25, 2003.
2. On June 25, 2003, Defendant served it's First Set of Interrogatories and First
Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff, copies of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit "1."
response to Document Request on or about November 16, 2003.
Defendant received Plaintiff's Interrogatory responses on October 7, 2003 and
Copies of Plaintiff's
Interrogatory responses are attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
4. On or about December 29, 2003, Defendant served upon Plaintiff a Second
Request for Production of Documents, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "3."
5. Said request asked the Plaintiff to provide the following:
Copies of Plaintiff Ludwig's itemized telephone bills for the months of
August, September, October and November 2002. This shall include bills
relating to Plaintiff Ludwig's home telephone number (land-line) as well as all
cellular telephone numbers used by the Plaintiff during this time period.
a.)
The personal home computer in Plaintiff Ludwig's possession between the
months of August and November 2002. Tiffs means the personally owned
computer he possessed in addition to the ]?SCOA computer that was in his
possession temporarily. Plaintiff Ludwig need only make the hard-drive of
the computer available for inspection.
b.)
6. In response, counsel for Plaintiff provided Defendant a letter dated January 13,
2004, in which he objected to this discovery and refused to provide the requested documents. A
tree and correct copy of Plaintiff's January 13, 2004 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "4."
7. For the reasons stated herein and contained in the accompanying Memorandum of
Law, Defendant requires an Order of this Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 409(a)(1)(vii) compelling
Plaintiff to comply with Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order compelling
Plaintiff to comply with Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents or suffer
appropriate sanctions to be imposed upon application to the Court.
Date:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
THOMAS W. JENN1NGS
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Stree~I
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 922-6700
Attorneys for Del~endant
JENN1NGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
I.D. NO. 45701
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Perm Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL, DISCOVERY
This Memorandum of Law is submitted on behalf of Defendant Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association ("PSCOA" or "Union"), in support of its Motion to Compel
Discovery, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Lawrence J. Ludwig ("Ludwig"), commenced this action on March 31, 2003.
Through this action, Ludwig seeks $55,927.89. In his Complaint, Ludwig alleges that this
amount constitutes the unpaid portion of an "Agreement For The Performance Of Consultation
Services,''~ ("Agreement"), entered by the parties on August 5, 2002.
The PSCOA is the certified collective bargaining representative of approximately ten
thousand employees of the Departments of Corrections and Public Welfare of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Prior to August 5, 2002, Ludwig was the President of PSCOA.
On this date, upon offering his voluntary resignation, Ludwig entered into the Agreement with
PSCOA, whereby he would provide various consulting services to PSCOA.
The essence of the Agreement between the parties was that Ludwig, in return for
compensation totaling approximately $77,500.00,2 was to provide good and faithful service to
the PSCOA for the period of the Agreement.3 Unaware of any misconduct on the part of
Ludwig, and believing he was complying with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, for a
period extending through November, 2002, PSCOA paid Ludwig the determined amotmt on a
weekly basis as well as provided various fringe benefits. This atnount totaled $21,581.63.4
At or around this time, PSCOA learned that Ludwig had been, and continued to be, in
complete and irreconcilable breach of his obligations under the Agreement. This knowledge was
gleaned from evidence made available to PSCOA in the form of e-mail hard copies,5 telephone
logs and first-hand testimony regarding telephone calls and e-mails exchanges of which Ludwig
was a participant. PSCOA was made aware of multiple discussions and e-mail exchanges
between Ludwig and multiple individuals, including a member named John S. Owens, during
which Ludwig engaged in a course of conduct whereby he: Actively encouraged PSCOA
A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "5."
The same amount as the annual salary Ludwig received while serving as a PSCOA officer.
The Agreement was to apply fi.om the period of August 6, 2002 through August 5, 2003.
Not including the fi.inge benefit contributions.
Totaling over 100 e-mail exchanges.
2
members to disavow their interest and support in PSCOA and to decertify the Union as the
collective bargaining representative of the bargaining unit; disclosed confidential information
regarding the operation and administration of PSCOA to numerous outsiders; spoke and wrote
disparagingly of PSCOA and its efforts on behalf of members of the bargaining unit; and,
actively undermined the ability of PSCOA, through its lawful .officers, to conduct its business.
This evidence showed that from almost the day the Agreement was entered, Ludwig
immediately participated in a course of conduct characterized as disloyalty to PSCOA. Such
disloyalty was totally and completely inconsistent with Ludwig's obligations under the
Agreement. His conduct rendered Ludwig incapable of performing the duties and
responsibilities set forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, ,an November 23, 2002, PSCOA
terminated any further payments under the Agreement.
The instant action followed. During the course of discovery, PSCOA filed a First Set of
Interrogatories and a First Request for Production of Docun~ents which requested Ludwig to
produce, among other things, copies of e-mail exchanges in his possession. (See Exhibit 1,
Interrogatory numbers 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15; Document Request numbers 3.01, 3.07, 3.08.) In
responding to said requests, Ludwig provided to PSCOA approximately seventy-three (73) e-
mail "print-outs" which documented communication between Ludwig and former and current
PSCOA members.
In its First Request for Production of Documents, Defendant also requested from Ludwig
copies of phone bills relating to his conversations with PSCOA members. (See Exhibit 1; First
request for Production of Documents 3.07). In response, Ludwig provided Defendant with
copies of his cellular telephone bill covering only the dates of August 1, 2002 through August 9,
2002.
3
On or about December 29, 2003, Defendant presented Ludwig with a Second Request for
Production of Documents. The request asked the Plaintiffto provide the following:
a.) Copies of PlaintiffLudwig's itemized telephone bills for the months of August,
September, October and November 2002. T]his shall include bills relating to
Plaintiff Ludwig's home telephone number (land-line) as well as all cellular
telephone numbers used by the Plaintiff during this time period.
b.) The personal home computer in Plaintiff Ludwig's possession between the
months of August and November 2002. This means the personally owned computer
he possessed in addition to the PSCOA computer that was in his possession
temporarily. Plaintiff Ludwig need only make the hard-drive of the computer
available for inspection.
(See Exhibit 3)
Counsel for Ludwig responded to Defendant's Second Request for Production of
Documents with a letter dated January 13, 2004. In raising objections to the document request,
Ludwig's counsel noted: "Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure I object to this discovery as it
is sought in bad faith, would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, burden or expense
to Mr. Ludwig and is beyond the scope of discovery. Plaintiff reserves the right to object in
greater detail upon receipt of any motion to compel discovery that may be forthcoming." (See
Exhibit 4.)
The accompanying motion to Compel Discovery now follows.
II. ARGUMENT
Ludwig objects to the requests made by PSCOA in its Second Request for Production of
Documents under Rule 4011 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. He claims that the
requests are sought in bad faith, would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, burden or
expense and are beyond the scope of discovery.
4
Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides the general scope of
discovery. Specifically, the rule provides that "a party may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense
of any other party..." Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 (a) (emphasis supplied).
The requirement of relevancy is to be interpreted liberally permitting discovery if there is
any conceivable basis of relevancy. In Re Greco Appeal, 30 Pa. D. & C. 3d 661,662 - 63 (Pa.
Com. Pl. 1981). In determining the discoverability of particular matters, "courts have always
resolved relevancy problems with liberality and generosity in favor or the litigant seeking, in
good faith, information essential to a just presentation of his case. Davis v. Starosta, 62 Pa. D. &
C. 4th 76 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2002), citing, Fitt v General Motors Corporation, 13 Pa. D. & C. 4th 338
(Pa. Com. Pl. 1992). Moreover, any doubts are to be resolved in favor of relevancy so that if
there is any conceivable basis of relevancy, discovery should be allowed. General Motors
Corporation, Supra at 338. Furthermore, a party may not olzject to a discovery request on the
grounds that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial as long as the information
sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pa. R. C.P.
4003.1 (b).
Rule 4009.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that
a party may, upon request, inspect and copy any designated documents. These documents can
include "writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, electronically created data, and other
compilations of data from which information can be obtained." Rule 4009.1 also allows for the
inspection of any "tangible things...which are in the possession, custody or control of the party
or person upon whom the request or subpoena is served." Pa.R.C.P. 4009.1.
5
In meeting the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1, the discovery requested hem is
undeniably relevant to the subject matter of tiffs case. As is clear from the facts presented, the
PSCOA is raising the defense that it is effectively released from any obligations under the
Agreement as a result of Ludwig's conduct. PSCOA contends that Ludwig has breached the
Agreement and is therefore not entitled to the compensation he seeks in this action. Such breach
has been demonstrated through Ludwig's telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges.
PSCOA must be afforded an opportunity to properly raise such a defense at trial. In
order to do so, it is necessary that PSCOA thoroughly explore and investigate the
communications made by Ludwig which are adverse to its interests. Such communication was in
the form of telephone conversations and e-mall exchanges. The only way to determine with
particularity the nature of these "discussions" is through the w~ry discovery process that PSCOA
is attempting, in good faith, to utilize.
In response to PSCOA's First Request For Production of Documents, Ludwig provided
merely eight days worth of telephone bills. The bills are necessary for PSCOA to determine who
Ludwig spoke with and when he spoke to them. The identities of these individuals must be
determined so that depositions, if necessary, can be scheduled. The requested telephone bills are
the only means by which the PSCOA can ascertain the identity of these individuals.
It is similarly essential that the PSCOA determine the nature of any e-mall exchanges
Ludwig had with individuals concerning the PSCOA. The content of these messages goes to the
very heart of the PSCOA's defense. When a request for hard copies of all e-mall exchanges was
made in the PSCOA's First Request for Production of Documents, Ludwig provided
approximately seventy-three. As noted, the PSCOA was in possession of over twenty-five
additional e-malls not included in Ludwig's responses before this action commenced. It is
6
evident that Ludwig did not fully and appropriately comply with the PSCOA's first discovery
request. Accordingly, it is necessary for the PSCOA to have the opportunity examine Ludwig's
hard-drive to attempt to recover all of the information which Ludwig had every opportunity to
previously provide. This is the least restrictive means by which to obtain this information.
Ludwig's claims that the PSCOA's discovery requests are "sought in bad faith" is
unfounded. As a non-voluntary party to this action, the PSCOA has every fight to raise a
defense to Ludwig's claims. From the onset of this matter, the PSCOA has consistently
maintained its position that Ludwig's conduct negates any li~tbility it has under the Agreement.
Through discovery, it is attempting to exercise its right to explore and investigate Ludwig's
conduct and to seek the information requested to meet this aim. This discovery request is based
upon a good faith belief that this information exists and that its very existence goes to the heart
of its defense.
Ludwig's claim that this discovery would cause "unreasonable annoyance,
embarrassment, burden or expense" is equally unfounded. Obviously, asking Ludwig to produce
his phone bills is no more inconvenient than the production of any other document. A discovery
request for a document of this type is commonplace in litigation of this nature.
Although the request for the production of a hard-drive may occur less frequently, it
simply mirrors the growing role that e-mail communication is playing in our daily lives.
Because this method of communicating and disseminating information was used regularly by
Ludwig, the instant request simply attempts to gain access to such non-privileged and relevant
information. If Ludwig had written these messages by hand, the paper upon which they were
written would undeniably be subject to discovery. Because Ludwig has chosen to withhold
7
selected message, this request is the only practical means the PSCOA has to obtain this
information.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the information being requested is relevant and
sought in good faith. In order to pursue and present its defense to this action, it is essential that
PSCOA gain access to the information contained in its Second Request For production of
Documents. Absent such information, it will be severely prejiudiced. Accordingly, the PSCOA
requests that Ludwig be compelled to comply with its discovetT requests.
Date:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
THOMAS W. JENNINGS
R/CHARD C. MCNEILL
MARC L. GELM~adN
The Penn Mutual 'lowers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 922-6700
Attorneys for Defendant
8
EXHIBIT "1"
JENNlNGS SIGMOND
BY: STEPHEN J. HOLROYD, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 61434
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0670/23
Attorneys fi~r Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED
TO PLAINTIFF, LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby asks that
Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Ludwig, produce for inspection and copying the documents identified in
Section 3 herein. Production shall be made at the offices of Jennings Sigmond, The Penn Mutual
Towers, 16th Floor, 510 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, within thirty (30) days of
service hereof, or at such other time and place as may be agreed by counsel.
SECTION i
INSTRUCTIONS
In responding to this request for production of documents,
instructions.
please follow these
1.01 Response and Duty to Investigate. You must respond to this request for production of
documents by producing the designated documents at the offices of Sagot, Jennings & Sigmond.
You must produce all documents which are available to you or which may be discoverable by
you from your files, attorneys, agents and others subject to your discretion or control. You must
make a diligent investigation of all files and records available to you. You may mail or deliver
copies of the designated documents before the due date instead ,of appearing with originals at the
scheduled time. Requests to change the time or place for production of documents should be
directed to undersigned counsel.
The original documents are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of
business and must be organized or labeled to correspond with paragraphs (and sub-paragraphs)
in Section 3.
1.02 Supplementary Response and Incomplete Answers. This Request for Production of
Documents is regarded as continuing past the date of your original response. If additional
documents become available to you or any other person subject to your direction or control, you
must produce them for inspection and copying (or deliver copies) within ten (10) days after
receipt of the new documents. If you cannot find a document after exercising due diligence to
secure it, identify the missing document in your response, state the reasons for its omission and
identify any other possible sources or means of obtaining the document.
2
1.03 Burdensome Production. If you object to production of a document or category of
documents on the ground that it is burdensome, please provide any summaries or easily
accessible documents within the spirit of the request. Your response must include an objection
to the requested production and explain the reasons for your objection.
1.04 Claims ofPrivile~e. If you claim that a designated document is privileged, your
response must include an objection and the reasons for the obje. ction. It should: (1) identify the
infornration or document subject to the claim of privilege witlnt sufficient particularity to allow
Plaintiff to bring this matter before the Court; (2) state the nature of the privilege asserted; and
(3) describe in detail the factual basis for the claim of privilege. In particular, if you claim
attorney-client privilege, identify the speaker or author of the communication, the capacity and
situation in which the speaker or author was acting when he made the communication, all
recipients of a document or persons present at the making of the', communication and the date of
the communication.
1.05 Construction. This Request for Production of Documents: shall be construed to secure the
speedy and efficient discovery of pertinent material in accordance with the basic sense of each
request and the dictates of common sense. The production of more than eight (8) square feet of
documents is prohibited unless efforts to separate summaries fi'om raw data are shown to be
impracticable.
1.06 Rules of Construction. The following rules of construction apply to this Request
for Production of Documents:
(a) The conjunction "and" is also to be interpreted disjunctively.
(b) The disjunctive "or" is also to be interpreted cor~junctively.
(c) The present tense of a verb includes the past tense and vice versa.
(d) Use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(e) Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine gender and vice versa.
(f) Use of any of the functional words "each", "every", "any" and "all" includes each
of the other functional words.
(g) Use of any conjtmction of the verb "to include" i~,~ illustrative and not limiting.
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
2.01 "Agreement" shall mean the written agreement entered between Ludwig and the PSCOA
on August 5, 2002.
2.02 " ,,
Commonwealth shall mean Commonwealth of Peansylvania.
2.03 "Complaint" shall mean the Complaint filed in this matter.
2.04 "Defendant" shall mean Pennsylvania State Corrections Officer Association ("PSCOA").
4
2.05 "Document" or "Documents" means any written, recorded (visual or auditory),
reproduced, filmed or graphic matter on paper, cards, tapes, film, electronic facsimile, computer
storage devices, or any other media. It includes, without limitation, memoranda, computer
printouts, financial summaries, microfilm and microfiche records, notes, minutes, records,
photographs, correspondence (including e-mail), telegrams, news releases, diaries, bookkeeping
entries, financial statements, tax returns, checks, check stubs,, reports, studies, charts, graphs,
statements, notebooks, handwritten notes, applications, agreements, books, pamphlets,
periodicals, appointment calendars, notes, records and recordings of oral conversations, work
papers and any other writings or documentary material of any nature whatsoever, together with
any attachments and enclosures. Copies which are different in any way from the original,
whether by interlineation, receipt stamp, notation, indication of copies sent or received, or
otherwise, and drafts leading to a final document are considered separate Documents from the
original or final version of an item.
2.06 DOC means Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
2.07 "Interrogatory(ies)" shall mean Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories directed to
Plaintiff in this case.
2.08 "Ludwig" shall mean Plaintiff Lawrence J. Ludwig.
2.09 "Plaintiff" means Lawrence J. Ludwig.
5
2.10 "PSCOA" shall mean Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association.
2.11 "Record" or "Records" shall include any regular, formal or non-formal, official or non-
official, memorandum or written preservation of any event, actions taken and details thereof
inquiring into these Interrogatories. A copy of the original of the "Record" is preferred; giving
the substance of such "Records" will suffice where a copy is not available.
2.12 "Relating to," "relate to," "evidence," "referring to," "refer to" and "regarding" mean
constituting, comprising, containing, setting forth, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining,
summarizing or concerning directly or indirectly.
2.13 "Request for Documents" means Defendant's Requesll for Production of Documents
Directed to Plaintiff.
2.14 "Summary" means a memorandum, report, record or ,data compilation, in any form,
prepared or used by the management of the company or an acconntant, attorney, actuary or other
advisor in the actual course of business or any other chart, summary or calculation presenting the
contents of voluminous or numerous documents or data entries in a form which may
conveniently be examined in court.
6
2.15 "You" or "Your" means the party to whom these Interrogatories are directed and includes
all other Persons including, but not limited to, attorneys and accountants, acting, or purporting to
act, on behalf of or in service of said party.
SECTION 3
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
3.01 Produce each and every document identified in response to numbers 3.06, 3.07, 3.08,
3.09, 3.10, 3.1l, 3.12, 3.12, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.21 of Defendant's First Set of
Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff.
3.02 Produce copies of any and all documents which will be relied upon by Plaintiff in order
to support the claims set forth in this action.
3.03 Produce each and every document you intend to use during discovery in this matter
and/or offer into evidence at time of trial.
3.04 Produce copies of all local, state and federal tax returns for Plaintiff (including any and
all Schedules filed therewith) for the years 2002 through present.
3.05 Produce copies of any and all documents showing communications between Plaintiff and
PSCOA members.
3.06 All documents that relate to Plaintiff's employment at PSCOA, including, but not limited
to, documents, drafts of documents and any copies of document:g with annotations or notations,
relating to the terms and conditions of his employment; documents relating to the positions, jobs
or titles that Plaintiff held at PSCOA, documents relating to Plaintifffs job performance;
documents relating to Plaintiff's salary, compensation, commissions, bonuses, and/or benefits;
documents relating to Plaintiff's job performance; documents relating to Plaintiff's salary,
7
compensation, commissions, bonuses, and/or benefits; doctm~ents relating to Plaintiff's career
goals and objectives; documents or manuals relating to PSCOA's personnel practices or policies;
and documents relating to Plaintiff's separation from employment at PSCOA.
