HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-06280
~ '\-
1
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
..~"~ ~- '~..iIil!i""'\!l1"1lll - -'",<U__j""",,,,!,~.tl!-.{,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE
9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH
Robert L. O'Brien, David A. Baric:
and Michael A. Scherer t/d/b/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
CIVIL ACTION
VS
Randall L. Valk
In Equity
No. 2000 6280
APPEARANCES:
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire, appears on behalf of
the plaintiffs.
ORDER OF COURT
May 23, 2002, the Court is not going to find Mr.
Valk in contempt today but is going to give him ten days
from today's date to answer interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 13 and
15.
The Court further orders that a confidential
protective shield shall cover these answers, and they shall
be delivered directly to Mr. Abeln, and no one else but the
firm of O'Brien, Baric and Scherer and Mr. Abeln shall have
access or reveal the contents of those interrogatories.
1
Melissa J. Little
Official Court Reporter
-'"
-
-, ,
~ ~
~____;i_..~M
\
1 The interrogatories that are filed with the
0 2 prothonotary shall be sealed in an envelope and marked
3 confidential not to be opened without order of court.
4
5
6
7
8 c:
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0 2
Melissa J. Little
Official Court Reporter
, "
'.~ L '
111 t'-~ ~ltiiM;!!f;~'i~~;\-'i-J~~~r~~<il84f,;~~~~~ili5iI_I~lS:iIfA
0>-
cr::
is
ll..lC)
C)..::~:-
g~t~'
C'\('"
td,,:,
ff!;~}
,-1..-
~--
$..J.~
O,".itl>'
""
.:c
<"'\1
C)
Q,\
c\:
0;;
Q:
ee)
C\J
,
,~.
~!i
!l~l
~...:Cl...
~
::J
()
.
~"~ -
, -- ~~~
~ ~~..>
A....-~-'iI1~~"'~
f
Q
0,'
,: ,
.0...........
,
r
> >r~~' '''''~ <. 1~lw"~,","_.Jli-H""
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER tfd/b/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
v.
RANDALL L. VALK, CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
~ .J1hV. -1~ I
AND NOW, this J day of I\lG,'illl.Ia_'l" 1000, upon consideration of the
Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Discovery From Defendant As To Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories and Document Request, a Rule is issued upon Defendant to show
cause if any there be why the relief requested in this Motion should not be granted.
Rule returnableM days from service.
BY THE COURT,
J,
COj:>l~ n\~ils.c.C --16 I).J..,L {)bE-l.J
'( " It ~(L L/2Lt
//~/O( - ':::r7r\
0 c~,
C
??: '-
-00, "; .T~
rl1rn ~,)~
~e~ 0','-
,
(j),L:" tII
-<.
,<c :~
~>c" .-r' ;
Z -~' ,
>~ --
.. "
r- ::;:~'
~ co) ~
~ _~d"""~,'~t;~'"t"<_.
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER Ud/b/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
v.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISC,OVERY FROM DEFENIDANT
, i,', ",I:, - , ,
AS TO PLAIfr.lTIFFS'FfIRST SET OF
INTERROGA TORliES 'AND DOCUMENT REQUEST
1. Plaintiffs, Robert L. O'Brien, David A. Baric and Michael A. Scherer Ud/b/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, bring this motion pursuant to Rule 4019 and Rule 4006(a) of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which authorizes this Court to:
(a) Compel Defendants to file full and complete responses to Plaintiffs
interrogatories;
(b) Compel Defendants to respond fully and completely to document requests
contained in Plaintiffs request for production of documents to Defendant ("document
requests").
2. On or about September 27, 2000, Plaintiffs served upon Defendant
interrogatories and document requests.
3. True and correct copies of Defendants' interrogatories and document
requests are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B" and are incorporated by reference.
4. On or about October 24, 2000, Plaintiffs received responses to the
interrogatories and document requests. True and correct copies of these responses
, ,
- -~'
jilt' ~~" '",",,_,.I,'':'~,'',,_I
are attached as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests the Court to compel
Defendant to file and serve full and compete responses to the interrogatories and
document requests of Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
1?1Sd1ck
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2851
rlo.dir/clientlvalklcompel.mot
"
-
.!iIIii.
.....,,---~-,
. ,
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER, tld/b/a
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-
CIVIL TERM
vs.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
:CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT and REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO AID IN PREPARATION OF COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the plaintiffs, Robert L. O'Brien, David A. Baric and Michael A.
Scherer, tld/b/a O'Brien, Baric and Scherer, and file the following Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents to be answered by the above named defendant
under oath within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof. '
These interrogatories are continuing and any additional information which
becomes known to the party or party's counsel after answers are filed shall be set forth
in supplementary answers which are to be filed, without demand by the defendant's
attorneys, as soon as the additional information is known. .
DEFINITIONS
A. The term "document" as used herein shall mean the original and any
copy, marked up copy, revision, amendment, modification, non-identical copy and/or
draft, or any written, printed, typed, drawn or other graphic matter of any kind or nature,
however, produced or reproduced, whether or not sent or received, including without
limitation; memoranda, reports, computations, estimates, communications, financial
reports or statements, notes, transcripts, letters, correspondence, intra or inter office
communications, envelopes, telegrams, cables, telephone messages, messages,
summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal
conversations or interviews, minutes, notes, notations, tabulations, studies, analyses,
reports, evaluations, projection, work papers, summaries, journals, statistical records,
calendars, appointment books, diaries, plans, drawings, blue prints, modules,
specifications, data, sketches, maps, boring logs, soil tests, soil charts, soil reports,
sketch books, quantity books, material books, time log sheets, purchase orders,
invoices, checks, receipts, payroll records, summaries or records of meetings or
conferences, minutes or tape recordings of meetings or conferences, summaries or
reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, questionnaires, surveys,
charts, graphs, books, notebooks, note charts, articles, magazines, newspapers,
booklets, circulars, bulletins, press releases, notices, instructions, manuals,
photographs, schedules, network diagrams, bar-charts, line-charts, motion picture film,
microfilms, photographs, tapes or other recordings, punch charts, computer programs,
-J....>; J:lii ~_,_""",.*,*",
magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, printout and other data computations from
which information can be obtained, and margin'al comments appearing on any
documents, and all other writings in the possession, custody or control of Defendant or
his agents, officers, employees or attorneys.
B. "Propounding Plaintiff" means Robert L. O'Brien, David A. Baric and
Michael A. Scherer, tld/b/a O'Brien, Baric and Scherer.
C. "Person" or "Persons" shall mean any natural individual or corporation,
firm, partnership, proprietorship, association, joint venture, governmental entity or any
other business or government organization.
D. "Meeting" shall mean any assembly, convocation, encounter or
coincidence of two or more persons for any purpose, whether or not planned, arranged
or scheduled in advance.
E. "Comml:lnication" shall mean any utterance made, human speech heard,
overheard, or intended to be heard by any person, whether in person, by telephone, by
means of sounding recording, or otherwise.
F. "Identify" means:
(a) When used in reference to a document, describe with
sufficient particularity to form the basis for a Request for Production under
Pa. R.C.P. 4009, including but not limited to the date it was prepared or
created, the identity of its author or originator, the type of document (~,
letter, telegram, chart, photograph, sound recordings, etc.), the identity of
its addressee, its present location and the identity of its present
custodian(s). If such document was, but is no longer, in your possession
or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it;
(b) When used in reference to a natural person or business entity,
"identify" means to state his or her or its full name, present or last known home
address, present or last known business address, present or last known home
telephone number, present or last known position or affiliation.
G. "Occurrence" means anything pertaining to litigation arising out of:
Randall L. Valk, et ai, vs. Richard P. Valk, et ai, No. 717 Equity 1994 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and Randall L. Valk vs. Dauphin
Deposit Bank and Trust Company, et ai, No 21-95-612 Orphans' Court Division of the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
H. "You" means, Randall L. Valk or any representative, agent, servant, or
attorney thereof.
INSTRUCTIONS
If you object to the production of any documents on the grounds that the
attorney-client, attorney work product or any other privilege is applicable thereto, with
respect to that document:
(a) State its date;
.
.;..,...- ~
_' :......."~ __-,",,_&d',.c,",-"=~''',
(b) Identify its author;
(c) Identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation of
the documents;
(d) Identify each person who received it;
(e) Identify each person from whom the documents were received;
(f) State the present location of the document and all copies thereof;
(g) Identify each person who has ever had possession, custody or control of
it or copy thereof; and
(h) Provide sufficient information concerning the document and the
circl,lmstances thereof to explain the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of
the propriety of that claim.
FACTS
On or about November 22, 1993 the Defendant entered into a Power of Attorney!
Contingent Fee Agreement with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs represented the Defendant
in the actions identified as the "occurrence" until the Defendant terminated their
representation on or about April 17, 1998.
INTERROGATORIES
1. State:
a) Your full name and your occupation.
ANSWER:
b) State on what authority you make these answers to Interrogatories:
ANSWER:
2. Please identify any and all documents in your possession, custody, or control
that pertain to the settlement or disposition of the actions identified as the occurrence
that have been produced in the year 2000.
ANSWER:
"
-
I""",~""","_;'-'rr.!il.}",
3. Please state why the aforesaid equity action was discontinued.
ANSWER:
4. Please state whether the appeal to the Superior Court of the aforesaid Orphans'
Court action is still active.
ANSWER:
5. Did you receive any consideration for the discontinuance of the aforesaid equity
action? If you received consideration please indicate what it consisted of and provide
any documents reflecting it.
ANSWER:
6. Were all other minority shareholders notified of the discontinuance of the equity
action?
ANSWER:
7. Did all other minority shareholders consent to the discontinuance of the equity
action?
ANSWER:
8. Why did you not seek court approval in conjunction with the discontinuance of
the equity action?
ANSWER:
9. Why did you not request that the Court consider the validity of the shareholders
agreement in connection with the discontinuance of the equity action?
...... ~~_~","-,",,","~k,,~.,j .
ANSWER:
10. Why did you not request that the Court consider the impact of the shareholders
agreement on the buy-sell agreement between Ted P. Valk and Richard P. Valk in
connection with the discontinuance of the equity action?
ANSWER:
11 . Why did you not request that the Court consider any tax ramifications in
conjunction with the discontinuance of the equity action?
ANSWER:
12. Why did you not request that the Court determine if the discontinuance of the
equity action was in your best interest?
ANSWER:
13. In conjunction with the discontinuance of the equity action did you surrender
your shares in Valk Manufacturing company?
ANSWER:
14. If you surrendered your shares, did you receive book value for them?
ANSWER:
15. If you signed any documents involving some or all of the Defendants in
connection with the discontinuance of the equity action, why did you not seek Court
approval prior to signing?
ANSWER:
-- --"'
-
-~,,,,-,*;j,lii.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
1. Any and all documents identified in you answers to interrogatories.
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
'.
~a6
U-....J. ---
Date:
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
1.0. # 28351
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-6873
~~
<~Mili'=-.;.1.U,",'"".
~
'"
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, DAVID A. )
BARIC and MICHAEL A. SCHERER, )
tld/b/a O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, )
Plaintiffs )
)
Ys. )
)
RANDALL L. V ALK, )
Defendant )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYL VANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY TERM
IN EQUITY
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFFS
and
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
~6t'r U
Defendant
17 Cold Springs Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
_. u
-
~
"
"~ h,_-.-.*,;.,
INTERROGATORIES
1. (a) Randall L. Valk
(b) Defendant
2. See documents of public record filed to No. 717 Equity 1994 and to No. 21-95-
612 Orphans' Court Division. All other documents that may respond to this Interrogatory are
deemed confidential and/or are covered by the attorney/client privilege.
3. The answer to this Interrogatory is confidential other than that I deemed it
appropriate to discontinue the action.
4. No.
5. The answer to this Interrogatory is confidential and may not be disclosed.
6. Unknown.
7. Unknown.
8. Not necessary; the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with prejudice.
9. Not necessary; the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with prejudice.
10. Not necessary; the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with prejudice.
II. Not necessary; the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with prejudice.
12. Not necessary; the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with prejudice.
13. The answer to this Interrogatory is confidential.
14. The answer to this Interrogatory is confidential.
15. The answer to the first part of this Interrogatory is confidential. The answer to the
second part of this Interrogatory is that the matter was discontinued and withdrawn with
prejudice, which does not need court approval.
DOCUMENT REQUEST
I. All documents identified in these Answers to Interrogatories are public record and
may be obtained by the Plaintiffs.
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 JtiIo!!.--= ~~, ~''l:<~>>>:\
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing Defendant's Answers to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by depositing a copy of
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at mr J.htlj , Pennsylvania, addressed to the
following: !;. 1'/I4;'I>f.s
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
17 West South Street
DATE1.';l2'7~C~llil0'PA 17~,PE M-
RANDALL L. V ALK ".
1-
."".,.,t.'
>" l. ~,~*~'if*3i.Wi\;6'~~'i"f;"""'-""*&~'i!l\t",~Ji!i;illIiitffi;l.,!!A~
:lIJ(IlA<
[lo~~~~Jf.l.r::\.!1i
~ .' '" >
Jt
() C::-'
~ '':=,:
.,,,"
1:] ~"~.\ ~]
nl
Z
L:. t,o'" ~,
cr' " '::J
-<
r:::: C~j -0 -,H
~;....,.. -.--'-,' <,0; i,::)
~7'- J . .?'~, ,
~L) C:r n
>c r.:? ~
~ ::0
..,.- -<
="
. ~ .' .
1o:Il>..u.."",,,,~ri.;~,:,,';
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: NO. 00-6280 CIVIL TERM
RANDALL L. VALK
: CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 27 day of December, 2000, the Cumberland County Court of
Common Pleas hereby relinquishes jurisdiction over this matter due to a conflict of interest.
Argument on the case shall be heard by the Honorable Carol L. Van Horn of the Court
of Common Pleas of Franklin County.
By the Court,
'resident Judge
cc: Gregory B. Abeln, Esq.
Randall L. Valk
~
:r'
i
,
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER, tld/b/a
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
v.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance on behalf ofthe Plaintiffs, Robert L. O'Brien, David A.
Baric and Michael A. Scherer tld/b/a O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, in the above-captioned
matter.
Date:
\ t~c:b
Re'~;Bm~
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2851
"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November K, 2000, I, Darlene Cramer, secretary to
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire, did serve the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, by first class
u.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows:
Randall L. Valk
17 Cold Springs Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
;J~ 1( ~
Darlene Cramer ~
II
','
"-~"r-
"" ",,'
>", _~'''~''''_H U ~.
~,-". ".",~,",',.-,
~'.,".,.~' .J, '""~','
-.,~ ""
",' p, ,," ~'C,,".
"
.;,..~
"
i
I
0 C) c:,
c C) , ,
$: 2
-oc-:-; 0
m p -"'-
~S:: U-; d \,.,
" , {-)
-< /.. "
r:::C -..,..., -,
)';; '~,,'~ '"
-,7 C",? ::,:;,: C)
"=rJ ~,? ,-', n-j
>-c c,~
'-4
Z .1'....:
:::.! Xl
C.) -<
._,"'
~ ~ ~
.-
""
"~
_~~~~"' =~IIIll>l_~I_!I<ilJk"".
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
q,
CASE NO: 2000-06280 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
O'BRIEN ROBERT L ET AL
VS
VALK RANDALL L
CH. DEPUTY RONALD ANDERSON
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS IN EQUITY was served upon
VALK RANDALL L the
DEFENDANT , at 0014:35 HOURS, on the 27th day of September, 2000
at CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFFS' DEPT 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to
RANDALL L. VALK
a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS IN EQUITY together with
INTERROGATORIES
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
18.00
3.10
.00
10.00
.00
31. 10
So Answers: ~..d
r~""~~
R. Thomas Kline
09/28/2000
O'BRIEN, BARIC
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this .s'E-
day of
(A.aA-L-. d/.-iJ7f7) A. D .
~ {l7hd":,~
rothonotary , ,
,
.~,:,,,,. .
"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
ROBERT L. 0' BRIEN
DAVID A. BARIC AND
MICHAEL A.SCHERER, T/D/B/A
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
Plaintiffs
Court of Common Pleas
VI.
No, __?99_Q:~}_~Q_~~!~__~~__________ 19____
RANDALL L. VALK
71 COLD SPRINGS ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
Defendant
In ___~Y_I_~___________________________________
RANDALL L. VALK
To _____________________________________________
You are hereby notified that
ROBERT L. 0' BRIEN, DAVID A. BARIC AND MICHAEL A. SCHERER, T/D/B/A O'BRIEN, BARIC
-&-E(liEREJ<;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Plaintiff ha commenced an action in __hu_.5!JMl110N._"'_EQ.QITI'_______h_____nnnn_n_nn_
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
Date _!?~_~_~'3_}.j_,_39_0_<!._______ ~n__
~rJ~_B~__~~~________________________________
Prothonotary'
By __~_!!i_~~!tJJf,; _om
Deputy Tj
: U~lU!i!lJ~tRW~!!~I~lmili&"'!iii.liI1M\\)>1~.m~~!ltiO~i@;,'lll"WlL""ifkl."il:';;';!f<l:f.~IK~,-,t!,.H'k~~~~_!ll!riJl,~~~.<!~
.~
..
er
=1
~
-..J~""'O;
..... -..J-
-..J to
I r:-<;g:;o
NHtlJH::O
... enent>:l...,
~r:-<...,z
, t>:I . r:-<
~ ~~~~
I--'~Hto
-..J n:;o
oen H
.....:;j"'t>:I
w~f
1ll
:;0
<~" ., ~ ",-
~.~- " - ., ".' ,,',~-" ,
I
,
,
i~
IH
:::1
I
(
Wi~
bj~~
&l1r
>u;Br
:Jj'H
Ii? ~<~ ~
..".....en
(1)-..J
"'0:0
0......0
~ wE;
rt
...
=
-'~ _.
~ '~'l-""""""~'
~~~~;
~ 0:;0
t>:I ...,
zr:-<>
. . r:-<
> .
'd~~' ~~
I-'H Hto
Ill() ():;o
~"'1ll~i
f-'.~:;oo.
.." .
.."
en ...,
1ll"O
:;0"-
to
"-
>
~''"'''''"'~<~'''Ili!!iIl@iI!C[i
, .
H
... Ii
z
1)
IN
'0
'0
10
"
IN
1(Jl
'N
~
If-'.
~
I
,
,
I
I
I
-
:-0
I
,
I
I
i
I
,
<
, ,
."''''''--4"",~
l.
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER, Ud/b/a
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000- &,;80 CIVIL TERM
vs.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defend8>>t
'7-/ CoidSfr'<'&)SK-oorJ
Cefl/t,lll m 11013-
:CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
Dear Prothonotary:
Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above captioned action.
~b~
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
~1liH!iiIIll~L~lIlllti!!!,"~I'~MI;:IlWif'~:l!WJ",~~ih!;",,\2,;';~,*')<$dl..;.ci;;'~~'il!ltilll\!;I~~"~~' !ill
1f. C"> ~
'%
V,
0 VI 0
- -<..:I
G \:)
...0 eN
l.I\ ----D s:;"
J:>
..,...
Y
~. ~--,
. ".. - -- ~'.
~ -~,
~~
~~-
."-~~
0 C)
c; p
~ V)
'"00:; r<1
sg!r -0
..c. Zr;: .r.
\.!) C) ~2.:
, ;<'0
Ci '8 -0
~O z
:i>g
'" z U'l
Sl. ~ ~
:p
-l--'
Y
\2
~
(;"
0,
yo
~
".
"/.
~
S'
'"
"
'"
'"
,
h-.l;c.,:\,j
~
"
II
II
ii
I
..
~
n
:;-h
"~:;,
J,: .,'-'
'~T~
-_.qP=;
JV
'''' ,
-~1()
~~
Ci~TI
-.
:;
::.c
.
]'_..~~
~'i"AJ
~ -~~~.
c'-':'
< "~ ~"~~,,,~,~,"
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN,
DAVID A. BARIC and
MICHAEL A. SCHERER t/dIb/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
v.
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that I have this day served the foregoing ORDER OF COURT by mailing a
true and exact copy addres~ed to the following:
Randall L. Valk
17 Cold Springs Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Respectfully submitted,
ABELN LAW OFFICES
Date / ~c.?J -01
arlene F. Cramer
Legal Assistant
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3313
717/245-2851
l\i.1"l 'j''-~~~IillIIiI~~__J!~"~%w"~'1<J;'i,;;"f;\!~~,,,,~,",I;I.",~~-libi.lli,,"~.!!iIid,;;\ot.-,iW$"iil:I;k''\'.Mii,"lt'IL~*,~_liIi/;j;tIIf!!c;a1:llli - -""',,",'-
-: J . E ~,to,UJ.r_' ''''~~_
~. ", C,"_.
0'-
~-~'..
,
LI
() 0 ~
C
<" '- '4
-005 > I"
fT1-fT1 :z :~'1 ::h
Z;:n ,
zC N -OfT1
(/)-" .;:- =00
~z: "::) L
2-jC}
._0 -0 -iI,
j; :::ll; ":''')-'1
zO ~("5
-='0
Pc ~ Om
~ U'I ~
'0 -~
1;
!;t
"
'--' "
~" _."~ d """
I~
.
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this -i- day of ~tf;rJt/1fJt1200~ument is set for
'1H1J..R.S!>AY ,the 7-r1-t dayof FUf7.v..'"K'f ,200~at /1'00
a.m.~ in Courtroom No. ~ of the Franklin County Courthouse, Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania on the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery from Defendant as to
Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests.
BY THE COURT,
I
I
II
I
I:!
I
ji
II
I
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
Abeln Law Office
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Copy PWO{)(fi!f jlv;n
{~II~ot2
Randall L. Valk
P.O. Box 105 Mai/€d I-Iro~
Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania 17065
il
...
,
.--,.
"
..
,,< ~'"
OF T!,
,.....yl'R"
. .-~..,' Il,' f
O~' li\'i) II
l- "',1.,1<
P'I"I il'. ".,'.>1
J.-{j , . ,( ....
"'II "~"". """,, I\/TV
\';UP/iDth!J',; (JU~'I~ J I
PENNSYLVANiA
..
R!I'Imf
r1'~"'~'"
- . ~- "" ,>1ffill'ill!ill,., !.
''-,1>,,,',,,','.
"('-,,-
t ~,'l, ~ '_~ ".1,
" ",.,', "J''-''j('' ";'-"i;''<<';':~'''yt'',~~'i1; f .
.....~
"
J
,,;,,
".,O"i".'-'~-' _',' '~~';
.
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
MOTION TO LIST CASE FOR ARGUMENT
1. On January 3, 2001, the Honorable John R. Walker, specially presiding in
this case due to a conflict of interest with the Cumberland County Court, signed an
Order issuing a Rule To Show Cause on the Defendant why he should not be
compelled to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests.
2. On January 26, 2001, Defendant filed an Answer With New Matter to the
Rule issued upon him by Judge Walker, wherein Defendant asserts Plaintiffs have no
legal right to obtain the information requested.
3. This discovery matter is contested and court intervention is necessary to
resolve the discovery dispute.
WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court schedule an argument to resolve this discovery matter.
Respectfully submitted,
~e,~
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-2851
dab.dir/litigation/valklobs/argument.mot
il
.
" ".,;,",~,,,,,,, . ,',,,',=-- -""d,--"~
,~t':
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on
January 4, 2002, I, Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire, did
serve a copy of the Motion To List Case For Argument, by first class U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows:
Randall L. Valk
P.O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania 17065
5<'fB~
"
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
II
II
,.1
""'0"
,'> nt'iU.!IIffi';:'-
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: NO. 00-6280 CIVIL TERM
RANDALL L. VALK
: CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 27 day of December, 2000, the Cumberland County Court of
Common Pleas hereby relinquishes jurisdiction over this matter due to a conflict of interest.
Argument on the case shall be heard by the Honorable Carol L. Van Horn of the Court
of Common Pleas of Franklin County.
By the Court,
cc:
Gregory B. Abeln, Esq.
Randall L. Valk ~ ~ t, (',fl.
<i!l!l
-1
i
,{
f
~
j
.'J;__
,,~ -
~ ~ "'_ h
, ~-
" ,-'- - ~.
'~H"' ~" -""_
OF
00 DEe 28
llld j'lo ., I
dlj lO.).
cu."",~""
I'JJi::tt'ii....F,j\Ci (;n! 1,'\/'\/
P'-'J' ~ "~~'"
CJ\ j'~0YL\l,/!i\i1A
' '"
-^- "i.I'~""rtl]r r:
~........
'P'I'I~~'!lI!!!!,"'.J:{'!.'Irp"I!!i'Lf;';!r,~~Pf.<""'W1l9fi!'''''",__Jl..'l'}$''''T'ffj._~;"f"\$.""'!%I--,;-"""~~;'''''''''''I<'',,;,~''''m',i'n~~~,,..,~. ~.!Il
~". " .
.". :,,,.
. ..'"'' .~ :,.., .
~~:"
V ALK ANSWER AND NEW MAlTQl TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DTSCOVERY
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, DAVID A.
BARIC and MICHAEL A. SCHERER,
tldlb/a O'Brien, Baric & Scherer,
Plaintiffs
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
1. Denied. Defendant is not familiar with which Rules of Civil Procedure that mayor
may not authorize Plaintiffs' Motion and therefore denies the contents of this paragraph.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Motion for the reasons stated herein.
NEW MATTER
5. Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 4 are incorporated herein.
6. Defendant believes that the discovery requests in this case will be used to formulate a
claim for damages against Defendant that Plaintiffs allege are due as a result of legal
representation provided to Defendant in the following actions:
1
~, ,_~ _",,' ~ ~,",c,,;,_ ,'_
.~::. ',<,,1
VALKANSWERAND NEW MATIER TOPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
A. Randall 1. Valk vs. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, and
Richard p, Valk, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphans'
Court Division, Docket No. 21-95-612; and
B. Randall 1. Valle, individually and on behalf ofValk Manufacturing
Company vs. Richard P. Valle, Ted P. Valle, Elliott K. Braverman, and James F
Hay, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Docket No. 717
Equity 1994.
7. Defendant originally hired Plaintiffs to prosecute these matters and entered into a
contingent fee arrangement with Plaintiffs.
8. In December, 1997, Plaintiffs attempted to settle the matters on behalf of the
Defendant without Defendant's authorization.
9. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
10. The Plaintiffs abandoned representation of Defendant that resulted in Defendant
having to file answers to the Motion to Enforce Settlement pro se, and to represent himself.
11. The Plaintiffs did not seek leave to withdraw prior to abandoning Defendant and
ultimately advised Defendant, by letter of April 1 , 1998, that they would testify as witnesses
against Defendant and would indicate that they were authorized to enter into an agreement on his
behalf when they were not so authorized. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a true and
correct copy of Plaintiffs' letter of April 1, 1998.
12. During this period of time, Defendant was not able to obtain separate counsel and
was faced with the unenviable task of having to represent himself against not only the defendants
2
'.-., '-~"
. ^~."'- "'~ _,~M"-'70 '.,_~ . ,_ "./_ _ '_
'~ '
.,,"'-
VALK ANSWER AND NEW MATIER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
in the former actions but also his own attorneys, the Plaintiffs herein, who were attempting to
force the settlement upon Defendant that he had not authorized, and who would not represent
Defendant even though Plaintiffs were still his counsel.
13. Ultimately Kevin A. Hess, the Honorable Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, admonished Plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants concerning their
continued willingness to testify against Defendant and at the same time act as his counsel.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the letter of April 24,
1998, from Judge Hess to counsel and Defendant.
14. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion To Withdraw their representation of
Defendant in both actions, said Motion being filed May 7,1998. Attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit C are true and correct copies of the Orders evidencing the filing of those Motions.
15. The Honorable Kevin A. Hess granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw on May 29,
1998. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Order issued for
both cases.
16. On or about June 3, 1998, after having been granted leave to withdraw, Plaintiffs
filed a Petition for Attorney's Charging Lien in reference to both actions.
17. Thereafter, Defendant was able to obtain legal counsel and hired Michael L. Bangs,
Esquire, to represent him.
18. The former defendants in the Cumberland County actions continued with the Motion
to Enforce Settlement which resulted in several hearings and ultimately ended in an Order of
Court dated December 15,1998, entered by Judge Hess denying the Petition for Specific
Performance and Enforcement of Settlement. In that Opinion, Judge Hess ruled that the
3
"-'- ,
",",,'.__ _" O_~_,,",~,_,,".'_ ''''''", .."""". ">-.~~'''_. ".',,~.' C__._"'-- c'.;s-"'-"'~"';"''''_''''~'''''X''^.'~\~~"' 'C,,,,,-
-
VALK ANSWER AND NEWMATIER TOPLAfflTIFF'SMOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs were not authorized and in fact did not enter into a complete settlement agreement on
Defendant's behalf. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the
Order and Opinion of Judge Hess dated December 15, 1998.
19. Plaintiffs, over Defendant's objections, testified against him at the hearing to enforce
settlement and disclo$ed to opposing counsel the fee agreement that Plaintiffs and Defendant had
prior to Plaintiffs' abandonment of representation of the Defendant.
20. Plaintiffs took no action to enforce their alleged Attorney's Charging Lien.
21. The matter docketed to the Orphans' Court thereafter proceeded through more
extensive discovery and ultimately went to trial in March, 2000. That case was subsequently
appealed to the Superior Court.
22. The parties continued to litigate the Equity matter thereafter.
23. The Equity matter was withdrawn by Defendant in September, 2000, and the appeal
to the Superior Court was withdrawn by Defendant in September, 2000.
24. Defendant submits that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the discovery that they
have requested in this matter because they abandoned their representation of Defendant and
voluntarily chose to withdraw their appearance on his behalf. To the extent that the discovery
relates in any way to their claim for attorneys' fees, they lost their right to receive any attorneys'
fees from Defendant when they chose to voluntarily withdraw from their representation of
Defendant and abandoned Defendant through the litigation.
25. The Plaintiffs abandoned their right, if any, to receive attorneys' fees when they did
not pursue their Charging Lien prior to the withdrawal of the actions. The issue of attorneys'
fees should have been resolved through their Charging Lien if they had any claim and they
4
.
., ,
"'~" .,.'" -~ -'"'&'-''''', "'''.'' " ",,,, *. ~_.",,, -", ." '"
V ALK ANSWER AND NEW MA T1'ER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
should have pursued since it related to the now-withdrawn litigation in the Equity Court and the
Orphans' Court of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
26. The Plaintiffs do not have a legal right to receive information about any resolution of
the matters that Defendant may have made with the former defendants in the litigation in
Cumberland County since Plaintiffs have no right to attorneys' fees.
27. In the event that this Court believes that Plaintiffs somehow have a right to view any
documents that may exist or receive any information other than that which has been disclosed by
Defendant already in the Interrogatories, then the Defendant submits that those matters are
confidential and may not be disclosed without the express written permission of all parties.
28. The Defendant was involved in contentious, expensive, and massive litigation with
the former defendants lasting in excess of 7 years and cannot disclose any portion of any
resolution of the matters between Defendant and the former defendants in the Equity action and
the Orphans' Court action without the prior and express written permission of those parties
which has not been given.
29. Plaintiffs must join the former defendants of the prior Equity and Orphans' Court
actions in this Motion to Compel because without their express written permission and this Court
hearing their objections to the request for disclosure, the Defendant is put at risk of further
litigation with the former defendants of the Equity and Orphans' Court actions.
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to order and direct the
following:
A. Rule that Plaintiffs have no legal right to obtain the information
requested because they have no valid attorneys' fee claim since they abandoned
5
_ . ~ "" Ji!
,
,. ~
"<-
""~~.-c.., >"'''''''=',,,,,,,~ ,~""'cf-",,,_," ,."" '~"_ =
""'-,.'",,"',,'
'~h
VALKANSWERAND NBW MATIER. TOPLAINTIFf'SMOTIQN TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
representation of Defendant and voluntarily withdrew their representation of
Defendant during the pendency of the action in question;
B. Deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel for the reasons stated; or
C. In the alternative if the Court believes that the Plaintiffs have a right to
have further information about the resolution of the matters between Defendant
and the former defendants, that the Plaintiffs be required to join the former
defendants in their Motion so that Defendant does not breach the non-disclosure
and confidentiality provisions of the resolution and subject himself to additional
litigation.
Respectfully submitted,
RANDALL L. V
Defendant, pro se
6
-
"
.",~--'" 0'- "-.~: ,,' _'~_,~"" ,~--"- , "',," ._'",,'" ..., ~ v'i:_ '__
"- ?';"
V ALK ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing Defendant's Answer
and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery by depositing a copy of same in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, at "'I: lI.&I., .Qt..r~, Pennsylvania, addressed to
the following:
1ia' T ~.~. , ~. ~,u~.A.1f 13. ,41JB.AlJ l'.itIJIt.&Md
[r~' ,~ . - ^ [ , ..,;7 eb 4.""'Pite-r S1ilb~
. - m llh I IT ;J ., ,..
r ,., . -. nllU tift 14::St6, "A. r7./~
DATE: ,. "1.'.01
~~~
ALL L. V ALK
7
_ . w_
EXHIBIT A
-'.~,,"~,
I ~, ""'_,p-"-",,._,' ""-'
;;;:,:<i:,
.-,-
_f(;
"~~
-
"'"""' ~ ~ '~^ ~.Boi;"'j"'j,,,''',,,,.,,:,;',
,/
"
Law Offices
/
c_"-
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
17 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Steven 1. Fishman
a/Counsel
Robert L. O'B,'ien
David A. Baric
Michael A, Scherer
(717) 249-6873
FAX (717) 249-5755
April 1, 1998
Mr. Randall L. Valk
P.O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065
Dear Mr. Valk,
I left a message on your machine in reference to Mr. Finio and Mr, French
asking for copies of the letters you intend to present to the Court. In the event you did
not receive the message, this letter will serve as a follow-up. Please advise at your
earliest convenience.
I would note also, that a recently decided case that was reported in the local
paper involving Big Spring School District, reinforces my feeling that both Dave and I
will be called as witnesses in the specific performance hearing. As we have expressed
to you, neither he nor I have any hesitation in testifying that in our estimation, we were
fully authorized to settle the case as the matter now stands. This is a rebuttable
presumption that you can overcome. It will entail all of us testifying and as this matter
is explored by the defendants and the court, certain matters of our analysis and
assessments of the strong and weak points may be inquired into. At that point, it
becomes critical that this analysis be shielded under the attorney-client privilege. The
advisory opinion that J received, suggested that Mike Scherer of this office may be able
to serve as your counsel in this regard. Nonetheless, even with Mike's, assistance to
protect the attorney client privilege, it still places Dave and me in the unenviable
position of testifying contrary to your interests. It also creates a certain j!fsk in
reference to the settlement or prosecution of the cases, irrespective of the Court's
approval of specific performance of the settlement agreement.
This office is certainly Willing to continue to pursue this case against Mr.
Braverman and the other defendants if the cases are not deemed settled. However, we
cannot do that until we get over the hurdle of the current impasse. We are also
concerned about your statements that having your mother's estate secured that your
level of interest in resolving the current cases is greatly reduced. , I would suggest that
,.
~ J
~ . -' . "
,---,
"'''''''-'
-2-
Mr. Randall L. Valk
April 1, 1998
you arrange to meet with Dave, Mike and me to see if we can reach a reasonable
solution to the current situation, I look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
~
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
RLO/au
Enc
.'
,.
--- .-','~'
- "' [."'.. '^I.~ ~_",,,-,' -" "<"~";i-'-'~",,,,"',, , .,,-,>: :,;. -
EXHIBIT B
L,
, fC~~ "'!li4>i1ili
-
~~
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURTHOUSE
1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE. P A
17013
KEVIN A. HESS
JUDGE
(71 7) 240.6296
April 24, 1998
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Thomas French, Esquire
One South Market Sq\Jare
P. O. Box 1146
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146
Randy Valk
P. O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, P A 17065
Gentlemen:
As you are aware, I have been somewhat perplexed by the dual representation of the
plaintiff in recent proceedings in this case. I entered my last order, setting argument on a pro se
motion, on the suggestion that the case of Rockey v. Bi~ Sprin~ School District, 699 A.2d 1331
(1997) permitted such a procedure. I have read the Rockey case carefully. I am completely
satisfied that this case from the COl11l11onwealth Court does not remotely condon~ the procedure
being adopted by counsel in the present case.
It is obvious to me that Mr. Randy Valk's counsel must decide whether or not they agree
with the position he is taking and either defend it or not. Whether counsel will withdraw their
appearance depends, of course, on this assessment. In the meantime, the litigants in this case, as
in an other cases, will either proceed pro se or with counsel but not both.
Discussions with counsel seem to suggest that they are at ease with testifying in this case.
This would appear to be prohibited by Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7. The withdrawal of
counsel appears to be particularly advisable in light of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 6. I
render no opinion with respect to the applicability of Professional Rule of Conduct 1.6 to this
"
case.
~~
"
-~ .
Page 2, 1998
April 24, 1998
In accordance with the above, I have entered the enclosed order.
Very truly yours,
-/ . Ad..
KAHlrlm
encl.
,.
.
l.ii..;'~.
~"ii2~~U"'i
V'
EXHIBIT C
RANDALL L VALK,
Individually and on behalf
of Va\k Manufacturing Company, :
Plaintiffs
INfHE cdU~ib COMMONPL'SGF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 717 EQUITY 1994
v.
RICHARD P. VALK,
TED P. VALK, ELLIOTT K.
BRAVERMAN and
JAMES F. HAY,
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
Defendants
ORDER-"bF COURT
AND NOW, this 7t.A. day of May, 1998 upon review the attached Motion To
Withdraw,
IT IS ORDERED, the law firm of O'Brien, Baric and Scherer, and the partners of
that firm, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, David A. Baric, Esquire and Michael A. Scherer,
Esquire individually and all other interested parties to this case shall have .1) days
from service of this Order to show cause why said Motion should not be granted,
BY THE COURT,
IS/ ~a..~
J.
".
,.
....--..-----
........,.."~'"'-~"..".".I...",."............,.,
_,I
'.
.' c
. itfilllitii,J
RANDALL L. VALK,
Petitioner
v.
NO 21-95-612
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK
and TRUST COMPANY, a
division of DAUPHIN
DEPOSIT CORPORATION
and RICHARD P. VALK
Respondents
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7 t:Iv day of M~y, 1998 upon review the attached Motion To
Withdraw,
IT IS ORDERED, the law firm of O'Brien, Baric and Scherer, and the partners of
that firm, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, David A. Baric, Esquire and Michael A. Scherer,
Esquire individually and all other interested parties to this case shall have S- days
from service of this Order to show cause by said Motion should not be granted.
BY THE COURT,
IS! ~fJ.~
J.
~'
,.
&L
EXIllBIT D
:;
-
,-,'
,....---
"",,"_l"'""~"'.'J:,j,
............ '.-'"
.---'~
RANDALL L. V ALK, individually
and on behalf of V ALK
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 717 EQUITY 1994
vs.
RICHARD P. VALK, TED P.
V ALK, ELLIOTT K.
BRAVERMAN and JAMES F,
HAY,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION. EQUITY
ORDER
AND NOW. this
:? '1' day of May, 1998, the petition of the law firm of O'Brien, Baric
and Scherer to withdraw its appearance as counsel in this case is GRANTED. Pro Se filings of the
plaintiff are reinstated and/or approved for filing.
BY THE COURT,
. Ai
Randall Valk
Plaintiff
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Thomas French, Esquire
Michael A. Finio, Esquire
For the Defendants
"
:rlm
,.
_.
~~~
, ~-
, 'i_~<0''''-<<''''''j;
,
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION.
21-95-612
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY, a division of
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT CORP.
and RICHARD P. VALK,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
ZJ'. day of May, 1998, the petition of the law firm of O'Brien, Baric
and Scherer to withdraw its appearance as counsel in this case is GRANTED. Pro Se filings of the
plaintiff are reinstated and/or approved for filing.
BY THE COURT,
Randall Valk
Plaintiff
/Ii
. Hess. J,
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
R. Stephen Shibla, Esquire
For the Defendants
~'
:rlm
'tfd "oJ pUBu9qLlIn:)
"".\u"I'"'
lJnOJ ' , ,-'
A T'R'UE CO'PY FROM RECORD
1(1 TfIe1tmoo,; '~ffl'O'f, I her&unlo S9t my h&nd
and tM lIOOl ~ Ilzld COUrt al Ce:r1lg1s, PA
ThI8 .:<9 f::I.... dzy of m~ 19~
p~ Bn.lJ.9~
\\ .. ,.-h:. CIeri< oUoo ... Ooufl
......-- . \ Cl.tmberland Coooly
O~: ll~ 6l mw 86.
,.
SI!!M ;0 181S!58tl
)0 9:J1],::) p20J008t1
EXHIBIT E
t]
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Plaintiff
vs.
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND:
TRUST COMPANY, a division of
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT CORP.
and RICHARD P. VALK,
Defendant
RANDALL L. V ALK, individually :
and on behalf of V ALK
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, :
Plaintiffs
vs.
RICHARD p, VALK, TED P.
V ALK, ELLIOTT K.
BRAVERMAN and JAMES F.
HAY,
Defendants
-- -'
~""",-..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
21-95-612
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 717 EQUITY 1994
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
IN RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AND NOW, this
BEFORE HESS. J.
ORDER
I ';)+
day of December, 1998, the petition of the settling
defendants for specific performance and enforcement of a settlement agreement is DENIED
BY THE COURT,
r
Michael Bangs, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Thomas French, Esquire
Michael A. Finio, Esquire
R. Stephen Shibla
For the Defendants
: rim
,.
-
~~ '.
1IiIIlIll~-~-~"-'",~a'ili!<u,,",",,,,,,l,-,,,,,,:,,,' i
-
~ ~-. l'_4>>l~u4-.
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
21-95-612
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND:
TRUST COMPANY, a division of
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT CORP.
and RICHARD P. VALK
,
Defendant
RANDALL L. V ALK, individually:
and on behalf of V ALK
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 717 EQUITY 1994
vs.
RICHARD P. VALK, TED P.
V ALK, ELLIOTT K.
BRAVERMAN and JAMES F.
HAY,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
IN RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
BEFORE HESS. J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In the captioned cases, certain defendants have petitioned for specific performance
seeking the enforcement of an alleged agreement to settle these matters. , The evidence at our
recent hearing was to the effect that the plaintiff, Randall L. Valk, authorized his attorney,
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, to send a letter dated December 11, 1997, informing the settling
defendants of his willingness to settle both the equity and Orphans' Court actions in return for
payment on behalf of the settling defendants of $629,500.00. The proposed settlement would
J'.
~ .J..!!tilli'i ,,,"
21-95-612 ORPHANS' COURT
717 EQUITY 1994
also include an agreement on the part of these defendants to cooperate in attending any
proceedings against Elliott Braverman. The settlement also involved the repurchase of Randall
Valk's shares of Valk Manufacturing Company at "book value." Mr. O'Brien's letter went on
to say:
The settlement would im;lude other items discussed
such as a return of all copies of your records,
confidentiality agreement for the nonderivative
case and a complete mutual release to be executed
by all parties.
By letter dated on or about December 18, 1998, the settling defendants, through their attorney,
R. Stephen Shibla, Esquire, accepted, "the settlement proposal as set forth in your second letter
of December II, 1997 (copy attached)."
At the hearing of this matter, Mr. Randall Valk confirmed that he had authorized his
attorney to send a letter on December 11, 1997. This, however, was the first letter sent by
Mr. O'Brien. It was Mr. Valk's intention, at that time, that a monetary amount be proposed
and that other matters would be the subject of continued negotiation. Having received Mr.
O'Brien's first letter, Mr. Shibla contacted Mr. O'Brien the same day requesting a more
comprehensive proposal. While Mr. O'Brien no doubt felt that he had the authority to extend
an offer of final settlement, the plaintiff through his testimony has repudiated the proposal
stating adamantly that he had no knowledge of the second letter and that it was his intention to
reserve certain other issues for another day. These issues included the tax treatment of the
monies payable to him under the agreement and the mechanism whereby his lawsuit would be
2 ,.
" ' ^-. ~- ,-
";1.1:
21-95-612 ORPHANS' COURT
717 EQUITY 1994
continued against defendant Elliott K. Braverman. Mr. Valk admits that he first discussed the
matter of tax treatment with his accountant in January of 1998, after the December exchange of
letters. Because of his position that he had not, as yet, agreed to a final settlement, he felt at
liberty to insert into a proposed final settlement agreement reference to tax treatment. It is this
provision in the subsequently proposed settlement agreement which was not acceptable to the
settling defendants. The legal principles applicable to this case were set out in Rockey v. Big
Springs School District. Therein the court noted:
Settlement agreements are higWy favored.
Muhammad v. Strassburger, 526 Pa. 541, 546-52,
587 A.2d 1346, 1348-51 (1991). There is a
presumption that a settlement entered into by an
attorney has been authorized by the client,
although rebuttal of the presumption will render
the purported settlement ineffective, See generally
Annotation, Authority of Attorney to Compromise
Action, 30 A.L.R.2d 944 (1953); Garabedian v.
Allstates Engineering Co., 811 F.2d 802,803 (3d
Cir. 1987).
This presumption is fundamental to the effective
functioning of our adversary system which is
grounded, in part, upon two interrelated
understandings: (1) that attorneys speak for their
clients, both to the court and to opposing counsel,
and (2) that attorney-client communications are
privileged. Being able to rely upon counsels'
representations of their clients' positions serves the
salutary purpose of avoiding intrusion into the
attorney-client relationship, Of course, there will
be occasional situations where an attorney, by
mistake or otherwise, will misrepresent a client's
position. This can easily be determined and
3 r
-~
~ "_n:l
liI~~M<"",,~
21-95-612 ORPHANS' COURT
717 EQUITY 1994
addressed by a fact-finding exercise, once the
client has come forward to deny the attorney's
representations. Otherwise, no inquiry into the
conversations or understandings between clients
and their counsel is warranted....
Rockey v. Bili Spring School District, 699 A.2d 1331, 1334 (Pa.Cmmwlth. 1997).
An extremely important aspect of the settlement of this case with certain defendants was
Mr. Valk's insistence that this matter proceed against defendant Elliott Braverman. Even as
recently as our hearings on the matter of specific performance, there was no agreement
between the parties as to how this would be accomplished. To the extent that a settlement was
reached, it failed to include some material terms. This lawsuit has been pending for several
years. The complexity of the case is exacerbated by animosities that are familial and personal
in nature. That the attorneys involved would be eager to settle the case is understandable. In
Rockey, the disagreement between the parties involved the amount of just compensation in a
condemnation proceedings. Essentially, it was alleged that the parties, through counsel, had
reached an agreement concerning the amount to be paid. In the matter sub judice there are
actually two cases; one in the Orphans' Court and one in Equity. This case includes a
stockholder's derivative action which cannot be dismissed or compromised without court
approval. This matter is far more complicated than the one in Rockey. Settlement here cannot
be accomplished piecemeal.
We do not believe that the plaintiff assented, on December 11th, to all the material
terms necessary to settle this litigation. To the extent that he bears the burden of proving his
4
I"
,'" '-, d~ ;--". ',~. , l', lilhr:i'~o
.
.
21-95-612 ORPHANS' COURT
717 EQUITY 1994
repudiation of the purported settlement in December, he has met that burden, Moreover, at
least one aspect of the plaintiff's proposal in January of 1998 was not acceptable to the
defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
IS"
day of December, 1998, the petition of the settling
defendants for specific performance and enforcement of a settlement agreement is DENIED
BY THE COURT,
Michael Bangs, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Thomas French, Esquire
Michael A. Finio, Esquire
R. Stephen Shibla
For the Defendants
: rim
5
,.
~~Ul!;j
~~~ ~' :;f.]tl~!!IiO':'llIili!~'l..~~~~:Jil~i_~""''''''
d
." <
",. "
-
t~":
f-~'
~?2':
r-E-----l
~'~~
~-:::: [-)
J>C
Z
=2
!?lUJ
5;~
~,
r::;:,
()
~n.
;"'-..1
0'\
r ':i
,":'~:
<:-,j't}
~~
'hl
~
~':
:..>
(1\
:if;;-
.
.
..J,
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs
v.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
'" -~
r,
~,,' ".",,:,,,,,,,,,," "',,'. "~~',>-" ,~~ " "-~"
,1,,:,--
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
AND NOW, this
Motion To Compel Discovery from Defendant as to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories
and Document Requests;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Defendant shall answer
Interrogatory Numbers 2.,3.,5.,13.,15. and 17. within fourteen (14) days hereof;
AND FURTHER, the Defendant shall furnish Plaintiffs with all documents in his
possession, custody or control that pertain to the settlement or disposition of the actions
docketed to 717 Equity 1994 and 21-95-612 Orphans Court Division, filed in the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as well as any other
documents identified in Defendant's answers to interrogatories within fourteen (14) days
hereof.
c: 6y Abeln, Esquire
~dall L. Valk, Defendant
P. O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, PA 1706
~' BR\eJ'
II
BY THE COURT,
L~
63-07-()Z
l J
~
('W
,-
h
j:n.!:D-C+TICc'
T~~_ -T~-~("'\JnTt.:'R. v
"""'.---"'" I
0</ ~j~;) - '7
... r,J""'\
('\ ~_A "). I '1
;"'ri t",' t.
CU:\i18EFiUv'D COUNTY
PENNSYt.\;t"NIA
,---
~-
f
, ,,'
"!\O""~
Ulli!l,.="~,,
., . ,'~.-
'"""'"'""~~~~"'-~-
" ,',"-' ~...." .,,,,,,,,"',, '"~,,,.,~. .~.
J$l~./l'NWII, J!" ~,
,~
~l:
~. ~
~"'"" ~'.u-",; '~''''''''.'~ - "'--'
.,.'~;;
","",
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39= JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, DAVID A. BARIC
and MICHAEL A. SCHERER t/dlb/a
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER,
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
Plaintiffs
NO. 2000 - 6280
vs.
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
February ~ 2002, after hearing argument on plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery
from defendant as to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and document request, Randall L. Valk
is ordered to answer the plaintiffs' interrogatories regarding the terms of the final settlement in
Robert L. Valk et aI. vs. Richard P. Valk et aI., No. 717 Equity 1994 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and Randall L. Valk vs. Dauphin Deposit Bank and
Trust Company et aI., No. 21-95-612 Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Other parties to the confidentiality agreement as to the terms ofthe settlement may file
objections, and the court will hear argument on the objections.
,
c: Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
Randall L. Valk, Defendant
J.
",,-,--,.
ihillll~~li~~~~i~~~~j~~~~
,
.,
.~-
"
.~=~
0 c:-;
r 1--""::'
L_
S: ...,.,
-U CJ "'~l
OJ [;"j CD
L: .,,"
Z c:;,
Cf) ("'"-~
-< c,.
., ,
Ce- .'
::'..-.:-- "
~f~ C:? ,
z ~
-~ ~ ::D
" C:>
-~ -<
,
<il;
,1;
ii'
I,
i'
;)
(i
Ii
\j
ii
"
I:
I,
,
'"""""~
I ,
. ~' _ . A . -: :,,_, '
1," '
. , . --" '",.
7U ~ .d A~ cJ_~
z))&-a4A E~
cndM. ~~
~, tl/v-e ~/J7~c/
-I- ct:tt.r ~-+-
W~ (~0./311)(t5
7iitlJJ4 ~f2I?t<.'70bi)
~~
~~J ,:J2~.
-y-
- ^ >. n;;" -" .. -,-;;i,j- ~." '.
. h~~:,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, DAVID A. BARIC
and MICHAEL A. SCHERER t1d/b/a
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER,
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
Plaintiffs
NO. 2000 - 6280
vs.
RANDALL L. V ALK,
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
April I, 2002, upon consideration ofthe motion for sanctions pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 4019, and in addition, the court will hear any objections;
A hearing is set for Thursday, May 23,2002, at I :30 p.m. in Courtroom NO.1 of
the Franklin County Courthouse, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
By the Court,
c: Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
Randall L. Valk, Defendant
Bridget E. Montgomery, Esquire
'I/2/0;Z -
C?Opl~:S prwL>/'CbL --!o del
pddl>C:S Ivy JudcrL c0a-~
6-P-Ql:.C
~~~IH"lM;~~!I...-'*li"iU~X1'II1Ji1t[~~~~"-i:~l4i!,'!micia~iIlIlIIiBIJ."JL lilill.)'jj'1iiii
"
~ ~~~
, "',~ . ..','
c. , ~
, ~~...,
'I
if'L
'1
1,1
U
"
!.j
ii
I!
II
'I
II
'I
II
:'
;,1
i'
,I
!I
il
II
Ii
,!
II
II
II
'I
I
I
I
~ 0 0
,.... "
",.. -~--l
-00) " ;;fr:n
q;lfn ;;>j r
~.:D I ~-a rn
tJj'~ W -00
;;-') I
?-L "'.0
Q "'" .."".. -;~
~O "b-n
:::Jl; ~O
j;;8 w ~-'m
., 8
,~ $:"' ~
N '<
55
81/
.t
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, eta!.,
Plaintiffs
v.
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
, '
"
-'''' " .' ""'0<.'0, -'" ".,,~._,"", ._._. '__,__
, '~'~'.~01ih
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-6280 EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of April, 2002, upon consideration of the attached
Answer to Objections of Valk Manufacturing Company, et.a!., the Objections of Valk
Manufacturing Company, et.a!. are hereby DENIED, and the Defendant, Randall L. Valk
is directed to comply with this Court's Order dated March 6, 2002 within five days.
BY THE COURT,
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Randall L. Valk
P.O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania 17065
Bridget E. Montgomery, Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellot, LLC
213 Market Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
John R. Walker, P.J.
"- ~".~, ~. . . - " '
N,_'"~"_"; -~-\>U';-~ . '. ~,' _, . __,~~"
ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, et aI.,
Plaintiffs
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 2000-6280 EQUITY
RANDALL L. VALK,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY
ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OF VALK MANUFACTURING
COMPANY. ET.AL. TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS
DIRECTED TO THE DEFENDANT. RANDALL L. VALK
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Gregory B. Abeln,
Esquire, and respectfully represent as follows:
1. On or about March 25, 2002, Valk Manufacturing Company, etal.
(hereinafter "Valk") filed objections to discovery requests made by plaintiffs to Randall
L. Valk.
2. The basis for the objections is a confidentiality provision in a settlement
agreement between the defendant Randall L. Valk and Valk Manufacturing Company,
et. al.
3, The discovery sought by plaintiffs has already been the subject of a
motion to compel and this Honorable Court already directed the defendant to produce
the information requested by plaintiffs.
4. Pa.R.C.P. 4012 sets forth the parameters for protective orders, and
provides in part that "Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery or
deposition is sought, and for good cause shown, the court may make any order which
justice requires to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense.."
. "
;;" -. -- ,,~' ,
, '--<... '~' t:lilJ1b':
5. Valk is not a party, nor is discovery sought from them, and as such, Valk
has no standing to object to the discovery sought from the defendant.
6. Valk has not shown unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, burden or expense, nor can they, since the discovery request has not been
directed to them, but rather, to the defendant.
7. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 sets forth the scope of discovery, and provides in part
that: "(a) Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.2 to 4003.5 inclusive and Rule 4011, a
party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not orivileaed, which is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action.." (Emphasis added).
8. The objection offered by Valk is not supported by a claim of privilege.
WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfUlly requests this Honorable Court
to deny Valk's objections and direct the defendant to produce the materials requested
within five days.
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-2851
litigation/valklobs/answer.obj
"'.,".' -'~ "~ .'1"" '_,,".
L.L '<i!<K"itl'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 11 , 2002, I, Jennifer S. Lindsay, did serve a copy of
the Answer To Objections Of Valk Manufacturing Company, et al. To Discovery
Requests Directed To The Defendant, Randall L. Valk, by first class U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows:
Randall L. Valk
P.O. Box 105
Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania 17065
~~~~
~. .
1
:~I
I
i
:1
:i
[I
,
i
'I
II
-
'"
"
- .'"..- '~
"~- ~ ,""
F!LE[)",-o;~'F:ICE
0- TI ".. r-,"\~""'" "'\~"-(rl'RY
'Ok ,,1'-:: 1";';,.;;:'---:'_"i\\.;ll""
02 ~PR II Pi") 2: 29
CUM!:3EFLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
_l!IIJo, ,~lJl~llr
",Il1fJJl!I.Wrr_l,~
"<-,~. - .,~ .'.
"ollllll!_
"
~
I~
'1ll!III'i!L.
"f
.
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.~
-0-'"'-'''
~~
.fiit
'''!!tl;J,t..I"J.f'-,,"~~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE
9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH
Robert L. O'Brien, David A. Baric:
and Michael A. Scherer t/d/b/a
O'Brien, Baric & Scherer
CIVIL ACTION
VS
Randall L. Valk
In Equity
No. 2000 6280
APPEARANCES:
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire, appears on behalf of
the plaintiffs.
Bridget E. Montgomery, Esquire, appears on behalf
of Valk Manufacturing.
ORDER OF COURT
May 23, 2002, the Court after hearing arguments
orders that Randall L. Valk shall within ten days of today's
date provide the firm of O'Brien, Baric and Scherer and
Gregory Abeln, Esquire with a copy of the confidential
settlement of his case versus Valk Manufacturing.
The Court further enters a protective order that
Mr. Abeln and O'Brien, Baric and Scherer shall not reveal
the contents of that to anyone other than themselves and if
it becomes public knowledge, the Court will impose
appropriate sanctions at that time.
The Court further orders that if Mr. Valk fails to
produce this within ten days from today's date the Court
will impGse a fine of $250 a day for each day that he fails
1
Melissa J. Little
Official Court Reporter
,
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
-" - ;=-
to provide it and the Court expects him to make weekly
payments $1750 at the end of each week that he fails to
produce the copy to the firm of O'Brien, Baric and Scherer.
c:
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire (2)
2
Melissa J. Little
Official Court Reporter
~~~"'iIA'lill~~ilar~~~m,/;\""",~~">~J!i~~"",g~~~.~IiII:!iotl.~
'-
6:;
t:2
L"l ':.::'-~
(,~--
!:C
C? r:~~;
~}t-,~
C::.:'.,.!
F--':
u""
o
t..o
,'-
?:
?~
~~;~
~~i~
.:-~\Z
(~~as
rt20-
d'
:::>
U
N
(..L
co
('-1
>-
c;;;:.\'.
::c
C\J
C>
.
-- ~"-,-<
.
o
o
,0
- -~': - - -- ,
'"",,,'
C OIf}!=1 Dei17 /A-L-
DOCUMENTS
PRESENT
2000- (, ~ YI
DCC'S
I I
. .: