The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-06932 '-~,~ I Ok ,--' ",-' L" ' Ii I:; DONALD R. BAKER, PLAINTTlFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000 -t/i3)' CIVIL TERM WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff and issue a Writ of Summons against the defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: , I,' ::'i WAYNE E. REHM BETH D. REHM 2540 GRANDVIEW DRIVE YORK HAVEN, P A 17370 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN, Mc GHT & HUGHES By: Date: October 10, 2000 To: WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM You are hereby notified that Donald R. Baker, the plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. LJ/(!J.JJw ~1~ONOTARY By: ~~~.&~~ DEPUTY Date: 10'/0- cJO ,2000 -- ' .~ '- , - ~ 'l'ii>:...', SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-06932 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BAKER DONALD R VS REHM WAYNE E ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: REHM WAYNE E but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS 26th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the On October attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge DEP. YORK CO 18.00 9.00 10.00 38.40 .00 75.40 10/26/2000 IRWIN, MCKNIGHT S~~~ R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County & HUGHES Sworn and subscribed to before me this 3/_ day of COea........, ;uo-vv A.D. ~a~l<.J ~ Prothonotaty ",,'-' I~.o J '~~"-""',':.;;,- SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-06932 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BAKER DONALD R VS REHM WAYNE E ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: REHM BETH D but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS 26th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the On October attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 10/26/2000 IRWIN, MCKNIGHT ~ R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County & HUGHES Sworn and subscribed to before me this 3/--.Y day of {P~ o21nrD A.D. ~r~~~J~ 1 of 2 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771.9601 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN . INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 TO 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 1. PLAINTIFF/SI Dona '.d R. Baker 3. DEFENOANT/SJ Wayne E. Fehm, et. aJ.. Writ of Summons SERVE { 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL CQMPANY, CORPORAilON, ETC. TO SEAVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD, ~ Wayne F. Rehm ..,.... 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT, NO., CITY, BORC, 1VIfP., STATE AND 21P CODE AT 2540 Grandview Drive, York Haven , PA 1. 7370 7, INDICATE SEBVICE: 0 PERSONAL 0 PERSON IN CHARGE EPUT[~um~Ffa-'f\l€I. 0 1ST CLASS MAIL NOW 10/11/00 ,20 I, SHERIFF OF X~R~C~~ereb York - COUNTY to exe.' .' . e to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. . . SHERIFF' ~~OUNTY Cumberland 2. COURT NUMBER 20-(,Cl'1? r;v;J 4, TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT o POSTED 0 OTHER Ize the sheriff of according 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND ADVANCED FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.S. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff leo.ying upon or attaching any property under within writ: may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of leo.y or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED IRWIN, MCKNIGHT & HUGHES 60 W. POMFRET ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 249-2353 10-10,00 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (ThiS area must be completed If notice IS to be mailed). CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13.1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date orcompla;,'as;ndlca'edabo,e. RONDA AHRENS 10-13-00 11-10-00 POSTED I ) POEI) SHERIFF'S OFF ( ) OTHER I SEE REMAAKS ~ V. 23. Advance Costs - $100.00 41 . AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this -- N<26f I(-fljars~AL ..JJ,. 'J: Sii"I~;^:;;":' P.ROT (:':~ ' c[ ., ~,-" '. . 23 44. Signature of Dep. Sheriff 45, Signature of Yor County Sheriff WILLIAM M. HOSi:' 46.,Signalure of Foreign oW i '-' County Sheriff .- TURE : 1. ..... -~ ~ 47}8%B 00 48. DATE 50. I ACKNO LEDGE RECEIPT OF TH HERIFF'S RE OF AUT RIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriff's Office 10-23-00 49. DATE 51. DATE RECEIVED "HECEIVED" OFFICE OF SHERIFF YORK, PA '00 OCT 13. Pr7. 1'02 COUNTY OF YORK f' , OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 TO 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 2. COURT NUMBER 1. PlAINTIFc,., ~ Dr'n,:;;l ,; R. Ral(er h'-f .( <;; (- - . 4. TYPe-OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT _" ~'--7\le f.. R~hm 6. ADDRESS (srREEl' OR R'F'O WITH-SOX NUMBER, APT NO.. -CtTY,'t1d~O:'iWP.. STArE: A'No'zTp"'boOE --'kin Grandvi'e-w---nriv'e York Hnv~n. PA 17""\70 o PERSONAL 0 P1;RSON'JKfCHARGE q DEPUT1Z~:tJ,int !:;l:GE~Ii~l'\l~ 0 1ST CLASS MAil 0 POSTED Q OTHER , Co {,~1 ''ltC\.- _'_' ,.. _i~ ~, 20 :_ --:~_~AliRJFF~<;>eY-QI;l~9Q.U)'lJJ',J'A,_~QDere9Y deputize the sheriff of Y,., rk m n. ____. '_CQJ,JNrY iOJ'!X.!;lGuie Jbll>Wrltilncj lTfaJ<e~retum thereof accorcjing . to law. Thii',.-deputation being made at the reguest and risk of the plaintiff. SERVE .. AT { 7. INDICATE SERVICE; NOW SHERIFF Ot:r'tORKCQUNTY CU'ilr.10 r '\ and 8. SPECTAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHE:"R INFORMAilON"TRATWJ[[A-ssrSiTN' EXPEDITING SERVICE":' -- - OUT OF CWNTY . CUM3ERLMW ,iUVANCEO FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO. -SHERIF!"!,,- NOTE ONLY A~PUCABLE ON WRlT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. My deputy sheriff levying upon or attachIng any property undec within writ may leave same without a watc,fiinan, in custody of whomever Is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or att~hment, withol,lt liabflity on the parto1 such deputy or the sheriff to _any plaintiff herein for any 10,55, destru,ction-.._or removal of any property beJore sheriff's sale thereof. -. " " - _~ _ - ~ .~--:' ,"" . 9, TYPI: NAME~~m ADDRESS of AlTORNEY 1 O~IGINAiO!l and SI,GNATUAE _ r- 1_ 10. TEL.EPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED ',(IHN, MCK~IGHT & HUGHES 60 W. pm~FRET Sr: CIW:LlSLE, FA 17013 "_70~' 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY NAME ANO ADtfFfE"S--s~[OW: (rhTs~ are_a must be completed If notice IS 10 be maIled). ;,'] CU!:lBERLAliD CO. SHERIFF ~-c'; ",' ill>' -,.SPAclirB-ELOWFOFfOSE OF THE SHERIFF; DO NOtWRITEBEl.OW THIS LINE 13, r acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date 01 complainl~s indicated above. RONDA AHRENS -; _ --; '1_;"'",;, SEE REMARKS lnt ~2. REM~RKS . '<'";-~ <Jot' 23. Advance CQSJ.s Check No. 40. Cost Due ,or Refund AN W 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before m'e ttJis ~". 44. Signature oL ,~ Dap. Sheriff _~ ,,_ _"'~ 45. SIgnature of YorK'" Cmmty Sheriff - 7~~r., 47. DATE 42. day of 48. DATE ,20, ~ u' 43-. _ _ -. . -,----- . - PROTHO 7 NOTARY / ~ f?:.../ " ,'}.-;- ~'~-/; ~:;~: /' ~.~' 46'cSo'Quonature of FO~~rgn 1-1(. c.=- / .. fLi _ ~;-, 'f ____ '-' "/&1 _ Sheriff 50. r ACKNOWLEPGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF'S RETU~N SIGNATURE OF AUTHMl2tO ISSUING AUTHOallY AND TITlE ,; _ _ _ -'-'--"--, 49. DATE 51. DATE RECEIVED 1. WHITE -lssu.Jog Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office.. 4. SLUE - Sheriff's "(jfflce ,1i.:.:>;',"~-' .-~s.._-----=--~_ ~~'-'" COUNTY OF YORK 2 of 2 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST.. YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN . "".'.',,'.',!.i...< .INSTRUC'I"IONS. ' .. . . ..', . "!.!P!..~4S~tyP~ON!..Y!..IN~1T012. '.-.OOI\{QTOETAC;HANVC;OPIES 2. COURT NUMBER 7 17'v'1 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 1. PLAINTIFF/Sf Dona1.d R. Baker 3. DEFENDANT/SI SERVE . { .. 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RPO WITH BOX NUMBER. APT. NO., CITY, BORO, TWP.:. STATE AND ZIP CODE AT 2.5~0 Grandview Drive, York Haven, FA 17370 7. INDICATE SERVICE: a PERSONAL Q PERSON IN CHARGE )il DEPUTIZErllmHS~M~lrI 0 1ST CLASS MAIL 0 POSTED 0 OTHER NOW 10/] 1 ~o 0 , 20 _ I, SHERIFF OF ~CO...~JJ1A" do ~ereb~~~e the sheriff of ofZ..K COUNTY to exe.~~ r ~m according to law. This'deputatio being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. 'f; "'?' . SHERIFF - F~ COUNTY Cumberland r Writ of Summons 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD. Beth D. Rehm 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereot 9. TYPE NAMEAND ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SJGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED IRWIN, MCKNIGHT & HUGHES 12, SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is 10 be mailed). 10-10-0 SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF .DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13, I aCknOwJ~dge ~eC~ipt of the writ R ARHENS 14. DATE RECeIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as mdlca1ed above. . 10-13-00 11-10-00 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( ) POSTED ( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFF ( ) OTHER IX1 SEE REMARKS Int 23. Advance Costs 40. Cost Due or Refund 41, AFFIRME~e1-.ewt-~(b"....i,t.... h<3f'1ce me this 23 I ~J(jjARIAL SE'" Mr.:-'I 'tJ;;,.ru.._ 42. day of ., Or1'Q~f..SH!'2\i~fil;a"'ta~,p"", f Mvn,,~";,;', :-:1, r,?~' ~r.Q~~9TH '. -:..~:"-';:;!.'.::E/'f..6pj'2"],"': 44. Signature of Dep. Sheriff 45. Signature of Yor County Sheriff WILLIAM M. 47.~T /,g ~ 48. DATE KNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SHER FF' 'AUTHORIZED ISSUJNG AUTHORITY AND TlTL 1, WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK. Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office HOSE. 10-23-00 49. DATE 46. Signature of Foreign , County Sheriff lGNATURE 51. DATE RECEIVED 4. BLUE. Sheriff's Office "RECEIVED" OFFICE OF SHERIFF YORK. PA '00 OCT 13 . PI? 1 02 ,,--,,:,.~-~~- ...,:- ~'~ COUNTY OF YORK ,~ ot OFFlcE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT. and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 TO 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 1. PlAJNTIFF/si Dtjn:a'd R~ Baker 3. DEFENDANT/SI .. ~ . ~ . ~. . .. 2. COURT NUMBER "'1-1 h4":l.~ ("'i'--: 1 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT W""~y'''''"", D l""i_L ' ... -;.."" ~'J!",:tt of Summcns S..ERVE A { S, NAMt.t5F' INDMOuAL C'OW'ANY, CORPORATrON,ETC, TO~SERV"OR DESCRIPTION OF PtrOI'ERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACH~D. OR SOLO: gf>th D. Rehm 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WitH sox NUMBER. AP1.,NO:""Crrr,SORO:TWP.. STATE-P,NIJZ1'p CODE AT .::540 GrclOdview Drive, York Haven, PI', 17370 7. INDICATE SERV'CE: 0 PERSONAL 0 P,ERSON IN CHAflGE "p DEPUTIZq.'nm AfP'<T.~IH 0 1 ST CLASS MAIL 0 POSTED 0 OTHER NOW .~I'}I11~f '.' '-~ ,~,t;2b..,..-.. I, .SHE. R.lfF.OF;y'.j~R~C. O.U. N'. ~.lY..' PA, ~.d..Qhe..r."bY de. P.utiz.e. the She. riff of '0" -=.c.-oil K ' " "~ 1.' .: ,. L COUNTY to exeCJ.lte thiS w'ht:anc! maJ<e reJurn thereof according to law. ThJs.deputatl being made at the reCjuest and risk of ths'plalntiff.' -.-..' H ... .. .. ~'. . ... ~,~. . ~ .... SflERlFFQF@f\I<COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THATWlLLASSIStJN''EXPEDITlNG SER=, ~ - Cumbe=lanri OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND NOTE ONLY A~PLlCABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N:B. W~WEJt O-r WATCHMAN. Any deputY sheriff levYing upon cr- atlachfng' any propertY under wifhin 'writ may leave same without a wa.1Ctiman, in custody of whomever is found in posses'sion, after notifYing person of levy or attachment, withootJiafulfty on the, part of such _dep_uty or the sheriff to, any plaintiff herein for anYI<?_Ss, destruction. or ,removal of any property ~efore _s~'e~jff) sale tnenio1. - - - , - -. -- 9. TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I OAIG,lNATQfland SIG,NATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED IRWIN 12. SEND NO :KNIGfiT & HGHE E OF SERVICE COPY NAME AND ADDRESS 'ElELbW: (TIlis area mu~tpe ~mp'leted -if n91ice is 19 be maHed). . .l'--~ '. _ " ~'~''-'''~'''''$''ACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF . DO NOT WlliTE SELOWTHISI.INE 13. I acknowlEl'cf,ge receipt of the writ R. ARHEN.S.' ,__ ___ _ _ __. __~___..:.. 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Data or complaint as indicated above. - c' 10-13-00 1 i _ j ,-;_;-::: 16. HOW SERV1!il' PERSONAL ( r POSTED ( I POE ( r SHERIFFS OFF ( ) SEE REMARKS Int. .~ .,....... 'W' 2;3. Advance Costs 40. Cost Due or Refund . " 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed, to before me this .. 44. Signature of Dap. Sheriff ~...._~ 45, Signature of Vorl/;: CQUnty Sheriff '(.- c/ /- :y -_."-.-- '[ 47, DATE .... -") .~, : 48. DATE ~2Q '.4;1. ~h.__.):.,;-'_ -~- 'PR TH '/ A ' ,~---,... .', - ',d" I.! Tl\M t-Jl / ~ / /. .' "', /.': _ /.-: _ 46. Signature of Foreign / / /. ,/< >-L _r '-,_J",-' )" r".~ /-~4 Count Sheriff SO. I A WLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE-SH_ERIFF'S-RJ UAN,.SIGNATURE OF AUTHOB1ZW ISSUING AUTHORITY ANO TITU;-.._ _ _-- -0' - , -," - ,. 42. day of -'-,--. HOSF. ,,T- //-"_',' -..:-- t.-- -:... (- 49. DATE 51. DATE RECEIVED 1. WHITE -Issuing Authority 2. PINK. Attorney 3.'CANARY. Sberiff's Office 4, BLUE. Sheriff's Office ~':-- ,~' I,', I~ ~1~~ r .... .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action. Law vs. No. 2000.6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. mRY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of the service ofthis Rule or sufferJiid cnt non-pros. / GRIFFITJI, RICKLER, LERMAN, r YMOS & CALKINS L lJJJ BY Robert A. Lerman Attorney LD. No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 Telephone: (717) 757.7602 Dated: 4(l)(tJ I NOW, /J frL\ l .;<'{ ,2001, RULE ISSUED AS ABOVE. CM~;'.J K. . PROTHONOTARY ~~b p~____ DEPUTY- acc/rehm.rul.z I, <, -'j' -l,-"- 1" ,',' ,1___-,,,-" _<_ "_ 'llil,;;~i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, Esquire and Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorneys for the Defendants, WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, in the above.captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. BY obert A. Lerman, Esquir LD. No. 07490 BY /d.. ugle, Esquire Date: 4/ )dJ/~ ( Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757.7602 ~,-;"I c . , ~'" ;;, IJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action. Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Zd'fJI day of ~ ,2001,I,RobertA.Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LE N, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance as indicated below, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013.3222 (counsel for Plaintiff) [ X ] United States First.Class mail [ ] facsimile transmission [ ] personal delivery [ ] commercial overnight delivery R bert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendants 11 0 South Northern Way York, Permsylvania 17402 (717) 757.7602 By accJadams.prp.z ,-;'. , --" ,'",~" ~', ' J ,'c;".' ,- "i~"J 'o'",~~...-'r "" ,X"" "-"''''''-~' ..,' "~.i . .. . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30#-' day of ~~ , 2001, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No.1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013.3222 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: J1l0~UIRE Supreme Court J.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 (717) 757.7602 ~,' ~',- ~'" _n, _ I~' _ _ ' C,_'" ~ ,___, "_"','.",--,""0-_"'''-' ,_",n ,~,"~ '",',"'~"""'~'';~>~ """ ",;~,_"." '''~'h,.....'''';~''''- ,.' -w-e,,' '__,,_'-'<\. _ ~"",-", "j,,''', 'j DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO.2000-6932 CIVIL TERM WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint, order 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 money claimed in the complaint or 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, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 Americans with Disabilities Act of1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. I ,'-~ & - ,-~., ..-, -="--,,~,~,""'~ """""'~';''""''--"'', _, "o"c,,--_,,; '" -j , , , , i DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-6932 CIVIL TERM WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants CML ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 31st day of May 2001 comes the plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, by and through his attorneys, Irwin, McKnight & Hughes, and makes the following Complaint against the defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm: 1. The plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, is an adult individual residing at 200 South High Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm, his wife, are adult individuals residing at 2540 Grandview Drive, York Haven, Pennsylvania, 17370. 3. On October 17, 1998, at 11 :00 a.m., the 1992 Kawasaki 750 motorcycle owned and driven by the plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, was travelling south on Spring Road approximately .12 miles from the intersection of Calvary Road. 2 .'"'-~ - ., -",- ,~ ~ ,"''''~Id, 'oC_,' ,,''''' '", -.--, ,',,,,~,, ,,,,,'~:'",,,,,-l;,j"~;'; ~"".cc",i~"""-~",-,t,~11,,-..,,, -"-"o'';;';';'',_j' ". _ -,,, ""__:~_~; 4. Without warning, a vehicle driven by defendant, Beth D. Rehm, and owned by the defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm, pulled into the southbound lane of Route 34 known as Spring Road from a private driveway located at 1838 Spring Road, Carlisle, directly into the path of the motorcycle owned and operated by Donald Baker which was also traveling southbound. 5. The left front of the plaintiffs' motorcycle was struck by the vehicle driven by Beth E. Rehm and owned by the defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm. 6. The severe impact ofthe collision caused physical injuries to the plaintiff, Donald R. Baker. He was transferred to Carlisle Hospital Emergency Room with injuries to his shoulder, hand. right knee, right ankle, and his back. 7. The impact caused extensive damage to the plaintiff's motorcycle. The defendants' automobile received minor damage to the left front comer and was driven from the scene. 8. The collision and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was caused by the negligence and careless actions of the defendant, Beth D. Rehm. 3 ~ ~-', _'1_',.',0 "'~',"~'. 'I'~"'~'- ,~,,,,,,,"-,,,,,,..,,~,, -,~,<,,~," "r."""""r~.,,,~,~,",,,,,-,,_,,,,:~,,'t'C~""n ;c-"'- ''..:-''':';''-'''ii~i , I I I I 9. The defendant, Beth D. Rehm, was negligent and careless as follows: a. She pulled directly onto Spring Road without adequately stopping to detennine if she could safely enter said Spring Road. b. She failed to properly look in both directions in order to determine if Spring Road was clear of oncoming traffic. c. She failed to provide any warning of her intention to enter Spring Road in the path of the motorcycle operated by plaintiff, Donald R. Baker d. She failed to keep her vehicle under proper control in order to stop and avoid the collision with the motorcycle of the plaintiff. e; She was travelling too fast for conditions as she attempted to enter Spring Road and was unable to determine that the plaintiff were very near the entrance of the driveway when she attempted to exit onto Spring Road. f. She failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiff. 10. The negligent actions of the defendant, Beth D. Rehm, were the proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff, Donald R. Baker. 11. The defendant, Beth D. Rehm, was acting on behalf of her husband as his agent at the time of the collision. The defendant, Wayne E. Rehm, is liable for the negligent action of the defendant, Beth D. Rehm. 12. The plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, lost wages due to the injuries he sustained in the accident and may lose additional wages in the future due to the injuries he sustained in the accident. 4 -- ,- , . ,.,. -, ",- I," ,- - -- .".,y",,' '''''''''"".;.,.-;l]~"c,''-';;i'~ ',",,,,,,""~;,,-,~-,,,,-><,, ',' ~'i, -,' ',0-,,",,.. '."" i" ';)':~ 13. The plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, seeks compensation for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, embarrassment and loss ofJife's pleasures since the date of the accident as well as compensation for future losses he will incur in these areas. 14. The plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, seeks compensation for the medical expenses which he has incurred and may incur in the future to treat his injuries. 15. The plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, seeks compensation for the permanent injuries which he has sustained. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, request compensation and damages from the defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm, in the amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/IOO ($25,000.00) Dollars with interest as permitted by law and the costs of this litigation. Respectfully submitted, IRwm,MC 0;fGHFB By: Marcus. McKnigh I 60 West Pomfret Stree Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court J.D. No. 25476 Attorney for plaintiff Date: May 31, 2001 5 -"~I' ,-, .," ,-"",'Ir-',J,,_" .,., _<"",""""'.', ""'<' '->'_r-'-'_w",'_-'<~~''''''''';",_"~~,";""",c,'",, h'- VERIFICATION The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. c-;7 1Ce.~c DONALD BAKER Date: May 31. 2001 'T_ -,-~. - ~r._'_____' ^ - _ <__I' ~,"^_ ----"'~_O___"_I,-,' '.V,,- ,,_ ---"-"-";';''lli-"';j-'',."'''''r-~i.'''-''';;;"~,,-~,,,,'-=',_,,,''''''-''<~,-,~,-"-'--,- ~_~'" '" j DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-6932 CIVIL TERM WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, Ill, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Complaint was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esq. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Attorneys for defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES By: Date: May 31, 2001 6 ~ . > -~,-." I" . ".~;) "-,1: ~ . ""j "-------,',,'~ \j~ , - " ,- 'J;'~'ii' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONAlLD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Donald R. Baker c/o Marcus A. McKnight, Ill, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer & New Matter of Defendant Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm to Plaintiff s Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: THOMAS B. SPONA GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 (717)757-7602 -1,- ,"- I~ . __ ,,,I' ":"", '-"- \<.;-~,>,,-,-"~<.r,"',.;;o,j'_'-_', '" ,~<' "':""~.~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs, No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER & NEW MATTER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that on October 17, 1998 a 1992 Kawasaki 750 motorcycle owned and driven by the Plaintiff, Donald Baker, was traveling south on Spring Road approximately .12 miles from the intersection of Calvary Road. It is denied that the time Mr. Baker was operating his motorcycle was 11 :00 a.m. because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 4. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that a vehicle driven by Defendant BethD. Rehm and owned by the Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm pulled into the southbound lane of Route 34 known as Spring Road from a private driveway located at 1838 Spring Road. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. It is specifically denied that the left front of the Plaintiff s motorcycle was struck by the vehicle driven by Beth E. Rehm and owned by Defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. O-;LY' " 1.,-."- ,-w' ,,_ ~"'= "."-."] '-';'-,0.'-';.-)" ..;',,-,__C<_' ~""'-t"",,8,,,-.' ,-'"-_.. '. '__o__~" Relun. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, the left front of the Plaintiffs motorcycle struck the vehicle being driven by Beth D. Rehm and owned by Defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Relun. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations, the same are denied and strict proofthereof is demanded. 7. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the Defendants' automobile received minor damage to the left front corner and was driven from the scene. The remaining allegation in Paragraph 7 is denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that the collision and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff was caused by the negligence and careless actions ofthe Defendant, Beth D. Rehm. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Beth D. Rehm acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent or careless and strict proof thereof is denlanded. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant, Beth D. Rehm, was negligent and careless as follows: a. She pulled directly onto Spring Road without adequately stopping to determine if she could safely enter said Spring Road; b. She failed to properly look in both directions in order to determine if Spring Road was clear of oncoming traffic; 2 ,-,- -~-- ;.,. -- ~ -I, - J,L'," .;,,,-, , .~-, ,,'.00 >,~-~-~-,,- ,;"'; ,. "" ---" d. - "~_'-'''_'' _'~ c. She failed to provide any warning ofhef intention to enter Spring Road in the path of the motorcycle operated by Plaintiff, Donald R. Baker; d. She failed to keep her vehicle under proper control in order to stop and avoid the collision with the motorcycle of the Plaintiff; e. She was traveling too fast for conditions as she attempted to enter Spring Road and was unable to determine that the Plaintiff was very near the entrance of the driveway when she attempted to exit onto Spring Road; and f. She failed to yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiff. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Beth D. Rehm acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent or careless and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligent actions of the Defendant Beth D. Rehmwere the proximate cause of the injuries to the Plaintiff, Donald R. Baker. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. II. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant, Beth D. Rehm, was acting on behalf of her husband as his agent at the time of the collision and that the Defendant, Wayne E. Rehm, is liable for the negligent action of the Defendant, Beth D. Rehm. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Beth D. Rehm acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 3 1 , I,' ? > ,__"~>'-' - --"~, ,"'<;!;,;;,;;_,;:,:~:,~_, ",' ,. .; _.._ 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. Afterreasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff. By way of further response, the following is asserted: NEW MATTER 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 above are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 17. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 18. Plaintiffs Complaint may be barred by applicable statute oflimitations. 19. Plaintiff s injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of individuals or entities other than the Defendants, and over whom the Defendants had no responsibility or right of control. 20. Plaintiff s injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of the Plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, which negligence consisted of the following: 4 .~ --~,i M< -C""';';",:, ','_cl , -",.i-i a. Failing to yield the right-of-way to the Defendant; b. Failing to keep his motorcycle under proper control in order to stop and avoid the collision with the vehicle being operated by the Defendant; c. Traveling too fast for the conditions; d. Failing to keep a proper lookout for other motor vehicles entering the highway and on the highway; e. Exceeding the applicable speed limit; and f. Failing to have the headligl1t of his motorcycle illuminated as Plaintiff approached the accident site. 21. Defendants were faced with a sudden emergency which occurred when Plaintiff s vehicle suddenly, abruptly, and without warning or notice slowed and/or stopped in their path. 22. Plaintiffs claims must be barred or diminished with respect to Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act because of the negligence of Plaintiff, Donald R. Baker, as set forth above. 23. Plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury as defmed under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 24. Plaintiffs claim fornon-economic damages may be barred because Plaintiffhas elected a limited tort option as set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 25. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his damages. 26. Plaintiff may have received various benefits from other insurance arrangements, programs, and groups of contract insurance, including benefits under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and may not recover for the same benefits in this proceeding. 5 -, ~ '.' " ,J '""-' n/',,', M~__' _.""^j,," 27. The injuries and damages that Plaintiff claims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have pre-existed this accident and were not caused as a result of this accident. 28. The injuries and damages that Plaintiff claims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have pre-existed this accident and were not aggravated or exacerbated as a result of this accident. 29. The injuries and damages that Plaintiff claims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have been sustained subsequent to this accident and may not be related to this accident. 30. Plaintiff has recovered from the injuries which he allegedly sustained as a result of this accident. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: ~d/J THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 (717) 757-7602 6 1,=" , <, ,.,;,,;._, ]' ~ ' or.,-,' -"" '<.",.q"",'"-~,,,~,,--' """ , , ~di.L:: i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I verify that the foregoing facts are true and correct, upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1/:;-} rJ } ~~ WAYNE E. REHM L ,,__ ',.,_ I -'W-__" o--:-~,y - ,-~,'" MS: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I verify that the foregoing facts are true and correct, upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1 f v{ o~ -~~ BETH D. REHM < ~ -" " 1-,- I ~",~ J.d' '.; - ,,'~c.-~,"'~,,~ '__."'J~ c"'.-'-_"~ ' , ,- ~:i; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this b.f:!, day of ~? ,2001, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Answer & New Matter by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnigl1t & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3222 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: M/ THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA 17402 (717)757-7602 _~ "0 _"',. _ -~ ,I...,. ><' ""~, "-""'--'-' j." IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND, NOW, TO WIT this .2.2 t;! day of a...c;.... r , 2001, upon consideration of Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to lnterrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No.1, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff sttllmit i't-o prY) tL .l:l6mplete !mol 6Bfl'l:]5hJ,,,,,,i VI: 'tu,vvCfll to moving Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for 9<N1~ --I Production of Documents, Set No.1, within Z- 0 days from the date of this Order. A BY THE COURT, r ~;o \ ~~ fa " '--"" ,,;;'~\:'j~~ :',,:',)\H1\{ , ~ ',' I t-' ". c: i~ , :., I l,' I "' CU\\'t:':;:: <.i_, , ;)j\.j\{f'(' PEr.lN'S'YlV/1S\iiP\ II -,~ . . ~'"'~ """",,1' J,Jli,"'p,'l~:1lI!1\!!!1! !~ -,~ M~ '. ~ '0;-';"." "I _Co __ I - ^ _c.~,/"-' '"'1,,"'<''''---'',- ','-~ ." '~",",' -'J-_-.: o'M, ';"0"" "~~'" -"';:1'''"'''-j i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF NON-CONCURRENCE ANDNOW,this ,~ dayof ~;;t ,2001,1, ThomasB. Sponaugle, Esquire, amernber of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certifies that defense counsel has inquired as to whether Plaintiff s counsel concurs with this Motion, but Plaintiffs counsel has not responded. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 " ',"'''h:,,'"---' c 1 J,,,. ," ,i_~,~oI:I -"-"'-'-'- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES/REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF. SET NO.1 AND NOW, TO WIT, this I~ day of ~ ,2001, come the Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm, by their counsel, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, and files the following Motion to Compel Plaintiff s Answers to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No.1, as follows: 1. On or about May 1, 2001, Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm propounded a set ofInterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, to the Plaintiff. Copies of said Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 1,2001. 2. Said discovery responses were due on or before May 31, 2001. 3. On June 1,2001 and on July 20, 2001, defense counsel forwarded correspondence to Plaintiff s counsel requesting Plaintiff s discovery responses to which no response was communicated by Plaintiffs counsel. 4. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. ,~......._. ,-" I , 0_"1:,,- ~, <-' "' ,. ;'~,.-,,-.;I.-, ~~, :.- ~":-i:J 5. The submission of these discovery requests constitutes the first stage of discovery which would afford moving Defendant the opportunity to identify potential trial witnesses and trial evidence, including experts, and discovery information relevant to the alleged damages claimed by actual witnesses. WHEREFORE, moving Defendants, Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm, respectfully request this Honorable Court to issue a verdict compelling Plaintiff Donald R. Baker to respond to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No.1, within 30 days from the date of this Order. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: ~~/ THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 11 0 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 2 -";,n'S ',I~L' .,'", _, c', "', L: -,,-,',,: n_'"_' ,':' ,,_,;_)j"_"";~~"_ '~.\: __ - - -"Ilii_;"j I I I I i I I I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this <S4'dayof ~-t ,2001, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that I have, this date, served a copy of Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No.1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: THOMAS B. SP N GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 (717) 757-7602 ,~ '"' ,- ,","~." ,'~ .';. I 'liT ~,'-, ~"> ~,' ,- '",~ " ,..~~ ~ ~, ,~,~" -, " ,,~, "'""'".;";""'"..;,""'~"~,, -~jlilil- '"'~' ~'"'' ".", " ",''''W~'''''''' '.r:.&'J:''''-." II! liB -,;~ it.iiJ ~~. , . (') C. " c= :;';,~ ~ '3 Le, C ,.n ~"-. ;.s'") ~ti~~ , (j?_l_~ cr... :"::J [2(.1 ._-~ CJ --0 -!-',( ?C) C) (~ ~n .;: ::~:m ).~c: u ,,; ;:::: ':,.) :.-~ --j :u -~ <0 -< ,,- " c_ ,~.. If; ~ I "-I -- '"_'__ J -,' _~' __~"__ " "",_, ., ~~' , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIESIREOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF. SET NO.1 1. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: See Motion of Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. 1. II. ISSUE: A. WHETHER PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO.1? Suggested answer: Yes. m. ARGUMENT: Rule 40 19( a)(l) provides that the court may, upon motion, make an appropriate order if (I) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005; (vii) a party in response to request for production made under Rule 4009 fails to respond to the request; and (viii) a party or a person otherwise fails to make discovery or to obey an order of court respecting discovery. , -"-~" >J _- :,.." _"';.'''; v,,j,,,,: .....~~- . Rule 4019(a)(2) provides that a failure to act described in subdivision (a)(I) of Rule 4019 may not be excused on the ground that discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order. Rule 4019(c) provides that the court, when acting under subdivision (a) of this Rule may make order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition; and/or enter an order (pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(2)), striking out pleadings or parts thereof or enter a judgment of non pros or by default against the disobedient party, or (Pa.R.C.P. 40 19(c)(3)) issue such order with regard to the failure to make discovery as is just (Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(5)). Rule 40 19(9)(l) also provides that sanctions in the nature of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred on obtaining an order of compliance and an order for sanctions may be opposed against the disobedient parties. In the instant case, Plaintiffhas failed to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, served upon the Plaintiff on or about May 1,2001. Defendants have requested Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006, inter alia. provides that "the answering party shall serve a copy of the interrogatory answers and objections, if any, within 30 days from the service of the interrogatories." Moreover, pursuant to Rule 4006(a)(2), responding has a 30-day time limit within which to serve answers and objections to written interrogatories and adherence to this time limit may be strictly enforced. 7 Standard Pennsylvania Practice Second, Written Interrogatory Section 35: 14. Finally, failure to file objections to interrogatories within 30 days after service of the 2 '. .,1,. , i --- ,~~,;--,;J"'"~"; '~' ~!f.!j:'oL , J. interrogatories is deemed a waiver of the right to object. Wayne v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 6 D.&C.4th 537 (1990). In Gurll'acz v. Winter, 23 Lawrence L.J. 364 (1972), the court advised the bar of its intention to strictly enforce the time limits prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to discovery responses, and, further, of its intent to apply sanctions for violations. In Capers v. Westinll'house Electric Com., 75 D.&C.2d 78 (1975), the court critically commented on the failure to honor time limits as prescribed by the rules, and answers to interrogatories rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Catina v. Maree, 415 A.2d 413 (Pa. Super. 1980), reversed on other grounds, 498 Pa. 443, 447 A.2d 228. When a party or person fails to permit discovery or fails to obey a court order as reckoning discovery, the court may, on motion, issue an order refusing to allow the disputed party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated things at trial. Hutchison v. Luttv, 611 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal ll'ranted, 533 Pa. 660, 65 A.2d 1193, :lppeal dismissed, 538 Pa. 484, 649 A.2d 435. A plaintiff must file answers to interrogatories dealing with the indemnity of expert witnesses and the facts and opinions to which that expert will testify or be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial. Rinker v. Malina. 46 D.&C.3d 155 (1986). The court does not abuse its discretion by entering a non pros judgment against a plaintiff where, in a personal injury action, the plaintiff, on separate occasions, did not get sufficient answers to defendant's interrogatories concerning damages, Calderalio v. Ross. 395 Pa. 196, 150 A.2d 110 (1959); where me plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories after sanction or giving additional time, Bovles v. Sullivan, 326 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1974); where a plaintiff deliberately refused to comply 3 -1- . I ,- ," ^" "..."~", ';t'- ,,~,-, ,', ~'._ !~, . with the court's previous order compelling the plaintiff to have his deposition taken (Yerbalas v. Verbalas, 428 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1981)). See also Alleghenv West Civic Council. Inc. v. City Council of Pittsburgh, 86 Pa. Cmwlth. 308,484 A.2d 863 (1984); Lawrence v. General Medicine Association, 602 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super. 1992). The Plaintiffhas no grounds to deny producing the information or documentation requested. The information and documentation solicited is necessary for Defendants to investigate and evaluate the Plaintiff s claims as to liability and damages. IV. CONCLUSION: Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. I and order that the Plaintiff submit complete and comprehensive answers to moving Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Respectfully submitted, By: THOMAS B. SPON GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 4 ".~-~~~.I - -, "~~_,,,!i.,, ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs, No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIESIREOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF. SET NO.1 I. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL mSTORY: See Motion of Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. 1. II. ISSUE: A. WHETHER PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO.1? Suggested answer: Yes. III. ARGUMENT: Rule 40 19( a)(l) provides that the court may, upon motion, make an appropriate order if (I) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005; (vii) a party in response to request for production made under Rule 4009 fails to respond to the request; and (viii) a party or a person otherwise fails to make discovery or to obey an order of court respecting discovery. ,,,,..~~ !liId""'~"""_~b.. .' ,~ ~ I~,-- ._.J "_,_ ~~ ~."tl~'."'l!l_"""""""",,,,,,,,,~-'_r,,,,,, , Rule 4019(a)(2) provides that a failure to act described in subdivision (a)(I) of Rule 4019 may not be excused on the ground that discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order. Rule 4019(c) provides that the court, when acting under subdivision (a) of this Rule may make order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition; and/or enter an order (Pa.R.C.P. 40 19( c)(2)), striking out pleadings or parts thereof or enter a judgment of non pros or by default against th(l disobedient party, or (Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3)) issue such order with regard to the failure to make discovery as is just (pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(5)). Rule 40 19(9)(I) also provides that sanctions in the nature of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred on obtaining an order of compliance and an order for sanctions may be opposed against the disobedient parties. In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, served upon the Plaintiff on or about May 1, 2001. Defendants have requested Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006, inter alia. provides that "the answering party shall serve a copy of the interrogatory answers and objections, if any, within 30 days from the service of the interrogatories." Moreover, pursuant to Rule 4006(a)(2), responding has a 30-day time limit within which to serve answers and objections to written interrogatories and adherence to this tinle lirnit may be strictly enforced. 7 Standard Pennsylvania Practice Second, Written Interrogatory Section 35: 14. Finally, failure to file objections to interrogatories within 30 days after service of the 2 ~:_I j -.I I " 1IiI'j1_~t;I,;;.,' , interrogatories is deemed a waiver of the right to object. Wayne v. Hartford Accident Indemnitv Co., 6 D.&C.4th 537 (1990). In Gurgacz v. Winter, 23 Lawrence LJ. 364 (1972), the court advised the bar of its intention to strictly enforce the time limits prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to discovery responses, and, further, of its intent to apply sanctions for violations. In Capers v. Westinghouse Electric Corn., 75 D.&C.2d 78 (1975), the court critically commented on the failure to honor time limits as prescribed by the rules, and answers to interrogatories rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Catina v. Maree, 415 A.2d 413 (pa. Super. 1980), reversed on other grounds, 498 Pa. 443, 447 A.2d 228. When a party or person fails to permit discovery or fails to obey a court order as reckoning discovery, the court may, on motion, issue an order refusing to allow the disputed party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated things at trial. Hutchison v. Luttv, 611 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal granted, 533 Pa. 660, 65 A.2d 1193, apJleal dismissed, 538 Pa. 484, 649 A.2d 435. A plaintiff must file answers to interrogatories dealing with the indemnity of expert witnesses and the facts and opinions to which that expert will testify or be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial. Rinker v. Malin!!, 46 D.&C.3d 155 (1986). The court does not abuse its discretion by entering a non pros judgment against a plaintiff where, in a personal injury action, the plaintiff, on separate occasions, did not get sufficient answers to defendant's interrogatories conceming damages, Calderalio v. Ross, 395 Pa. 196, 150 A.2d 110 (1959); where the plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories after sanction or giving additional time, Boyles v. Sullivan, 326 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1974); where a plaintiff deliberately refused to comply 3 ~-~ - ~ i _. , 1 ' .....;." ~~_&:,!~, with the court's previous order compelling the plaintiff to have his deposition taken (Verbalas v. Verbalas. 428 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1981)). See also A1le!!heny West Civic Council. Inc. v. City Council of Pittsburgh. 86 Pa. Cmwlth. 308,484 A.2d 863 (1984); Lawrence v. General Medicine Association, 602 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super. 1992). The Plaintiffhas no grounds to deny producing the information or documentation requested. The information and documentation solicited is necessary for Defendants to investigate and evaluate the Plaintiff s claims as to liability and dalllages. IV. CONCLUSION: Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. 1 and order that the Plaintiff submit complete and comprehensive answers to moving Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No. I, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Respectfully submitted, By: THOMAS B. SPON GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717)757-7602 4 ~JihI' ---=-. ~ - .I '-~"""~I,_ll1A.~li . ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORlES/REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF. SET NO.1 I. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL mSTORY: See Motion of Defendants Wayne E. Rehm and Beth D. Rehm to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to InterrogatorieslRequest for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. 1. II. ISSUE: A. WHETHER PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO.1? Suggested answer: Yes. m. ARGUMENT: Rule 40 19( a)(I) provides that the court may, upon motion, make an appropriate order if (1) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005; (vii) a party in response to request for production made under Rule 4009 fails to respond to the request; and (viii) a party or a person otherwise fails to make discovery or to obey an order of court respecting discovery. .~~.'_" ~." ,~_l ~ I.. ......"". _.,.;;""",~ii!I,L~" Rule 4019(a)(2) provides that a failure to act described in subdivision (a)(l) of Rule 4019 may not be excused on the ground that discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order. Rule 4019(c) provides that the court, when acting under subdivision (a) of this Rule may make order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition; and/or enter an order (pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(2)), striking out pleadings or parts thereof or enter ajudgment of non pros or by default against the disobedient party, or (pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3)) issue such order with regard to the failure to make discovery as is just (pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(5)). Rule 40 19(9)(I) also provides that sanctions in the nature of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred on obtaining an order of compliance and an order for sanctions may be opposed against the disobedient parties. In the instant case, Plaintiffhas failed to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, served upon the Plaintiff on or about May 1, 2001. Defendants have requested Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006, inter alia, provides that "tl1e answering party shall serve a copy of the interrogatory answers and objections, if any, within 30 days from the service of the interrogatories." Moreover, pursuantto Rule 4006(a)(2), responding has a 30-day time limit within which to serve answers and objections to written interrogatories and adherence to this time limit may be strictly enforced. 7 Standard Pennsylvania Practice Second, Written Interrogatory Section 35: 14. Finally, failure to file objections to interrogatories within 30 days after service of the 2 dilJ"-'~~ b-_~ ~ , ~, ~ "..~~" - ' ~-,,~"" interrogatories is deemed a waiver of the right to object. WaVlle v. Hartford Accident Indemnitv Co., 6 D.&C.4th 537 (1990). In Gurgacz v. Winter, 23 Lawrence L.J. 364 (1972), the court advised the bar of its intention to strictly enforce the time limits prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to discovery responses, and, further, of its intent to apply sanctions for violations. In Capers v. Westinghouse Electric Corn.. 75 D.&C.2d 78 (1975), the court critically commented on the failure to honor time limits as prescribed by the rules, and answers to interrogatories rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Catina v. Maree, 415 A.2d 413 (pa. Super. 1980), reversed on other grounds, 498 Pa. 443, 447 A.2d 228. When a party or person fails to permit discovery or fails to obey a court order as reckoning discovery, the court may, on motion, issue an order refusing to allow the disputed party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibit him from introducing in evidence designated things at trial. Hutchison v. Lutty, 611 A.2d 1280 (pa. Super. 1992), appeal granted, 533 Pa. 660, 65 A2d 1193, appeal dismissed, 538 Pa. 484, 649A.2d 435. A plaintiffmust file answers to interrogatories dealing with the indemnity of expert witnesses and the facts and opinions to which that expert will testify or be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial. Rinker v. Malina, 46 D.&C.3d 155 (1986). The court does not abuse its discretion by entering a non pros judgment against a plaintiff where, in a personal injury action, the plaintiff, on separate occasions, did not get sufficient answers to defendant's interrogatories concerning damages, Calderalio v. Ross, 395 Pa. 196, 150 A.2d 110 (1959); where the plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories after sanction or giving additional time, Bovles v. Sullivan, 326 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1974); where a plaintiff deliberately refused to comply 3 ... ~""" ~- - I - -'.~':l;W~""O', with the court's previous order compelling the plaintiff to have his deposition taken (Yerbalas v. Verbalas, 428 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1981)). See also Alleghenv West Civic Council. Inc. v. City Council of Pittsburgh, 86 Pa. Cmwlth. 308,484 A.2d 863 (1984); Lawrence v. General Medicine Association, 602 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super. 1992). The Plaintiffhas no grounds to deny producing the information or documentation requested. The information and documentation solicited is necessary for Defendants to investigate and evaluate the Plaintiff s claims as to liability and dalllages. IV. CONCLUSION: Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. I and order that the Plaintiff submit complete and comprehensive answers to moving Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Respectfully submitted, By: 4 " ~ '1' j.,', CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REHM As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, ' (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 11/06/2001 , l tflCs)jon b~ ~. ONAUGLE, ESQ Attorney for DEFENDANT DEll-289693 743ZB-LOl ~ , I~ '~ ,I. .1 " lI!"'h~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REHM NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 CARLISLE HOSPITAL MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL . MEDICAL MEDICAL TO: HAl!.CUS MCKNIGHT, ESQUIIlE MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIIlE intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 10/16/2001 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE . Attorney for DEFENDANT CC: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIIlE - BAIlER Any questions regarding this matter, contact THE MCS GROUP IHC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02-167473 743ZB-C01 ~, 'J '.- -... "1!'~-" COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLV ANIA . COUNTYOFCUMBERLA..'.:o DONALD R. BAKER VS File No. 2.000-69J2. WAYNE E. REHM & BETH D. REHM SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOC1JME'."S OR THI::-.IGS FOR DISCOVERYPURSUA."" TO RULE 4009.21 TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CARLISLE.HOSPITAL (S~me o( Person or ::uiry) \\'i:hin rw.~' (:!O) days ail.r s,,,,';ce of this subpOfNl. you are ordered by the C'lIlln to produc. tho following doculI'lfnts or 'hings: SEE ATTACHED al MCS GROUP INC., 1601 MARKET STREET, SUITE 800. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (Addrfol' You may d.ih'" or maill'Fble copies of the dOCllm.nts or produce things ""laested by this subpOfna. tog.thtr wj"h tho "nificat. of <omplianc.. to tho pony making this 'equest atth.'adclreu listed above. You ha\..the ,ightlo SHI<. in .dun". tho "'15onabl. cost of prtparing the copies or producing th. thinp -pt. 1f you fail to ?"oduc. Ih. documents or things rtquirtd by lhis subpoena. within tw.nty (~) da~'s aft., its sfI'"i". tn. party "",'ing tNS .u;,po.na may seek a coun oreler compelling you to comply with i"_ THIS SlllPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: N,4,ME: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE. ESOUTRE ADDRESS: 110 S. NORTHERN WAY YORK PA 17402. TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 St;PREME COURT 10 /I: ...rrOR."EY fOR: THE DEFENDANT DATI: m/~ 1.2 tuvl , BYr~,~OjR~.. PrDdlOft Civil Division 0'-'f'1- (l 7vt..[b,-" 0epu'Y Seal of the Court (w i/97) "" I~~" J. _ ' ,-"I - ~__, I ~. - "=':M?' EXPlANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CARLISLE HOSPITAL 246 PARKER STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 RE: 74328 DONALD R. BAKER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwritten notes, relating to any examination, consultation care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject: DONALD R. BAKER SU10-333138 7432.8 -LO 1 :;-~ ~- " .....J II L" - ~~ ijW'1) CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REHM As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS 'on behalf of DATE: 11/06/2001 THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFENDANT DEll-289694 7432B-L02 ,'" ,1- I~ - -' Ili.~LI( ;;~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REHM NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS :tOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 CARLISLE HOSPITAL HECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL TO: MARCUS MCDlIGHT, ESQUIRE MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 10/16/2001 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFEIIDAIIT CC: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE - BAKER Any questions regarding this matter, contact THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 HAIlKET SnEET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02-167473 74328-C01 - I~ ~.,I ~. ,,-- " ilJ'l!. COMMONWEALTH OFPENNSYLV ANIA . COUNTY OF CUMBERL"-.'iD DONALD R. BAKER VS File So. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REIlM & BETH D. REIlM SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOctJMEl.,.S OR THI::-.IGS FOR DISCOVERYPURSUA..",. TO RULE 4009.2.2 TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE CENTER (Same of 1"."011 or ElII:i'!t Wilhin lWe~' (:!O) days aller se",ice of this subpoena, you It. orclerlOd by the coun to produc. the following docu..ents or ,hings: SEE ATTACHED at MCS GROUP INC., 1601 MARKET STREET. SUITE 800. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (Ad_I' You may deli,..r or mail legible copies of the documents or produce thinp reqaest.d by this subpoena. together with the cenifi..ie of complianc..to the party makill. this reqllest at the addrea Usted above. YOIl l\a>'ethe right to .eel<. j.. ad..."ce. the ~uonable cost of preparilll the copies or producilllthe tltillp -!hI. 1i you fail '0 "oducethe documents or thinp require4 by this subpoena. wit!".in lWenry (~) da~'s aller its .er\';ce, the patty Sf"'ing tilis .u~poena may seek a cllUlt order compellinl you 10 comply with it. THIS Sl:BPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUUTOFTHE FOLLOWING PERSON: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE. ESOUTRR 110 S. NORTHERN WAY YORK PA 17402 TELEPHOSE: (215) 246-0900 St;PREMI COURT ID I: .~1TOR."EY FOR: THE DEFENDANT ~AME: .,OORESS: OATI: @~J~ cJOtJ/ IY~~O>>,RT' . L...;' ~~"'Cl.U Oi.i>ioft l)r Q lrto I:' - ~ty Seal of the Court (~!f. i/97) ,!",- -,I I., "'" ,',-" -, '-"'"";,,wI;,!:-i EXPlANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE 122 S. FILBERT STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: 74328 DONALD R. BAKER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwritten notes, billing and payment records, relating to any examination, consultation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject: DONALD R. BAKER SUlO-333140 74328-L02 ~ " .1 j - ' ~''''''- -"''''- =_1',j CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REHM As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFENDANT DATE: 11/06/2001 DEll-289695 74328-L03 i"'~~~= - - -- ~"""_I ~I ,.; -~'mF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DONALD R. BAKER TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 2000-6932 WAYNE E. AND BETH D. REIIM NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO J.>RODUCE DOCUKENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 CARLISLE HOSPITAL HECBANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL TO: MARCUS MCKNIGHT, ESQUIRE KeS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is _de, then the subpoena _y be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records _y be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to KeS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 10/16/2001 MCS on behalf of THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFENDANT CC: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE - IlAKEll. Any questions regarding this _tter, contact THE MCS GROUP IRC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02-167473 7432B-CO~ j-"""~"= ,I _ ~ ~," w.."'-~:, COMMONWeALTH OF PENNSYlVANIA . COUNTY OFCUMBERLo\..'-:D DONALD R. BAKER VS File No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REJIM & BETH D. REJIM SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMEi.,.S OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUA."" TO RULE 4009.21 TO: CUSTODIAN OF. RECORDS FOR: FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER IS,,,,. of P.....II.... ~ I','i:hin rwe",,' 1:0) d.y. &her .ervice of .lUs .ubpoe.... you ue ordered b!' the court '0 produce .he following doc...nents or 'hings: SEE ATTACHED .t MCS GROUP INC., 1601 MARKET STREET, SUITE 800, PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 'Ad_"t Y~.. m.y deih.... or mail legible copies of the dacum~nll or prod"clt!Uftp req..ested by tlUs subpoen.. together wi.h the certificate 0: ,ompliance. '0 the party making .hil req....tll thl .dclnss lilted above. You have the right to .eek. in .dunce. the 'tuon.ble cost of preparing the copi.. or prod..dngthe thinp -shL If ~'ou f.iI to ;::oduce the doc..ments or tlUngs required by llUs I..bpoena. witt-.in twenty (:!Ol d.ys &her it. .er"ice. the party .et\';ng this .".poen. m.y leek. court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SLllPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: THOMAS B '. SPONAUGLE. ESOUIRF. 110 5, NORTHERN WAY YORK PA 17402 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 St,;PREME COURT 10 t: Ail'OR."EY FOR: THE DEFENDANT N,-\ME: .-\DDRESS: DATE: m rr;,}"u /:l., ,;Jf>1) I BYW.~~UR~ EM~lr': ~.tlvil OI.ioi.. 0'11' Q ""ft"o,.. Deputy Seal of the Court (:::1. i /9i) ,. .~~ ,~ , -, " ~I =,,,,1 , . , ,J. ~ .....""'i~ EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER 850 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD CARLISLE" P A RE: 74328 DONALD R. BAKER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwritten notes, billing and payment records, relating to any examination, consultation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject: DONALD R. BAKER , SUlO-33314Z 74328-L03 - '" " ", " 1 "'~~~-'-'~I~~~~Iil(~~\M;fu'ilit~M~<Mi',;I[.aliMj!Ill'6,JJ"Wf;!Il" v~ , , ',"' ~" ,. '"~~ ,~.w...,~~,,~'-~, ,''''''''.... ,~,-~" - c.... (~..1 ~tj'f 7-:;' (./) ,>. ~i~~i '> ttc=i ".J->C: :z: ::< '; - Q '~ ~_. ; 1 I CJ r~;) ,~. ,--,- ~, ~~ .:cJ -<; '-'1 ...., ~~: - 1-', ,'. ,>,J,_., '~'Iiilik/ ,~ o ~ ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONAlLD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED E.RAECIPl];, TO: PROTHONOTARY Please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter settled and satisfied. IRWIN, MCKNIGHT & HUGHES MAR GHT, Su reme Court LD. # ~5 <I Attorney 0 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3222 By: G~ ,-- '----' ,1,,- ~ " .,J.".,,-- ' , ='~ or IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DONALD R. BAKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 2000-6932 WAYNE E. REHM and BETH D. REHM, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ day Of~, 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that I have, this date, served a copy of Praecipe to Settle and Satisfy the Docket by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnigl1t & Hugl1es 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: THOM~ Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York,PA17402 (717) 757-7602 iin ~"~" .~,~ ':';1-'''-,,- , -", -"',,, ,.'" _'='''',\'''~~~ "._, ;~~~~l/;.1J,~"""t'"'"'~ .. ", ',4"'0 .~,~", ~,. -'. ;.,;;c,--, ,~ 'LJ o ~ iJ3 R~~ ,:::,:-f:-' ::-~? )~. i~ Pc Z ::~ ~. ," ~ j"'~J ):::> -,] :::;;:J r"\J o-~ ::f? .;,., '.-/ r:';.) C) , -r, :'.'Olt~'S -;:;;.:;;;r:n ~ .... :n --< co R