3.07 All documents, including, but not limited to, phone bills, relating to Plaintiff's
correspondence and conversations with PSCOA Members.
3.08 All diaries, calendars, telephone logs, computer diskettes, e-mail printouts or appointment
books that Plaintiff used and/or maintained while employed at PSCOA and/or that Plaintiff took
with him when he left PSCOA's employment.
3.09 All documents relating to any statement made by any witnesses to the events alleged or
claims asserted by Plaintiff in his Complaint.
Dated at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this )~lay of June, 2003
JENNINGS ~IGMOND
STEPHEN J. HOLROYD
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0670/23
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marc L. Gelman, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of Defendant's
request for production of Documents Directed to Plaintiff to be delivered via U.S. First Class
mail to the counsel listed below this }~ day of June, 2003:
Ron Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney For Plaintiff
MARC L. GELMAN
EXHIBIT "2"
JENN1NGS SIGMOND
BY: STEPHEN J. HOLROYD, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 61434
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0670/23
Attorneys fbr Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiff,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE :
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS :
ASSOCIATION :
Defendant :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF,
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Defendant Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, requests, pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, that Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Ludwig, answer fully, in
writing, under oath, each of the interrogatories set forth below within 30 days of service hereof.
SECTION 1
INSTRUCTIONS
In answering these Interrogatories, please follow these instructions.
1.01 Response and Duty to Investigate. You must respond to these Interrogatories in writing
and under oath within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Interrogatories. The response must be
based on all information which is available to you or which ma.y be discovered by you from your
files, attorneys, and other agents subject to your discretion or control. You must make a diligent
investigation of all files and records available to you in answering each question.
1.02 Supplementary Response and Incomplete Answers. These Interrogatories
continue past the date of your original response. If additional information becomes available to
you or any other person subject to your direction or control, you must modify your answers to
these Interrogatories and serve them upon Defendant within ten (10) days after receipt of the new
information. If you cannot answer an Interrogatory in full after exercising due diligence to
secure the information needed for a complete answer, answer the question to the extent possible,
specify the subjects omitted, the reasons why you lack information, and identify any other
possible sources of information concerning the unanswered portions.
1.03 Burdensome Questions. If you object to a question on the ground that it is
burdensome, provide a succinct answer within the spirit of the question to the extent possible and
explain the extent of the additional investigation or work which would be required to answer the
question in full.
1.04 Claim of Privilege. If you claim that the answer to a question or document for which
identification or description is sought by these Interrogatories is privileged: (1) identify the
information or document subject to the claim of privilege with sufficient particularity to allow
Defendant to bring the matter before the court; (2) state the nature of the privilege asserted; and
(3) describe in detail the factual basis for the claim of privilege. In particular, if you claim the
attorney-client privilege, identify the speaker or author of the communication, all recipients of a
document or persons present at the making of the cormnunication and the date of the
communication.
1.05 Cross-Reference to Documents. You may answer an Interrogatory by reference to
documents. In this situation, a copy of the document should be attached to your response to
these Interrogatories, organized or marked to identify the Interrogatory to which it relates and the
original file in which the document was located. The specific documents containing the
requested information and, in lengthy documents, the page or line number containing pertinent
material must be identified by your cross-reference.
1.06 Rules of Construction. The following rules of construction apply to these
Interrogatories:
(a) The conjunction "and" is also to be interpreted disjunctively.
(b) The disjunctive "or" is also to be interpreted conjunctively.
(c) The present tense ora verb includes the past tense and vice versa.
(d) Use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(e) Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine gender and vice versa.
(f) Use of any of the functional words "each", "every", "any" and "all" includes each
of the other functional words.
(g) Use of any conjunction of the verb "to include" is illustrative and not limiting.
1.07 ~ When in these Interrogatories you are asked to state the date on
which some incident or event occurred, provide the day, month and year, if known; if the day is
not known, provide the month or season along with the year; if the month and/or year is not
known, identify the date by relating it to some established :time (e.g., "one month after the
arbitrator's award").
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
2.01 "Act" shall mean any action or conduct.
2.02 "Agreement" means written agreement entered between Ludwig and the PSCOA on
August 5, 2002.
2.03 "Bargaining Unit Members" shall mean members of the H-1 bargaining unit of which the
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association is the exclusive bargaining representative.
2.04 "C "
ommonwealth shall mean Commonwealth o f PennsylYania.
2.05 "Communication" or "Communications' mean any transmission or exchange of
information, which transmission or exchange was written (electronically of otherwise) or oral,
formal or informal, regarding any event, action taken or policy inquired into by these
Interrogatories.
2.06 "Complaint" shall mean the Complaint filed in this matter.
2.07 "Defendant" means Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association ("PSCOA")
2.08 "Describe in detail", "set forth the manner" or "state the reason" means to:
(a) Describe fully by reference tn underlying facts rather than by ultimate facts,
conclusions of law or unexplained assumptions or determinations;
(b) Particularize as to:
(1) time;
(2) place; and
(3) manner.
Identify all documents relevant to your response.
(c)
2.09 "Document" or "Documents" means any written, recorded (visual or auditory),
reproduced, filmed or graphic matter on paper, cards, tapes, film, electronic facsimile, computer
storage devices, or any other media. It includes, without limitation, memoranda, computer
printouts, financial summaries, microfilm and microfiche records, notes, minutes, records,
photographs, correspondence, telegrams, news releases, diaries,, bookkeeping entries, financial
statements, tax returns, checks, check stubs, reports, studies, charts, graphs, statements,
notebooks, handwritten notes, applications, agreements, books, pamphlets, periodicals,
appointment calendars, notes, records and recordings of oral conversations, work papers and any
other writings or documentary material of any nature whatsoever, together with any attachments
or enclosures. Copies which are different in any way from the original, whether by
interlineation, receipt stamp, notation, indication of copies sent or received, or otherwise, and
drafts leading to a final document are considered separate Documents from the original or final
version of an item.
2.10 "DOC" means Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
2.11 "Employee" means any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in
determining the Employer-Employee relationship, has the status of an Employee.
2.12 "Executive Board" means the Executive Board ofDefen,:lant PSCOA.
2.14 "Identify" shall mean, when referring to any Act, to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
Describe the substance of the event or events constituting each Act;
Identify the location, date, and Persons involved;
Identify the Person for whom the Act was performed;
Identify the Person against whim the Act was directed;
Identify all witnesses to the Act; and
Identify any Documents arising from, reflecting, recording or relating to each Act.
2.15 The term "Identify," when used with reference to a Document, means to state:
(a) the type of Document (e.g., memorandum, employment application, letter, etc.);
(b) its date or the regular period (annual, quarterly, monthly) for which the type of
Document is prepared;
(c) its author (and, if different, the originator and signer) or operational division or
personnel responsible for preparation of this type of Document;.
(d) the title, heading or other designation, numerical or otherwise, of the Document;
(e) the Persons (or, if widely distributed, set forth the organization or classes of
Person) to whom the Document was sent;
(f) the present or last known location of the Document and of each copy with unique
notations or markings;
(g) a description, in detail, of the substance of the Document;
(h) if any such Document was, but no longer is, in your possession or subject to your
control, the disposition which was made of it, the reason for the date of such disposition; and
(i) if you are no longer in possession of the original or a copy, the name, address and
telephone number of the custodian of the original or copy.
2.16 "Identify" shall mean, when referring to a natural Person, to provide the following
information:
(a) Full legal name (or, if not known, as much of the name as is known) and Social
Security Number or other federal income tax identification number, his job title or position and
employer, or, if no other identification is possible, provide a sufficient description so that he will
be identifiable to the recipients of your answer;
(b) Title;
(c) Present position and business affiliation;
(d) the Person he was representing or for whom he was acting;
(e) Present (or last known, with indication of the date for that last knowledge)
residence address and telephone number; and
(f) in the case of an expert witness, his area of expertise and education, training,
experience, publications and prior qualification as an expert in the area of expertise.
2.17 "Identify" when used with reference to an oral statement, conversation, or conference,
shall mean to:
(a) identify the Person making each statement, the Person to whom each statement
was made, and all other persons present at the time of each statement;
(b) state the date of such statement, conversation or conference;
(c) state the place of such statement, conversation or conference was held; or
(d) if by telephone, identify the Persons participating in the telephone call, the Person
making the call and state the places where the Persons participating in the call were located;
(e) describe in detail the substance of each statement, conversation or conference; and
(f) identify all Documents which evidence, refer or relate to such statement,
conversation or conference.
2.18 "Identify" shall otherwise mean, when used in reference to a thing other than a
Document, oral communication, Act or Person, to state the nature of the thing, its location, and
to provide a description sufficient to distinguish it from other similar things.
2.19 terrogatory(les) mean Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiff Lawrence J. Ludwig in
"In ' "
this case.
2.20 "Ludwig" shall mean PlaintiffLawrence J. Ludwig.
2.21 "Oral Communication" means any and all non-written forms of expression or
communication, whether face-to-face, by telephone, in conferentce or otherwise.
2.22 "Person" or "Persons" means all individuals and entities, including, without limitation,
individuals, representatives of Persons, associations, companies, corporations, partnerships,
limited partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, estates, public agencies, departments, divisions,
subdivisions, subsidiaries, bureaus and boards.
2.23 "Plaintiff" means Lawrence J. Ludwig ("Ludwig").
2.24 "PSCOA" means Defendant Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association.
2.25 "Record" or "Records" shall include any regular, formal or non-formal, official or non-
official, memorandum or written preservation of any event, actions taken and details thereof
inquiring into these Interrogatories. A copy of the original of the "Record" is preferred; giving
the substance of such "Records" will suffice where a copy is not available.
2.26 "Relating to," "relate to," "evidence," "referring to," "refer to" and "regarding" mean
constituting, comprising, containing, setting forth, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining,
summarizing or concerning directly or indirectly.
2.27 "Relevant period" unless otherwise indicated, means August 2002 to Present.
2.28 "Summary" means a memorandum, report, record or data compilation, in any form,
prepared or used by an accountant, attorney, actuary or other advisor in the actual course of
business or any other chart, summary or calculation presenting the contents of voluminous or
numerous documents or data entries in a form which may conveniently be examined in court.
2.29 "Union" means Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association.
2.30 "You" or "Your" means the party to whom these Interrogatories are directed and includes
all other Persons including, but not limited to, attorneys and accountants, acting, or purporting to
act, on behalf of or in service of said party.
SECTION 3
INTERROGATORIES
3.01 State your frill name and any other name by which you are known or have ever been
known;
Lawrence J. Ludwig
(a) State your dine and place of bi,h;
February 6, 1963
Saint Mary's, Pennsylvania
(b) Stme your Social Securi~ number;
191-54-0677
10
(c) State your present marital status and, if married or previously married, the full
name of your spouse and the date of your marriage;
Currently single.
(d) If your spouse is decreased, state the date of his death;
N/A.
(e) Set forth every address at which you have lived lbr the last five years and state the
years during which you lived at each such address; and
January, 2002 - Present: 1010 Schwanger Road, Elizabethtown, PA
January, 1999 - January, 2002: 807 Summit Chase Drive, Reading,
(0 Set~rthindetailyoureducationalbackground.
~High school diploma from Elk Co. Christian High School, 1981.
Police Certification, Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania, Act 120,
1981. Also numerous training certifications.
3.02
Yes.
Are you cu~ently employed? If so, state:
Department of Corrections, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
(a)
the name of your employer;
Department of Corrections.
(b) the add~ssofyouremplo~r;
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
(c) the na~reofyourresponsibilitiesmyouremployer;and
Corrections officer 1.
(d) identify all documents which record, reflect, or relate in any way to your response
to this interrogatory.
N/A.
3.03 Set forth all employment you have held from the age of 18 to the present, starting for
each:t1) Austin Bore. Police Chief, 1987-1991 (2)Sykesville Bore.
Officer in Charge, 1991-1994 (3) Dept. of Corrections Officer
1, 1994-2001 (4) President, PSCOA 2002-August, 2002 (5) Dept.
of Corrections Officer 1, 2002-present (6) Corporate Security
Consulting, September 2002-January 2003.
(a) The name and address of each of your employers or, if you were self-employed
during that period, each of your business addresses and the name of the business while self-
employed;
See above.
(b) The dates of commencement and termination of each of your periods of
employment and sel~employment and the reasons ~r your termination;
For dates, see above. Reason for terminating employment:
better pay.
(c) A detailed description of the nature of your occupation in each employment of
Police officer; Corrections officer.
self-employment;
(d) Anylicense, certificationan~orcredentialsrequired;and
(1) Act 120 Certification (2) Graduate of Dept. of Corrections
Training Academy (3) Act 235 Certification
(e) Theyearlycompensationeamedbyyou.
Varies.
3.04 State your gross income for each of the calendar years since 1990 to present and all
sources of such income and identify all documents which record, relate, or refer to the matters
inquired of in this interrogatory.
The Plaintiff objects to this interregatory as irrelevant.
State the name of all organizations of which your were a member at any time from the age of 18
to present, and your position, other than member, if any, in each such organization.
The Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.
(a)
any time. If the answer is yes, set forth as to each instance:
(i) The date;
N/a.
State whether you have ever been arrested or charged with a crime in any jurisdiction at
NO.
(ii) The jurisdiction;
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(iii) The charge or charges;
(iv) Whether or not there was a conviction; and
(v)
The sentence or other disposition.
(b) Identify all documents which record, relate or refer to the matters inquired of in
this interrogatory. None ex±st.
3.07 With regard to the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Compl[aint that "on August 5, 2002, at
the request of the Executive Board of the PSCOA Ludwig resigned his position as President in
consideration of an Agreement presented to him by the Executive Board of the PSCOA,"
13
identify and describe in detail the following:
(a) Identify by name each Executive Board member whom you contend presented to
you the Agreement on August 5, 2002;Don McNany and E:d Mc¢onnell.
(b) Identify by name each Executive Board member whom you contend requested
you resign your position as President;
Same as (a) above.
(c) Describe in detail and state the manner in which each and every person named in
subsection(a) ~ovepresentedyouwithana~eement on August5,2002; The individuals
identified above instructed their attorney, one Richard Sigmond,
to email the Agreement to the Plaintiff's computer, which Mr.
Sigmond did on August 5, 2002.
(d) Describeindetailandsm~ the mannerin whicheachindividualnamedin
su~ection(b)above ~questedyou ~ msignyour positionaspresident. The individuals
named above instructed Richard Sigmond to require the Plaintiff
to resign as President of PSCOA or be subject to a $25,000 fine.
(e) Describe each and every document and tangible thing that you allege support the
allegmionsin thisparagraph.
(1) Resignation letter (2) Consulting Agreement (3)
the Executive Board meeting of August 5, 2002.
Minutes of
3.08 With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, "the
Agreement... provided the incentive to Plaintiff Ludwig to resign his paid position as president
of the PSCOA...," state and describe in detail the following:
(a) State and describe in detail why and how you allege that the Agreement provided
out--ince iv ' resi ...... The Agreement allowed the
y l~,]=,,~nIj~_e~lp . gn yo.ur, pala pgstt~on aspresme . '
~x~nux~ EO conElnue Eo receive ~e same salary and benefits
as he did as President of the PSCOA. It also provided an op-
portunity to lend his expertise as a consultant to the union
which he founded.
(b) Identify by name any individual or individuals whom you contend offered the
Agreement as incentive for your resignation;
The Plaintiff understood that the entire Executive Board offered
the Agreement as an incentive to resign.
(c) Identi~ anddescribeindetaileachandevew document andtangible thing which
Plaintiffcontendssuppo~s theallegationsset~nhinparagraph5oftheComplaim.
(1) Resignation letter (2) Consulting Agreement (3) Minutes of
the Executive Board meeting of August 5, 2002.
3.09 With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint that "the
Plaintiff, in reliance of the Agreement, did resign his position axed did enter into said agreement,
which agreement was prepared by, under the direction of and at the insistence of the Executive
Board of Defendant PSCOA," state and describe in detail:
(a) Describe in detail the legal and factual basis for tlhis contention:
The legal and factual basis for this contention is fully outlined
in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
(b) Identify all Executive Board members whom you contend prepared said
The Executive Board directed their attorney Richard Sigmond to
agreement; prepare the Agreement.
(c) Identify all Executive Board members whom you contend insisted you enter into
said Agreement; The Executive Board voted unanimously on August 5, 2002
to accept the resignation and enter into the Agreement.
(d) Identi~ alldocuments thmre~rorrelatetothisInte~ogatory.
(1) Resignation letter
(2) Consulting Agreement
(3) Minutes of the Executive Board meeting of August 5,
2002
3.10 With respect to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, describe in detail the "minimal
obligations" you contend were performed as set forth in the Agreement for the performance of
consultation services, and provide the following:
(a) Identi~ all such services per~rmed and by whmn the se~ice was requested:
The Plaintiff responded to phone calls, emails, personal con-
tacts, written correspondence, and service was requested by
Executive Board members and local union officials.
(b) Provide a brief description of all such services per~rmed;
The Plaintiff answered inquries, provided information, gave
direction and advice and ongoing assistance
whenever requested.
(c) The date of performance of all services named in subsection (a);
From August 5, 2002 to the present.
(d) Identi~ allpersonswithknowledgeofsuchse~icesper~rmed;and
(1) Executive Board members (2) Local union officials
iple union members.
(3) Mult-
(e) Identify all documents that refer or relate to the se, rvices performed as identified
in this Interrogatory.
See copies attached.
3.11 With respect to paragraph 8 of your Complaint that "the Defendant PSCOA did
terminate, unilaterally and without any legal justification the said Agreement...,' describe the
following:
(a) Describe in detail the legal and factual basis for this contention;
The legal and factual basis for this contention is fully outlined
in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
(b) Identify any communication between the partie,s conceming the termination of
said agreement; and
Letter received from Don McNany dated November 20, 2002.
(c) Idemi~ allpersonswithknowledgeoftheterminmionofthe Agreement;and
(1) Executive Board members
(2) All business agents
(d) Identify all documents that relate or refer to this Interrogatory.
See letter of November 20, 2002.
3.12 With regard to the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint that "Plaintiff Ludwig, at
all limes relevant hereto, performed faithfully his duties pursuant to the Agreement for the
performance of consultation services and Defendant PSCOA, without any legal justification, did
unilaterally terminate said agreement and, therefore, violated its contractual obligations due to
Plaintiff Ludwig pursuant to the Agreement...," identify and describe in detail the following:
(a) Describe in detail the legal and factual basis for this contention;
The legal and factual basis for this contention is fully outlined
in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
(b) Describe in detail how you performed faithfully your duties pursuant to the
Agreement;
The Plaintiff provided, upon request, answers, information,
advice and direction as was required by the Agreement.
(c) Identify each instance you have performed faithfully your duties pursuant to the
Agreement;
The incidents are too numerous to identify with specificity.
(d) Identify the date(s) the performance of duties as described in subparagraph (c)
were performed;
August 5, 2002 to the present.
(e) Identify all documents that refer or relate to the performance of duties described
in this Interrogatory.
See documents previously provided.
3.13 Name each Bargaining Unit Member with whom you have communicated regarding the
PSCOA during the relevant period, and;
The Plaintiff has communicated with literally thousands of Bar-
gaining Unit Members and is therefore unable to respond with
specificity.
(a) State the address, telephone number and e-mail address(es)of each and every
person named in your response to the question above;
N/A.
(b) Identify the type of communication held with each Bargaining Unit Members
stated above;
N/A.
(c) State the time, date, and location of such communication;
N/a.
(d) Identify all topics discussed during the communications described above; and
N/A.
(e) Identify all documents which record, relate or refer to the matters inquired of in
this interrogatory.
N/a.
3.14 Identify all Executive Board members with whom you have communicated during the
relevant period, and; (1) John Rattlesdorfer (2) Mike Wasylkewicz (3) Ed McConnell
(4) Percy Poindexter (5) Dennis Stone (6) Ed Bisbee
(7) Bill Reighred (8) Don McNany (9) Sam Brezler
(a) State the name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address(es) of the
individuals named in response the question above;
This information is in possession of the Defendant.
(b)
stated above;
sations.
Identify the type of communication held with each Executive Board members
(1) Emails (2) Written correspondence (3) Phone conver-
(c) State the time, date, and location of such communication;
These are too numerous to identify.
(d) Identify all topics discussed during the communications described above; and
Matters of interest to PSCOA.
(e) Identify all documents which record, relate or refer to the matters inquired of in
this interrogatory.
See documents previously provided.
3.15 Identify all DOC employees with whom you have communicated during the
19
relevant period, and; The Plaintiff communicated with lierally hundreds of
Dept. of Corrections employees and therefore is unable to answer
with specificity.
(a) State the name, title, address, e-mail address(es) and telephone number of the
individuals named in response the question above;
N/A.
(e) Identify the type of communication held with each DOC Employee stated above;
N/A.
(d) State the time, date, and location of such communication;
(f) Identify all topics discussed during the communications described above; and
(h) Identify all documents which record, relate or refbr to the matters inquired of in
this interrogatory.
N/A.
3.16 List all income received by you by amount, source, and date during the relevant period,
and:
See attached W-2 Forms.
(a) Supplement up to the date of trial.
N/A at this time.
(b) Identify all documents that refer or relate to the subject matter of this
Interrogatory.
See attached W-2 Forms.
20
3.17 State the names, addresses, e-mail address(es) and telephone numbers of all person or
persons who have knowledge of any relevant facts relating to this case, and for each person
identified, set forth a detailed description of facts known to each such person.
3.18 Have you obtained any statements relating to this action from any person not a party to
this litigation? If your answer is in the affirmative, state separately for each such statement:
Not at this time.
(a) The name and address of the person who gave the statement and the date when
the statement was obtained;
N/a.
(b) If oral, the name and address of the person who obtained the statement, and if
recorded, the nature and present location of the recording;
(c) If written, whether the statement was signed by the person giving the statement
and the present location of the statement;
N/A.
(d) The identity of each person present when the state, ment was obtained; and the
substance of each such statement.
N/A.
3.19 Identify and describe in specific detail each and every document and other tangible item
which you intend to or may use at the time of trial and/or which you intend to introduce into
evidence for any purpose whatsoever at the time of trial. With respect to each such document
anditem oftangiblepropegy, set~rth;
(1) Resignation letter (2) Consulting Agreement (3) Minutes of
the Executive Board meeting of August 5, 2002 (4) Letter received
from Don McNany dated November 20, 2002.
(~ Theperson whohascustodyofsuchdocumentoritem;
(b) The present location where document or item may be inspected by the Defendant;
(c) A detailed description of each such document and/or item.
3.20 Identify all witnesses you intend to call at the trial of this matter. For each person
identified, describeindetailthenmureandextentofthm person'sexpectedtestimony.
(1) All past and current Executive Board members (2) Attorney
Rcihard Sigmond (3) Attorney Tom Jennings (4) All past and cur-
rent PSCOA employees. These individuals will testify, under oath
and truthfully, as to allegations set forth in Plaintiff's
Complaint.
3.21 Identify all expert witnesses you intend to call at the trial of this matter. For each person
identified;
No expert witnesses are expected at this time.
(a) Describe in detail that person's qualifications to testify as an expert witness;
N/A.
(b) Describe in detail all facts on which each expert's testimony is expected to be
based;
N/A.
22
(c) Describe in detail each expert's expected testimony;
N/A.
(d) Identify all documents that refer or relate to the subject matter of this
interrogatory, including but not limited to, curriculum vitae and expert reports.
N/A.
3.22 Identify each and every person who assisted in or provided information relevant to
answering these Interrogatories.
The Plainitiff's attorneys assisted him in answering these
interrogatories.
Dated this '}~ Day of June, 2003
JENNINGS SIGMOND
STEPHEN J. HOLROYD
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0670/23
Attorneys for Defendant
23
EXHIBIT "3"
]ENNINGS
SIGMOND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Marc L. Gelman
Direct Dial: (215) 351-0623
E-Mail Ad(hess: mgelman(~jslex.com
Member: PA & NJ Bars
Jm~rm~Gs SIGMOND, P.C.
THE P~q Mtrru~ Tow~
16TH Ftoo~
510 WALNLrr STREET
INDEPENDENCE SQUARE
PH{LADELPHIA, PA 19106-3683
215-922-6700
FAX 215-922-3524
Eow^v.o D/cas 1893 1987
M. H. GOLDSTEIN 1904 1971
December 29, 2003
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re-
Lawrence J. Ludwig v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association
No. 03-1456
Dear Mr. Turo:
Pursuant to PaR.C.P. Rule 4009.21, enclosed find a Subpoena to Produce Documents
and Things directed to John W. Owens along with a Certificate of Compliance. Absent any
objection to the service of such subpoena within twenty (20) days of today's date, Mr. Owens
will be served with same.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
MARC L. GELMAN
ML v
ENCLOSURE
Cc: D. McNany
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys fbr Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF, LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4009.1, Defendant Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers
Association, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby asks that Plaintiff, Lawrence J.
Ludwig, produce for inspection and copying the documents and things identified in Section 2
herein. Production shall bc made at the offices of Jennings Sigmond, Thc Penn Mutual Towers,
16th Floor, 510 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, within thirty (30) days of service hereof,
or at such other time and place as may bc agreed by counsel.
SECTION 1
In responding to
instructions.
1.01 Response and Duty to Investigate.
INSTRUCTIONS
this request for production of documents, please follow these
You must respond to this request for production of
documents by producing the designated documents at the offices of Sagot, Jennings & Sigmond.
You must produce all documents which are available to you or which may be discoverable by
you from your files, attorneys, agents and others subject to your discretion or control. You must
make a diligent investigation of all files and records available to you. You may mail or deliver
copies of the designated documents before the due date instead of appearing with originals at the
scheduled time. Requests to change the time or place for production of documents should be
directed to undersigned counsel.
The original documents are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of
business and must be organized or labeled to correspond with paragraphs (and sub-paragraphs)
in Section 3.
1.02 Supplementary Response and Incomplete Answers. This Request for Production of
Documents is regarded as continuing past the date of your original response. If additional
documents become available to you or any other person subject to your direction or control, you
must produce them for inspection and copying (or deliver copies) within ten (10) days after
receipt of the new documents. If you cannot find a document after exercising due diligence to
secure it, identify the missing document in your response, state the reasons for its omission and
identify any other possible sources or means of obtaining the doc, ument.
2
1.03 Burdensome Production. If you object to production of a document or category of
documents on the ground that it is burdensome, please provide any summaries or easily
accessible documents within the spirit of the request. Your response must include an objection
to the requested production and explain the reasons for your objection.
1.04 Claims of Privilege. If you claim that a designated document is privileged, your
response must include an objection and the reasons for the objection. It should: (1) identify the
information or document subject to the claim of privilege witlh sufficient particularity to allow
Plaintiff to bring this matter before the Court; (2) state the nature of the privilege asserted; and
(3) describe in detail the factual basis for the claim of privilege. In particular, if you claim
attorney-client privilege, identify the speaker or author of the communication, the capacity and
situation in which the speaker or author was acting when he made the communication, all
recipients of a document or persons present at the making of the communication and the date of
the communication.
1.05 Construction. This Request for Production of Documenlls shall be construed to secure the
speedy and efficient discovery of pertinent material in accordance with the basic sense of each
request and the dictates of common sense. The production of more than eight (8) square feet of
documents is prohibited unless efforts to separate summaries from raw data are shown to be
impracticable.
1.06 Rules of Construction. The following rules of construction apply to this Request
for Production of Documents:
(a) The conjunction "and" is also to be interpreted disjunctively.
(b) The disjunctive "or" is also to be interpreted cor~junctively.
(c) The present tense of a verb includes the past tense and vice versa.
(d) Use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(e) Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine gender and vice versa.
(f) Use of any of the functional words "each", "every", "any" and "all" includes each
of the other functional words.
(g) Use of any conjunction of the verb "to include" is illustrative and not limiting.
4
SECTION 2
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED
2.01 Copies of Plaintiff Ludwig's itemized telephone bills for the months of August
September, October and November 2002. This shall include bills relating to Plaintiff
Ludwig's home telephone number (land-line) as well as all cellular telephone numbers
used by the Plaintiff during this time period.
2.02 The personal home computer in Plaintiff Ludwig's possession between the months of
August and November 2002. This means the personally owned computer he possessed in
addition to the PSCOA computer that was in his possession temporarily. Plaintiff
Ludwig needs only make the hard-drive of the computer available for inspection.
Dated at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this 29th day of December, 2003.
JENNINGS SIGM/~QND
THOMAS W. JENNINGS
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
l, Marc L. Gelman, hereby certify that I caused a tree and correct copy of Defendant's
Request for Production of Documents Directed to Plaintiff to be delivered via U.S. First Class
29th
mail to the counsel listed below this aay or ~ecemoer, 2003:
Ron Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney For Plaintiff
MARC L. GELMAN
6
EXHIBIT "4"
Turo Law Offices
RON TURO, Esquire
ROBERT J. MULDERIG, Esquire
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M. ROBINSON, Esquire
DANIEL D. WORLEY, Esquire
JAMES G. GAULT, Esquire
www. TuroLa w. corn
28 South F'it! Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvanin 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) '36!-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
January 13, 20(:)4
Mare L. Gelman
Jennings Sigmond, P.C.
The Penn Mutual Towers
16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Independence Square
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
RE: Lawrence J. Ludwig v. Pennsylvania Stqte Corrections Officers Association
No. 03-1456 Civil Term
Dear Marc:
I write as a follow up to your letter of December 29, 2003 which enclosed your second
request for production of documents. Pursuant to this request the defendant has asked for
copies of telephone bills for both a land line and a cellular number used by plaintiff from August
through November 2002 as well as the actual personal home computer in the plaintiff's
possession during the same period of time. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Fhn,'edure I
object to this discovery as it is sought in bad faith, would cause unreasonable annoyance,
embarrassment, burden or expense to Mr. Ludwig and is beyond the scope of discow~.w.
Plaintiff reserves the right to object in greater detail upon receipt of any motion to compel
discovery that may become fodhcoming.
I strongly suggest that you either identify with specificity what you require or id~.ntify, in
some rational way, documents that you beli..evff have not yet ~een provided. Otherwise this
matter will have to be determined by the~urt.
/ /
/ Sir~c~ ~1,~/
', Ron"uro~Turokaw.com
RT/jah
c.c. Lawrence Ludwig
Exhibit 5
.aGREEMENT FOR THE.
p~ILMA_NCE OF'CONSULTATION SERVICES
The part~es, l.awrenc~ ~. Ludwig aad the pcm~ylvama Sm~e Corrections
Association ("PSCOA"), hereby agree to the following terms ~md provisions:
1. ~ PSCOA hereby acknowledges the valuabl[~ sax/ces pe~forme~l on b~h_alf of
th~ Associatio~ by its former Preddent Lawrence I. Ludwig ired the benefiis that may be
by ~ Associmion a~d ils membership lhro~Eh a confinuiilg employmeal re[atio~,;hip hi which
Mr. Ludwi~ will ml~k¢ ~!m~lf availah~ to c~osult with ethic-rs and members of th~ F.,xecu~ve
Board and provid~ his e, xp~d.~, a~ ~ followin~ his v:rmrl: as President of~ho pSCOA.
I0 order re p,-rmit lhe Assochaion to avail itself of Mr. Ludw/g'~ exper~is~:,
knowledge of the org~i~'~llaO, i~ progl'ams, agree~ellts aid initiatives, the PSCOA and Mr.
Ludwig have agre~ to lhe following terms:
(a) . For th~ poiod August 6, 2002 through August 5, 2003, Mr. Ludwig shall
continue as an ~mployee of ~ PSCOA, w~h the title of "Consultant."
For pwvidi~g services as desalbed l~ein as a Consullant, Mr. Ludwig
~ r~-.~iv¢ thc .same .-~!~!~y a~d frh~g~ b~m-.Xits, i.d.s,ding heaRh
ina pension benefits, as were m¢ived by him in his cal~ity ~s Preslda~t.
(b) Mr. Ludw/i, as a Consukam, shsl! be available ~o r~ceive ~[epho~
and consult with office~ or members of the Exec.~tive Boaxd to provide
information, lmowiedg~ and iv~gh~ to o/~c~ end/or ~ of the
Exec~v~ Board conceding PSCOA-r~hted issues. It is understood
Mr. Ludwig shall ~n be ~luired to work any speoified number of l~ur~
on a daily, weeldy, mon~y or ammal b~is in ~n for the stami
cou4~m~uio~ b~t thai he shall cooperate with the officers and/or
Executiw Board members, ~ cxa~ultaiio~ with him at~ needed, to b~
times. Thc ~ of ~is Agreement a~i unde~ling is to make
available ~ the organi~'afion Mr. Ludwis's k=~wledge and bi~ ooopea'mlon
htota~e.d as to have Mr. Ludwig perform uny work on a regular basis or
to 17,~-~,a'~ his conlribmlons onth~ bosi~ of~e records or otherwi~.
(c) TIw comlxmsation and ar~ngemont for collsultation Services sef forth
hezein shall continuo until the termlnlition &ate set forth above, at which
time neither party o2mll lmw any contin~ktg dgl~ m~l/or obligaXJton$
under the provisions of ~hi~ Agreement. The compensation for Mr,
Ludwig as set forth herein shall continue flaroughout the one-year term
hereof and shall not be affected by any other eanploymea~t or income that
Mr. Ludwig may re~ive from an~r other employer or source; provided,
howevex, ~_ha*, in the event Mr. Ludwig obtm.ns exaployment that provides
to him health insarance benefits, the PSCOA shall not b~ required to
provide he.~th benefits ro Mr. Ludwig from the momenl he b~comcs
elJ~ble for such orJner beoefit~ through tho :'md of thc t~rm of tl~;s
ka~:li~g to b~ leg~ly bound, ~he pa~ies haw entel k~to this Agreement ~hls 5'~ day of
A~gus~ 20~2.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS ASSOCiATiON
BY:
Executive Vice
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct
I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S.
§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date
awrence J. Lud~i~ ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marc L. Gelman, hereby certify that I caused a tree and correct copy of Defendant's
Motion to Compel Discovery to be delivered via U.S. First Class mail to the counsel listed below
this /~ day of May, 2004:
Ron Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney For Plaintiff
MARC L. GELMAN
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OVERRULE
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
Defendant Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association ("PSCOA"), by and
through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(d)(1), hereby moves this
Court to enter an Order overruling the objections to the issuance of a subpoena to John W.
Owens raised by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Ludwig ("Ludwig") for the reasons more fully stated in
the accompanying Memorandum of Law in support thereof, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's objections be overruled.
Date:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
THOMAS W. JENN1NGS
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 922-6700
Attorneys for Defendant
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 C1VIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OVERRULE
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
This Memorandum of Law is submitted on behalf of Defendant Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Association ("PSCAO" or "Union"), in support of its Motion to overrule
Plaintiff's Objections to Subpoena.
I. BACKGROUND
Rather than repeat them here, Defendant hereby incorporates by reference the facts
presented in its Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery
filed with the Court contemporaneously with the instant motion.
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
On or about December 29, 2003, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a copy of a Subpoena
to Produce Documents and Things directed to non-party John W. Owens ("Owens"), along with
a Certificate of Compliance. (A true and correct copy of the cover letter, Subpoena and
The subpoena requested the
Copies of your itemized telephone bills for the ~nonths of August, September,
October and November 2002. This shall include bills relating to your home
telephone number (land-line) as well as your cellular telephone number.
2.) The hard-drive of the personal computer in yom: possession and use between the
months of August and November 2002.
On January 7, 2004, Ludwig drafted and sent an e-mail correspondence notifying a
number of individuals, including Owens, of the PSCOA's intention of issuing Owens a
subpoena. (A tree and correct copy of Ludwig's January 7, 2004 e-mail is attached hereto as
Exhibit "2"). In response to Ludwig's message and within an hour of its receipt, a string of e-
mails was circulated by individuals named "Wetz" and "Beers," and by Owens himself. Said e-
mails advocated the destruction of the information requested in the subpoena. One individual
recommended the re-formatting of the hard drive to erase the relevant information, while another
suggested simply to "smash the shit out of it." (True and correct copies of the January 7, 2004 e-
mails are attached hereto as Exhibit "3"). Finally, On January 15, 2004, Owens issued an
additional e-mail correspondence in which he stated that he could "...format my fucking hard-
drive any time I want to and you can suggest any fucking thing you want to any fucking body
Certificate of Compliance are attached hereto as Exhibit "1").
following information from Owens:
1.)
you want to!" (A tree and correct copy of Owens' January 15, 2004 e-mail is attached hereto as
Exhibit "4").
By letter dated January 13, 2004, counsel for Ludwig posed objections to the issuance of
the subpoena to Owens. (A tree and correct copy of the January 13 letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit "5"). This Motion in Opposition to said objections now follows.
III. ARGUMENT
Rule 4009.21 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure allows for the issuance of a
subpoena upon a person not a party to the action for the production of documents and things.
Sub-section (a) of this rule requires that the party seeking the information provide notice to all
other parties of the intent to serve the subpoena at least twenty days prior to issuing the
subpoena. If a party objects to the subpoena, it may file written objections per Pa.R.C.P.
2009.21(c). Upon the receipt of such objections within twenty days, the party seeking the
production is prohibited from serving the subpoena absent a ruling from the court. Pa.R.C.P.
2009(d)(1).
This motion is filed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2009(d)(1) following Ludwig's objections of
January 13, 2004. As was discussed in Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery and
accompanying Memorandum of Law, PSCOA is raising the defense that it is released from any
obligations under the Agreement for the Performance of Consultation Service ("Agreement")
entered by the parties on August 5, 2002 as a result of Ludwig's conduct. It is alleged that
Ludwig participated in a course of conduct not just demonstrating his disloyalty to PSCOA, but
taking affirmative steps towards undermining the imerests of PSCOA.
Such conduct was demonstrated through telephone conversations and e-mail
correspondence with a number of individuals, including Owens. The nature of these telephone
conversations and written correspondence goes the very heart of PSCOA's defense of this action.
In order to properly raise its defense at trial, PSCOA must be afforded every reasonable
opportunity to investigate all communication between Ludwig and Owen. The discovery
requests made via the subpoena are based upon a good-faith belief that the production of the
requested information will produce evidence of conduct by Ludwig which will support PSCOA's
defense. It is obvious that the information sought is higlhly relevant. PSCOA would be
prejudiced by an inability to retrieve it during the discovery process.
It is clear both by Ludwig's "warning" to Owens that a subpoena would be forthcoming
(See Exhibit 2), and Owens' responses (See Exhibits 3 and 4), that absent the appropriate court
orders, these men have absolutely no intention of complying with the discovery process or
cooperating in any way.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant PSCOA respectfully requests that Plaintiff
Ludwig's objections to the issuance of a subpoena to John W. Owens be overruled, and that
PSCOA be permitted to serve said subpoena upon Owens.
Date:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
THOMAS W. JENNINGS
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 922-6700
Attomeys for Defendant
5
EXHIBIT "1"
JENNINGS
SIGIvIOND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Marc L, Gelman
Direct Dial: (215) 351-0623
E-Mail Address: mgelman~jslex.com
Member: PA & NJ Bars
JENNINGS $ICJMOND, P.e.
THE PENN MLrruAL TOWERS
16'm FLOOR
510 WALNUT STREET
]INDEPENDENCE SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3683
215-9224~700
FAX 215-922-3524
EDWARD DAms 1893-1987
M. H. GOLDST~rN 1904 1971
December 29, 2003
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Lawrence J. Ludwig v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association
No. 03-1456 Civil Term
Dear Mr Turo:
Enclosed please find Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents directed
to Plaintiff. Please respond to these discovery requests within the time periods prescribed by the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Thank you [br your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
MARC L, GELMAN
MLG/jv
Enclosure
Cc: D. McNany
1177604
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENN1NGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRi~CTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND TILINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. RULE 4009
To~
John W. Owens
177 Nutt Road
Grove City, PA 16127
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to
produce the following document and things:
1.)
Copies of your itemized telephone bills for the months of August, September,
October and November 2002. This shall include bills relating to your home
telephone number (land-line) as well as your cellular telephone number.
2.)
The hard-drive of the personal computer in your possession and use between
the months of August and November 2002.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by
this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the
address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing
copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty
(20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a a court order compelling
you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following persons:
JENNINGS SIGMOND
THOMAS,~. JEiX~-INGS
I.D. No. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN
I.D. No. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant PSCOA
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-145:6 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE:
John W. Owens
177 Nutt Road
Grove City, PA 16127
You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing
documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23
I, John W. Owens, certify to the best of my knowledge, reformation and belief that all
documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on have
been produced.
DATE:
John W. Owens
EXHIBIT 2
Gelman, Marc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
PSCOAPastPres@aol.com
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:33 PM
PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogroups.com
[PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS ICE
FISHING ?
OK Folks listen up gather round:
In tho next day or two you are going to see a posting here that is most
bizarre. It will be a letter and copies of subpoena's to me from PSCOA and Grand
PoooooBa Jennings demanding that I submit my computer hard drive for any/all
computers used since I left in August 2002 and copies of all my private and cell
phone bills starting with August 2002 when I left. This is a civil contract
law suit I have filed against them and what they want to do is try and go well
beyond the scope to try and see who all I spoke with and those that
communicated with me during that time. What on earth are they afraid of?
If that is not total ridiculous fishing chew on this: They are issuing the
same subpoena's to Johnny Owens, SCl Mercer. They want his hard drive and his
phone bills. This is just the beginning. Who will be next? You? Stay tuned.
Jennings bills to the PSCOA
July 2003- $59,091.12
August 2003- $68,987.63
September 2003- $48,844.82
October 2003- $56,141.79
November 2003- $55,059.46
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
........................ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ........................ >
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Pdnter at Mytnks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
</FONT><A HREF="http://www.cltracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511"><B>Click Here!</B></A><FONT COLOR="#000099">
</FONT><A HREF= 'http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAN3exGAA/qnsNANaRSo B/TM"><B>Click Here!</B></A>
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups, yahoo.com/group/PaCorrectionsofficers/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PaCorrectionsofficers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
htt p://docs.yahoo.com/in fo/terms/
EXHIBIT "3"
Gelman, Marc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jadzia [jadzia@verizon.net]
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:39 PM
PaCorreclionsofficers@yahoogroups.com
Re: [PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS ICE
FISHING ?
back it up....Iow level format it.....give it to them...there will be nothing left on the drive....ya know...they go bad all the
time.....LOL
wetz
..... Original Message .....
From: PSCOAPastPres@aol.com
To: PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: [PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS ICE FISHING ?
OK Folks listen up gather round:
In the next day or two you are going to see a posting here that is most
bizarre. It will be a letter and copies of subpoena's to me from PSCOA and Grand
PoooooBa Jennings demanding that I submit my computer hard drive for any/all
computers used since I left in August 2002 and copies of all my pdvate and cell
phone bills starting with August 2002 when I left. This is a civil contract
law suit I have filed against them and what they want to do is try and go well
beyond the scope to try and see who all I spoke with and those that
communicated with me during that time. What on earth are they afraid of?
If that is not total ridiculous fishing chew on this: They are issuing the
same subpoena's to Johnny Owens, SCI Mercer. They want his hard drive and his
phone bills. This is just the beginning. Who will be next? You? Stay tuned.
Jennings bills to the PSCOA
July 2003- $59,091.12
August 2003- $68,987.63
September 2003- $48,844.82
October 2003- $56,141.79
November 2003- $55,059.46
[Non-text portions of th~s message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://greups, yahoo.com/group/PaCorrectionsofficersl
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PaCorrectionsofficers-unsubscribe@yahoog roups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs, yahoo.com/info/terms/
Gelman, Marc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lockmuppadoc~aol.com
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:41 PM
PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogmups.com
Re: [PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS...
wetz, you are wrong, a formatted harddrive can still produce information. The
best way is to smash the shit out of it.
Beers
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http:llgroups, yahoo.comlgroup/PaCorrectionsofficersl
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PaCorrectionsofficers-u nsubscribe(~yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http:lldocs.yahoo.com/infolterms/
Gelman, Marc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jadzia [jadzia@verizon.net]
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:46 PM
PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogroups.com
Re: [PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS...
not a Iow level format.....won't get anything off that...used to be my specialty ::)
But...smashing it is just as well :)
wetz
..... Odginal Message .....
From: Lockmuppadoc~aol.com
To: PaCorrection sofficers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PaCorrectionsofficers] PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS...
wetz, you are wrong, a formatted harddrive can still produce information. The
best way is to smash the shit out of it.
Beers
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PaCorrectionsofficers/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PaCorrectionsofficers-unsubscribe(~yahoog roups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.ya hoo.com/info/terms/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
........................ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ........................ >
<FONT COLOR="CK)00099">Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Mylnks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
</FONT><A HREF= 'http://www.cltracking.com/.asp?cid=5511 "><B>Click Here!</B></A><FONT COLOR="#000099">
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/aRSolB/TM,><B>Click Here~</B></A>
..................................................................... ~_~, *
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://grou ps.yahoo.com/group/PaCorrectionsofficers/
Gelman, Marc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Owens [jw_owens@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:07 PM
PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogroups.com
[PaCorrectionsofficers] Re: PSCOA HQ and the Jennings with his SKY HIGH BILLS...
Beers,
Nothing on my hard drive that I have to worry about. I won't be
formating or smashing anything. I damn sure aint handing over
anything to those assholes willingly either. By the way... I hope
those fucking RETARDS and the THIEF that runs the show are ready for
some SERIOUS MEDIA coverage if I get any court order from them!
"UNION STEWARD'S PRIVACY INVADED BY UNION LEADERSHIP"
Bring it on BITCHES!
JohnnyO
--- In PaCorrectionsofficers@yahoogroups.com, Lockmuppadoc@a... wrote:
> wetz, you are wrong, a formatted hardddve can still produce
information. The
> best way is to smash the shit out of it.
> Beers
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.ya hoo.com/group/PaCorrectionsofficers/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PaCorrectionsofficers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs, yahoo.comlinfo/terms/
EXHIBIT "4"
Page 1 ofl
Gelman, Marc
From: Jennings, Thomas
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:57 PM
To: Gelman, Mare
Subject: FW: Tell Jennings to kiss your fucking ass!
Does this mean he doesn't like me?
From: Mark Watson [mailto:mwatson46@adelphia.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 200~ 3:33 PM
To: GUNSH[P7@AOL.COM; rpinto@pscoa.org
Subject: Tell 3ennings to kiss your fucking ass!
From: '~::, John Owens" <j~v owens~y...>
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: It's always something
Wetz,
Tell Jennings to kiss your fucking ass! I haven't yet; been served
any subpoena so I can format my fucking hard-drive any time I want to
and you can suggest any fucking thing you want to to any fucking body
you want to! Fuck Jennings and the morons who's strings he pulls!
These fucking people must think this is NAZI FUCKING GER~3LNy or
something!!!
I hope that goose-steppin', fat, greasy, stinking, money grubbing
BITCH and the PSCOA DO come after me... I WANT to be put on a witness
stand! I PRAY I get a chance to be on a witness stand!!
Come after me you ring-knocking horse's asses! PL~SE!
JohnnyO
01/15/2004
Exhibit 5
Turo Law Offices
RON TURO, Esquire
ROBERT J. MULDERIG, Esquire
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M ROBINSON, Esquire
DANIEL D. WORLEY, Esquire
JAMES G. GAULT, Esquire
www. TuroLaw. corn
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) 562-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
January 13, 2004
Marc L. Gelman
Jennings Sigmond, P.C.
The Penn Mutual Towers
16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Independence Square
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
RE: Lawrence J. Ludwig v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association
No. 03-1456 Civil Term
Dear Marc:
I write as a follow up to your letter of December 29, 2003 regarding your proposed
subpoena to John W. Owens. Please accept this letter as my objection to service of this
subpoena based on our conversation of January 9, 2004. Ill you believe that you are entitled to
the information requested in the subpoena, I suggest that you file a Motion t~ Compel with the
Court.
RT/jge
c.c. Lawrence Ludwig
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marc L. Gelman, hereby certify that I caused a tree and correct copy of Defendant's
Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to Issuance of Subpoena to be delivered via U.S.
First Class mail to the counsel listed below this ~x day of May, 2004:
Ron Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney For Plaintiff
MARC L. GELMAN
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG,
Plaintiff
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTION OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
03-1456 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2 q* day of May, 2004, a brief argument on the within motion to
compel discovery is set for Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4,
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
r'~on Turo, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Thomas~J/'eunings, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rim
BY THE COURT,
K~/~i ttess, J.
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG,
Plaintiff
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTION OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
03-1456 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OVERRUI,E
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
ORDER
AND NOW, this :' q * day of May, 2004, a briefarg~anent on the within motion to
overrule plaintiff's objections to subpoena is set for Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
~//on Turo, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Thomas ~ennings, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rim
K~0/A. Hess, J.
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Pennsylvania State Correction,
Officers' Association,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: NO. 03-1456 CIVIL TERM
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Ludwig, by his undersigned counsel, replies to Pennsylvania
State Corrections Officers Association's CPSCOA") Motion to Compel Discovery, and in
support states the following:
I. FACTS
In the summer of 2002, PSCOA offered Lawrence J. Ludwig ("Ludwig") a one year
consulting agreement, from August 6, 2002 through August 5, 2003. In order to accept
this offer, Ludwig had to resign from his position as President of the PSCOA. Ludwig did
resign his position, and did accept PSCOA's offer. After paying approximately one
fourth of Ludwig's compensation, PSCOA unilaterally abrogated its agreement in
November 2002.
Soon thereafter, Ludwig filed a breach of contract action against PSCOA. In late June of
2003, PSCOA served a subpoena for documents and also interrogatories on Ludwig.
Ludwig responded to those requests. On December 29, 2003, PSCOA served notice of
its plan to issue a second subpoena on Ludwig, asking for copies of Ludwig's itemized
)hone bills for four months, including all hard-wired and cellular lines as well as the
hard-drive of Ludwig's personal computer. On January 13, 2004, Ludwig objected to the
immense scope of said subpoena, and reserved tl~e right to object in greater detail in
the event that PSCOA persisted with its broad request unchanged. In May 2004,
PSCOA requested that the court compel compliance to its proposed subpoena. This
Reply is in response to that request.
II. ARGUMENT
Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth relevancy to the
subject matter as defining the general scope of discovery. Relevancy in discovery is, of
course, closely related to breadth. PSCOA apparently hopes that if it has enough
material to look at, it may discover something relevant. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court quashed a number of subpoenas for being similarly overbroad "fishing
expeditions" designed to provide something, however marginally useful. Lunderstadt, et
al. v. Pennsylvania House of Representatives Select Committee, 513 PA. 236, 519 A.2d
408 (1986). In doing so, it quoted Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. from FTC v.
American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298, 306 (1924), regarding the investigation of private
items stating that, "It is contrary to the first principles of justice to allow a search through
all the respondents' records, relevant or irrelevant, in the hope that something will turn
up." Id. at 246.
Both requests in the PSCOA subpoena are essentially "fishing expeditions." PSCOA
seems to believe that Ludwig's phone bills will help it establish a defense to a breach of
contract action. PSCOA is simply groping to find any facts that may lend credence to its
defense. PSCOA claims that to properly defend itself "it is necessary that PSCOA
thoroughly explore and investigate the communications made by Ludwig which are
adverse to its interests." (Defendant's Mot. To Cornpel Discovery at 6). PSCOA states
that the phone bills are the way to identify Ludwig's contacts so that "depositions, if
necessary, can be scheduled." (Id.) PSCOA fails to indicate how it will determine what
depositions are needed. Following the reasoning of its current request, PSCOA will not
be able to ascertain whose deposition is relevant, until it has deposed every person on
Ludwig's bills. As Ludwig repeatedly indicated in his responses to PSCOA's
interrogatories about time, dates, and locations of communications, the instances of
such are so numerous as to defy categorization. (id., Exh. 2 at 17-20).
Rule 401 l(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure states that discovery is not
allowed if it "would cause unreasonable...burden...to the deponent or any person...."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that IF~ule 401 l(b) simply codifies the
constitutional right to privacy. Sten,qer v. Lehiqh Valley Hospital Center, 530 Pa. 426,
439,609 A.2d 796 (1992). PSCOA is asking that it be allowed to invade the privacy
rights of unknown individuals because that invasion might eventually lead to something
useful. The request does not even remotely approach the particularity expected of
subpoenas.
The second item in the PSCOA subpoena to Ludwig is a request for the hard-drive of
the personal computer in his possession during thE; period from August to November
2002. PSCOA accurately notes that e-mail is becoming a frequent mode of
communication in daily life. PSCOA goes on to observe that if Ludwig had used paper
for his messages, that paper would be discoverable. It is equally true that discovery of
written documents cannot be made though blanket requests. Discovery is not meant to
lead to rifling through a person's documents, no matter how stored, on the chance that a
relevant item might be found. Pennsylvania courts recognize that discovery is not
unlimited in scope. Neal v. Lu, 365 Pa. Super. 464,471 (1987).
As with itemized phone bills, a computer's hard-driive contains much information, some
of it personal, that is not relevant to a breach of contract suit. Privacy interests are
recognized under the U.S. constitution in part as tile "interest in avoiding disclosure of
personal matters...." VVhalen v. Roe., 429 U.S. 589, 599, 97 S. Ct. 869,876 (1977). The
Pennsylvania constitution affords the same protecl:ion. Sten.qer at 434. The court orders
that enforce discovery are state actions, and must therefore remain within constitutional
boundaries. Seattle Times Co., et al. v. Rhinehart, et al., 467 U.S. 20, 104 S. Ct. 2199
(1984). PSCOA's discovery request asks the court to exceed those limits and approve
the unwarranted breadth of the desired discovery.
III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Lawrence J. Ludwig respectfully requests that this court
not grant PSCOA's motion to compel its broad subpoena.
Date
Re:spgctfully Submitted
TUR¢ LAW OFFICES
I~on Turo, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
Attorney for Lawrence J. Ludwig
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Pennsylvania State Correction,
Officers' Association,
Defendant
IN THE ,COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 03-'1456
CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Reply to Defendant's
Motion to Compel Discovery upon Mare Gelman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association by depositing same in the United
States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the day of L~f-~L~' 2004,
from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows::
Marc Gelman, Esq.
Jennings Sigmoncl, P.C.
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street, Independence Square
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
TURO LAW OFFICES
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245,-9688
Attorney for Plaintiff
JENNINGS SIGMOND
BY: THOMAS W. JENNINGS, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 09890
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
I.D. NO. 45701
MARC L. GELMAN, ESQUIRE
I.D. NO. 78857
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 351-0612/23
Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE J. LUDWIG
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-14:56 CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Kindly withdraw Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery filed with this Court in the
above-referenced matter and currently scheduled for oral argument on July 29, 2004.
Date:
THOMAs W. JE?(NiI'4GS
RICHARD C. MCNEILL
MARC L. GELMAN
The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683
(215) 922-6700
Attorneys for Defendant
PRAEC/PE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and Submitt--'--ed in duplicate~--
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one) x
) ~'or JURY trial at the next term of civil Court.
) for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF' CASE
(entire caption must be stated Jn fuji) (check one)
Lawrence j. Ludwig (x) ASsumpsit
Trespass
(Plaintiff)
vs.
Pennsylvania State Correction
Officer's Association
(Defendant)
VS.
) Trespass (Motor Vehicle)
(Other~--- ~
Sept 28, 2004__
and __
TriaJs commence on October 25,2004
Pretriais wilt be held onOctober 6 2004
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) -'
(The party listing this case for trial shall provide
forthwith a COpy of the praecipe lo all COunsel,
pursuant to lOCal Rule 214-1.)
03-1456
No.~ -- Civil~
Indicatetheattorneywho willtry casef°rlhepartywhofilesthispraecipe:
Ron Turo
;ndicatetriaicounselforotherpartiesifknown:
Richard McNeill
This case is ready for trial,
Signed: _
Print Nam
Ron Turo
Attorney for: -P-la. i4%tiff__
Lawrence J. Ludwig,
Plaintiff
Pennsylvania State Correction,
Officers' Association,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 03-'t~J~5' CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please settle, discontinue and mark withdrawn the above captioned matter on
behalf of the Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Ludwig.
Date
Ror~ Turo, ~squire ~
Attorney for Plaintiff(
Please settle, discontinue and mark withdrawn the above captioned matter on
behalf of the Defendant, Pennsylvania State Correction Officers Association.
Date
Richard C. McNeill, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant