Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-2428BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise TinMer JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER 1689 Barlow Tavern Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Vo JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive Fairfax, VA 22033 Plaintiffs Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the above-named Defendant, Javed Rafat Dissiqui, 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive, Fairfax, VA 22033. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 E. King St., Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 WRIT OF SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION TO: Javad Rafat Siddiqui YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: RHP/1173782_1.DOC PROTHONOTARY OF CUM~ND COUNTY BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN E. AND LOUISE T1NKLER 1689 Barlow Tavern Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive Fairfax, VA 22033 Defendant } } } } } } } COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERL/uND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice to you for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by Plaintiff(s). 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: Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-3166 1173964_1 .DOC BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronaid H. Pollock, ,Ir., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-S201 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER 1689 Barlow Tavern Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive Fairfax, VA 22033 Defendant } } COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CLFMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AVISO Lc han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiem que usted cumpla eom todas las provisiones de est demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFFICINA CUYA D1RECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL: Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-3166 1173964_1.DOC BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC RonaM H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN E. AND LOUISE T1NKLER 1689 Barlow Tavern Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Plainti~s JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive Fairfax, VA 22033 Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff, John E. Tinkler, is an adult individual presently residing at 1689 Barlow, Two Taverns Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. 2. The Plaintiff, Louise. Tinkler, is an adult individual presently residing at 1689 Barlow, Two Taverns Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter stated took place on or about November 15, 2001, at or about 5:25 p.m., at Routes 11/15 and Bramar Road, a public highway in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At the aforesaid time and place, the Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui, (hereinafter 1173964_1 ,DOC Defendant) was operating a 2001 Ford Taurus. 5. At all times relevant hereto, the registered title owner of the above-referenced vehicle was Hertz Corporation. 6. At the aforementioned time and place, the Plaintiff, Louise Tinkler, was the driver of a 1995 Hyundai Elantra. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was traveling south on Routes I 1/I 5, as the Defendant was also traveling this roadway, behind Plaintiffs vehicle. 8. Plaintiff stopped her vehicle for traffic and Defendant failed to stop. 9. As a result thereof, Defendant caused a violent rear-end collision between his vehicle and Plaintiffs vehicle. 10. The above-referenced rear-end collision was due to the recklessness, carelessness and/or negligence of the Defendant, the specifics of which will he hereinafter mentioned, causing severe injuries and property damages to the Plaintiff, which will also be hereinafter mentioned. 1 I. The negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the Defendant consisted of the following: (a) circumstances; (h) (c) (d) and traffic controls; Operating the vehicle at an excessive rate of speed under the Failing to have the vehicle trader proper and adequate control; Failing to apply the brakes in time to avoid the collision; Failing to operate the vehicle in accordance with existing traffic conditions 1173964_1.DOC 2 (e) Being inattentive to other drivers on the ruadway; (0 Failing to stop and/or yield to other vehicles on the roadway; (g) Failing to drive the vehicle at a safe speed; (h) Failing to take proper and evasive action to avoid a collision; (i) Failing to keep a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of him; (j) Operating his vehicle too closely to the vehicle ahead of him; and (k) Violating the provisions of the Vehicle Code, including but not limited to 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3310, 3361 and 3362. (1) Otherwise operating said vehicle in a careless, reckless and/or negligent The aforesaid accident occurred as a direct result of, inter alia, the negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the Defendant. 13. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Plaintiff was conducting herself in an ordinary, reasonable and prudent manner and thus, Plaintiff was not a cause of the accident. 14. As a result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff Louise Tinkler suffered severe injuries that include but are not limited to injury to the cervical spine, spinal cord, and shoulder, including but not limited to herniated disc and disc space collapse; a sprained left sternoclavicular joint, stiffness, tingling and pain in her arms, neck, back and shoulders, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, cervical stenosis and cervical spondylosis, resultant pain and disability of the aforementioned parts, requiring cervical surgery, including multiple discectomies with spinal fusion; and shock and injury to her nerves and nervous system. 1173964_1.DOC 3 15. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, the Plaintiffhas undergone and continues to undergo necessary medical care and treatment. 16. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a loss of earnings, a permanent impairment of her earning power and earning capacity. 17. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff has undergone in the past and will in the future continue to undergo great pain and suffering. 18. As a further result of the aforementioned accidentt, Plaintiff has been unable to and has been prevented from attending to and performing her customary and usual daily duties, occupations, civil and social activities and may continue to be prevented from attending to and performing the same in the future to her great detriment and loss. 19. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff has incurred and may hereinafter incur medical expenses and income losses which exceed sums recoverable under 75 Pa. C.S.A., Section 1711, et. seq. 20. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff has experienced a loss of life's joys and pleasures, inconveniences, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress. 21. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff maintained :full tort on her personal policy of automobile insurance. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries suffered by his wife, Louise Tinkler, Plaintiff John Tinkler has been and will continue to be deprived of assistance, support, companionship, consortium and society of his wife, to his great Joss and detriment. I 173964_1 .DOC 4 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, John E. and Louise Tinkler, demand judgment against the Defendant, in an mount in excess of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, together with interest and costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. /~nald H. Pollock., Esquire Attorneys for~aintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1173964_1.DOC 5 VERIFICATION Louise Tinkler verifies that she is Plaintiffin the within matter, that the facts set forth in the within Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledgc, information and belief. She understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: 1 ! 73964_1.DOC VERIFICATION John E. Tinkler verifies that he is Plaintiff in the withi~t matter, that the facts set forth in the within Complaint are tree and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (71 7) 209-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER 1689 Barlow Tavern Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive Fairfax, VA 22033 Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term jURy TRIAL DEMANDED RETURN OF SERVICE Pursuant to the attached affidavit, service of original process was made upon Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui on July 12, 2003. BARLEY, SNYDER, S~lxlFT & COHEN,LLC By:_~~ Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1192620_1 .DOC IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA John E. and Louise Tink er Plaintiff(s) VS Defendant(s) Case Number: 03-2428 Civil term AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Cordis McCain, hereby certify that on July 12, 2003 at 10:45 AM, I executed service of process upon MRS. JAVED RAFAT SlDDIQUI, WIFE/CO-OCCUPANT, AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI at 12371 Cedar Lakes Drive, Fairfax, VA 22033, by delivering to and leaving with personally, copies of Notice to Defendant, Jury Trial Demanded, Complaint and Verification. Mrs. Javed Rafat Siddiqui is described as a Indian Female, approximately 5' 6" tall, 150-160 pounds, Brown eyes, Black hair, and 36 years of age. The undersigned further certifies that my place of business is: 331 8th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002; that I am 57 years of age, Date of Birth 5/28/46; and that I am not a party to this action. I solemnly declare and affirm under penalties of perjury that the matters and facts set forth herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Date July 14, 2003. Cordis McCain WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subscribed and sworn to before me on July 14, 2003. My Commission Expires: JOHN E. AND LOUISE T1NKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS cUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Prothonotary Please enter the appearance of Kevin E. Osborne on behalf of Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Dated: August 1, 2003 Attorneys for Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Dated: August 1, 2003 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED The parties hereto stipulate and agreed that certain paragraphs of the Complaint ~re amended as follows: (i) Paragraph 1 l(k) of the Complaint is amended to read "Violating 75 Pa. ' §§3310, 3361 and 3362 of the Vehicle Code"; (ii) Paragraph 11 (1) is stricken entirely. Dated: Dated: Respectfully submitted, Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #52586 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & CO 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorney for Plaintiffs John E. and Loui: BY:~e~fin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTI 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 [EN, LLC Tinkler Attorney for Defendant Javed Rafat Sic tiqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which serv ce satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Sent~ & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Plaintif~ Dated: August 19, 2003 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui copy of r JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Dated: September 19, 2003 Attorneys for Defi:ndant Javed Rafat Siddiqui JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph I and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 2 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 3 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defi~ndant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the ave~nents of Paragraph 5 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 8 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 9 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 11 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 11 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 12 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 13 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 14 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defi~ndant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 15 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 16 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or aformation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the avenments of Paragraph 17 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 18 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defemdant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 19 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Def{mdant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defimdant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the ave~xnents of Paragraph 21 and proof thereof is demanded at triM. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defi:ndant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the avelxnents of Paragraph 22 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3 WHEREFORE, Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER The averments in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can 23. be granted. 24. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. 25. Nothing done or omitted by Answering Defendant was a proximate cause of or a substantial factor in causing any injury to Plaintiffs. 26. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial factors contributing to the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 27. Any claim or cause of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred and/or may be barred by operation of the contributory, comparative negligence of Plaintiff as may be developed during discovery, and the same is alleged herein for purposes of preserving that defense. 28. 29. selection. 30. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs' claims may be limited or barred by Plaintiffs' own tort recovery The Plaintiffs' claims are limited or governed by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by referenced as if set forth at length. 4 WHEREFORE, Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. Dated: September 19, 2003 Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: /~-, ~ ~(/~'~J..s Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walm~t Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorneys for Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui 5 VERIFICATION I, Javed Rafat Siddiqui, hereby verify and state that the fi~cts set forth in the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom verification to authorities. Dated: ~a~d Ra'fa r S~drliqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for PlaintifJ) Dated: September 22, 2003 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walm~t Street Harrisburg, PA. 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER Plaintiffs V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI Defendant } COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER 23-30. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 23 through 30, inclusive, are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's New Matter with prejudice. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC By: ~/~JJ Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1207987_1.DOC VERIFICATION I, RONALD H. POLLOCK, JR., verify that I am the attorney for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler in this action, thatI am authorized to sign this Verification on their behalf, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Date: BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire 1207987_1 .DOC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter has been served this ~day of September, 2003, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1207987_1 .DOC BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court I.D. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 IURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY of Summons. 2. On or about May 21, 2003, Plaintiffs initiated the above-captioned action by Writ On or about June 25, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint seeking damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. 3. On August 15, 2003, Plaintiffs served the First Set of Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant and a Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things upon Defendant. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant and the Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively. 4. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things within thirty (30) days after service. 5. By letter dated September 16, 2003, Plaintiffs requested an update as to the status of the Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production and Copying of 1224482.1 Documents and Things. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs" September 16, 2003 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 6. However, Defendant's counsel never responded to the September 16, 2003 letter from Plaintiffs' counsel. 7. By letter dated October 29, 2003, Plaintiffs once again reminded Defendant's counsel of the outstanding discovery requests and asked Defendant to serve discovery responses within two weeks of that letter. A true and correct copy of the October 29, 2003 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 8. To date, Plaintiffs have received no response to the Interrogatories or Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things. 9. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4006(a)(2) and 4009.12 require that a party respond to interrogatories and requests for production of' documents and things within thirty (30) days after service of such discovery requests. 10. More than thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiffs served Defendant with Interrogatories and Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things. 11. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4019(a)(1)(i) and (vii), the Court may enter an Order compelling Defendant to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. 12. The Court may also make any other order with regard to the failure to make discovery which it deems to be just. See Pa. R.C.P. 4019(c)(5),. 13. Plaintiffs cannot proceed in this action without Defendant's response to the Interrogatories and Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things. 2 1224482.1 14. Furthermore, Plaintiffs hereby certify that after reasonable effort, they have been unable to resolve this dispute without Court intervention. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui to provide full, complete and substantive answers to the First Set of Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant and the Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things within twenty (20) days. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald Hi. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 29%5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1224482.1 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion to D ~ Compel Answers to iscovery has been served this ,7t" day of /~/~,.~, j(~, ~ , 2003, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osbome& Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC By: '~/'~//~/ Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1224482.1 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court I.D. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, P~4 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHN E. AND LOUISE T1NKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAlffD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT - SET NO. 1 Pursuant to Rule No. 4005 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler (hereinafter "Plaintiff') serve the within Interrogatories on Defendant and makes demand on Defendant to answer same under oath within thirty (30) days from the date of service herein. A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. These Interrogatories are considered to be continlfing and, therefore, should be modified or supplemented as you obtain further or additional information up to the time of trial of this case. 2. The Answers to these Interrogatories shall reflect the cumulative knowledge of all representatives, agents and employees of the party to whom they are addressed. 1175548_1.DOC 3. Where exact information cannot be furnished, established information is to be supplied. Where an estimate is used, it should be identified as such and accompanied by an explanation as to the basis on which the estimate is made and the reason the exact information cannot be fumished. 4. Where knowledge, information or documents in the possession of a party are requested, such request includes knowledge, information or documents in the possession of the party's agents, representatives or attorneys. 5. If any document was, but no longer is, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition has been made of it. B. DEFINITIONS 1. "Document" or "documents" includes, without limitation, writings and printed matter of every kind and description, photographs and drawings, notes and records of oral communication, and recordings (tapes, discs or other) of oral communication. In all cases where originals are not available, "documents" also means copies of original documents and copies of non-identical copies. 2. "Identify" as applied to a person means to state lhe following: (a) full name; (b) title, if any; and (c) present home or business address. 3. "Identify" as applied to any writing meant to state the following: (a) its date; (b) identity of its author(s); (c) identity of person(s) to whom it is addressed; (d) number of pages; (e) complete summary of contents; and (f) identity ofpemon(s) known or believed to have possession, custody or access to the writing. 117554~1 .DOC 2 4. "Identify" as applied to an oral statement, conversation or conference means to: (a) identify the person making each statement, the person to whom each statement was made, and all other persons present at the time of each statement; (b) state the date of such statement, conversation or conference; (c) state the place where such statement, conversation or conference was held; and (d) describe the substance of the statement, conversation or conference. 5. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or trustee and also, where relevant, the person representing or acting for such "person." 6. "Explain" or "state" means to set forth every fact relevant to the answer to the Interrogatory and to set forth each such fact fully and unambiguously. 7. "Health care provider" means any physician, dentist, nurse, physical therapist, chiropractor, psychiatrist, or other person licensed to provide health care services. 8. "Health care facility" means any institution which provides health care services. 9. "Insurance policies" means any motor vehicle insurance, Worker's Compensation or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits, pursuant to which Defendant has received or will in the future be eligible to receive payment of medical expenses, and/or reimbursement for past or future wage loss as a consequence of the incident described in the Complaint. 10. "Incident" or "accident" refers herein to the set of circumstances described in the Complaint in this action. 1175548_1 .DOC 3 C. INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state the place and date of birth, Social Security Number, all members of immediate family, and current residence of Defendant. 2. Please state the educational history of Defendant, identifying institutions of learning, dates of attendance and all degrees, honors and awards. 3. State in detail the employment history of Defendant, including the identity of all employers for the last ten (10) years, duration of each employment, employment capacity and duties, monthly salary or wages earned. 1175548_1 .DOC 4 4. Please state whether Defendant or anyone acting on his behalf has ever filed a lawsuit seeking recovery for any type of personal injury, and if so, state the court and term and number of the case, the underlying facts of the litigation and the outcome or present status of the litigation. 5. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, please identify each witness Defendant expects to call as an expert at trial, stating the qualifications of each such expert, the subject matter to which he/she is to testify, the substance of facts and opinions to which he/she is to testify, and the basis for each opinion. (In lieu of answoring Interrogatory No. 5, Defendant may file as his answer a signed report fi.om each expert, or Defendant may have the Interrogatory answered by the expert(s). If the expert(s) answer(s) the Interrogatory, the "expert(s) answering the Interrogatory" must sign the affidavit attached to these Interrogatories. If an expert's signed report is filed in lieu of answering Interrogatory No. 5, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, please see that the expert's opinion, facts on which the expert is relying, and basis for each opinion are set forth clearly.) I 175548~1 .DOC 5 6. Please identify all persons other than the parties hereto and their attorneys and who have any knowledge of or information as to the facts pertaining to the subject matter of this litigation. Please include in your answer the substance and scope of their knowledge. 7. Please identify all witnesses other than experts already identified that Defendant intends to call at trial, and state the subject matter of their testimony. 8. If Defendant or anyone acting on his behalf has obtained non-privileged, discoverable statements, reports, memoranda or testimony, in any form, from any persons regarding or in any way relating to the subject matter of this litigation, please state the identity of each person making each such statement or report, in whose presence it was made, the date and place, number of pages, whether it was signed, and who presently has custody of it. 6 9. If Defendant was involved in any other MVAs prior to or subsequent to this incident, please state the place and date of.each accident, provide a description of the accident, identify all other parties involved and state whether a claim was made against Defendant or Defendant's employer as a result. 10. If Defendant or anyone acting on his ~ehalf hasybtained non-privileged, discoverable statements, reports, memoranda or testimony, in any form, fxom any persons regarding or in any way relating to the subject matter of this litigation, please state the identity of each person making each such statement or report in whose presence it was made, the date and place, number of pages, whether it was signed, and who presently has custody of it. 7 1 I. State in detail Defendant's version of the events which led up to the incident, the surrounding cimumstances, and the manner in which the incident occurred including, but not limited to, the exact location, date and time of the incident. 12. What was Defendant's destination at the time of the incident from where was Defendant coming, and what was the purpose of the destination? 13. List the chronological order of routes that Defendant traveled and stops Defendant made in traveling to the destination listed above. I 175548_1.DOC 8 14. Please describe as specifically as possible, the weather condition at the time of the incident including lighting, cloud cover, temperature, precipitation and the condition of the road surface on which Defendant was traveling. 15. Please describe as specifically as possible, the extent to which there was other traffic on the road at the time and at the place of the incident; and the speed at which Defendant's vehicle was traveling. 16. Describe any actions, if any, taken by Defendant to avoid the collision and how far Defendant was from the other vehicle when Defendant took each action. 9 17. Was Defendant's vehicle equipped with a seatbelt or shoulder harness? Was Defendant wearing a seatbelt and/or shoulder harness? 18. State whether Defendant had taken any drugs, alcoholic beverages, medication, or stimulants within twenty-four (24) hours preceding the incident. If your answer is in the affirmative, describe each such substance, the amount taken, where, when and with whom taken, and from whom received. 19. Were there any drugs, alcoholic beverages, medications, or stimulants in Defendant's vehicle at the time of the incident and, if so, please describe how much, what kind and when each was obtained? I 175548_1.DOC 10 20. Please describe Defendant's vehicle, including the make, model, year and mileage and person(s) with ownership interest in said vehicle. 21. Was Defendant working in the course and scope of Defendant's employment at the time of the motor vehicle accident? If so, please produce true and correct copies of any mileage, driving, activity, or ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) logs for the week prior to the accident date (including the day of the accident). 22. Were any parts (i.e., brakes, lights, or steering mechanism) of the vehicle operating improperly at the time of the incident? If so, did Defendant know that at the time of the incident? 1175548_1,DOC 11 23. Who normally did repair work and inspections of Defendant's vehicle and what and by whom was the last work done on Defendant's vehicle? 24. Where is Defendant's vehicle located at present? 25. Describe in as much detail as possible Defendant's version of the events subsequent to the incident including: the location of each vehicle just before and following the incident; Defendant's position in the vehicle just before and following the incident; and whether Defendant stopped as soon as safely possible after the collision between the vehicles. 1175548_1.DOC 12 26. Identify what observations, if any, were made by Defendant at the accident scene (i.e., roadway, berm, adjacent area) after the accident occurred concerning how the accident occurred (i.e., skid marks, gouge marks, vehicle debris, damage to land or signs). 27. Please describe any assistance rendered by Defendant and/or Plaintiff or any assistance rendered to Plaintiff, and/or Defendant and by whom said assistance was rendered. 28. occurred? Approximately how often had Defendant driven on the road where the incident I 175548_1 DOC 13 29. At the time of this accident, was Defendant covered by any policy of liability insurance which protected against the risk of liability which is the subject of this action? 30. insurer; If so, state for each such policy: (a) The name, principal place of business, and telephone number of the (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the named insured; (c) The policy number; 1175548_1.DOC 14 (d) The effective dates of coverage; (e) The amount of liability coverage, specit~4ng the terms thereof; (f) State whether there are any other provisions, such as medical pay clauses, no-fault insurance benefits, or other insurance payment provisions, which would provide benefits to a party injured by Defendant's vehicle and set forth any conditions, exclusions, or other relevant terms concerning such additional benefits; 75548_ I.DOC 15 (g) The amount ofunderinsured motorists coverage and uninsured motorists coverage, if applicable; and (h) The ntunber of vehicles covered, if applicable. 31. Has the insurance company or companies involved raised any issue as to Defendant's coverage for damages from the aforesaid accident? If so, please set forth in detail the basis for such issue, reservation of right, or denial of coverage. 75548_1 .DOC 16 32. Is Defendant protected against the risk which is the subject of this action by any reinsurance; excess insurance; umbrella policy; insurance on m~other owned or leased vehicle; self-owned or closely held business insurance; or employer's liability insurance? 33. Does any relative residing in Defendant's household possess motor vehicle insurance other than the coverage referred to in the above Interrogatories? 34. If your answer to any portion of th6 preceding two Interrogatories is in the affirmative, for each such coverage please state: (a) The name, address and telephone number of the insurer; Co) The policy number; 1175548_1.DOC 17 (c) The form of insurance; (d) The effective dates of coverage; (e) The amount of coverage, specifying the terms thereof; (f) The name and address of thc named insured; 1175548_1 .DOC 18 (g) State whether there are any other provisions such as medical pay clauses, no-fault insurance benefits, or other insurance payment provisions, which would provide benefits to a party injured by Defendant's vehicle, and set forth any conditions, exclusion or other relevant terms concerning such additional benefits; (h) The amount of underinsured motorists coverage and uninsured motorists coverage, if applicable; and (i) The number of vehicles covered, if applicable. 1175548~1 .DOC 19 35. Has the insurance company or companies involved in Defendant's Answer to the preceding Interrogatory raised any issue as to Defendant's coverage for damages arising from the aforesaid accident? If so, please set forth in detail the basis for such issue, reservation of right, or denial of coverage. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1175548_1.DOC 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 15th day of August, 2003, served an original and one copy of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant - Set No. 1, via flint class mail upon: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1175548_1 .DOC BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, ,Ir., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys jbr Plaintiffs JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (SET NO. 1) Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler (hereinafter "Plaintiff') request that Defendant produce the documents and things hereinafter desciibed and permit Plaintiffthrough his attorneys, to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Plaintiffrequests that the documents and things be made available for this inspection at the offices of Plaintiff's attomeys located at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof Plaintiff's attorneys will be responsible for these documents and things so long as they are in lheir possession. Copying will be done at Plaintiff's expense and the documents and things will be properly returned al~er copying has been completed. I 175558_1,DOC This request is intended to cover all documents and things in the possession, custody and control of Defendant, their agents, employees, insurance carriers and attorneys. The documents and things specifically covered by this request are: 1. All investigations, reports, test results, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, surveys, measurements or other representations, drawings, sketches, summaries or records of or which relate to the accident. 2. All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any person interviewed or contacted, expert or otherwise, whether or not they will be called as a witness at trial. 3. · All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any witness to the accident. 4. All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any party, their agents or employees concerning the accident and events surrounding it. 5. A current curriculum vitae for each expert. 6. All documents and things prepared by each expert identified together with all correspondence between expert and Defendant or anyone acting on his behalf. 7. All documents and things or other demonstrative evidence which you anticipate may be offered, introduced, or used at trial or at depositions. 8. All medical records, hospital records, x-ray records, emergency room records, billing statements, and non-privileged correspondence concerning Plaintiff. Any and all reports of physicians who reviewed Plaintiff's medical records. 10. All documents and things which refer to or verify insurance policy coverage and payment of benefits in connection with the accident which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 11. The declaration page of any and all motor vehicle/antomobile insurance policies on which Defendant was a named insured, an insured or a covered person at the time of this accident. 12. 13. Interrogatories to Defendant - Set No. 1. The entire contents of the claim file in connection with this accident. All documents and things identified, referenced or used in answering Plaintiffs' BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC By: ~/ff~-" · 'Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King S~'eet Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-.5201 Court I.D No. 52586 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 15th day of August, 2003, served an original and one copy of Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things (Set No. 1), via first class mail, upon: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1175558-1 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Tel 717.299.5201 Fax 717.291A660 September 16, 2003 Ronald I=L PollOCk, Jr., Esquire Direct D~al Number:. 717,399.1539 E-mail: rpollock~barley.com Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: John E. and Louise Tinkler v. Javad Rafat Siddiqui Dear Kevin: On August 15, 2003 I served you with Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant (Set No. 1) and Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things (Set No. 1). Kindly advise me as to the status of Defendant's resporkses. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ronald H. Pollock, Jr. RHP/jlr: 1204947 Barle~ Snyder, Senti & Cohen, LLC Lancaster. York · Harrisburg. Reading · Betwyn · Hanover. Chambersburg 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Tel 717.299.5201 Fax 717.291.4660 www.badey.com October 29, 2003 Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Direct Dial Number: 717.399.1539 E-mail: q~ollock@barlcy.com Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: John E. and Louise Tinkler v. Javad Rafat Siddiqui Dear Kevin: I am wrifmg to follow up on our conversation of a week or so ago. Specifically, you were going to supply me with written confn-mation of any excess coverage for Mr. Siddiqui. Further, you were going to supply me with the discoverable documents in your file. In the interim, I was speaking with the insurance carrier regarding possible resolution of the case. At this point, I haven't received anything from you. While Ms. Vish has been very professional to deal with, the insurance carder continues to ask me to jump through hoops although it has not raised its offer. You have also indicated that you will not be voluntarily providing the medical report which was obtained by the carder prior to litigation, despite my cooperation in obtaining authorizations, etc. for them to have the diagnostic films reviewed in conjunction with that report. It is my understanding that the report is unfavorable to your client. My client had a very serious surgical procedure which was related to this accident (and I presume that the medical report that you are not going to turn over confirms this). She would like to either settle the case or move it to trial promptly. At this point, I feel that things are slipping into a bit of quicksand in terms of getting the case moved forward. Therefore, I request that you provide answers to discovery in the next two weeks. If the cartier comes forward with an offer, I will certainly deal with il:, but I don't want to keep this matter on hold indefinitely as I am somewhat pessimistic on the outcome. Very truly yours, Ronald H. Pollock, Jr. RHP/jlr: 1216733 I.DOC Barley; Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC Lancaster · York · Harrisburg, Reading- Berwyn · Hanover. Chambersburg COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant ~o. 03-2428 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ~U'~day of __"~ ~.~., ,2003, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery, A RULE is hereby entered against Defendant to show cause, if any, why the relief requested in the motion should not be granted; This RULE is returnable in ~ days.'~,~, -~ a,e._} ~, c ~, ~ BY THE C. OU~RT: ,/~ ,~ ,J. 1224482. I JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui, by and through his attorneys, Hartman, Osborne & Rettig, P.C. and responds to the Rule to Show Cause why the PlaintitTs Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery by stating that the requested answers were served on Plaintiff's counsel on December 24, 2003. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery should not be granted. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Dated: / X - 2 ~ - O 3 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for PlaintifJ) Dated: December 24, 2003 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court I.D. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 fURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF EXPERT REPORT of Summons. 2. On or about May 21, 2003, Plaintiffs initiated the above-captioned action by Writ On or about June 25, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint seeking damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. 3. Prior to the commencement of litigation, the parties entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs provided Defendant with the necessary information to conduct an examination as provided for under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010(b)(1) and (3). 4. Subsequent to the agreement, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with certain MRI films and X-rays for examination by Defendant's expert. 5. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010(b) requires that following an examination, the party causing the examination to be made (in this instance the Defendant) shall 1227534.1 deliver to the requesting party (in this instance the Plaintiffs) a copy of the detailed written report of the examiner setting out the examiner's findings, including results of all tests made, diagnoses and conclusions. 6. On August 15, 2003, Plaintiffs served a Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things upon Defendant. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things as Exhibit "A." 7. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things within thirty (30) days after service and a Motion to Compel was filed with this Honorable Court. 8. Defendant subsequently served upon Plaintiffs his Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production'and Copying of Documents and Things. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Copying of Documents and Things as Exhibit "B." 9. In Request for Production 9, Plaintiffs requested discovery of the report authored as a result of the examination pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010(b) that took place prior to the commencement of litigation. See Exhibit "A." 10. Defendant now takes the position that the report is not discoverable as it concerns an expert review that Defendant does not plan on using at trial. See Exhibit "B." 11. Nonetheless, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4003.5(a)(3) and 4010(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of the expert report authored in anticipation of litigation. 1224482.1 12. Rule 4003.5(a)(3) protects the discovery of expert reports authored by experts who have been specially retained by a party in anticipation of litigation and who are not expected to be called at trial. 13. However, Rule 4003.5(a)(3) is subordinated to the discovery provisions of Rule 4010(b). See Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(3). 14. In this case, Defendant's expert performed an examination in accordance with Rule 4010(b) when he reviewed the MRI films and X-rays provided by Plaintiffs. 15. While it is true that Defendant's expert did not examine Plaintiff Louise Tinkler in person, the expert still performed a physical examination of her by reviewing the MRI films and X-rays. 16. Defendant's expert could only perform an internal physical examination of ?laintiff Louise Tinkler by using the MRI films and X-rays. Defendant's expert apparently did not need to examine Plaintiff Louise Tinkler in person when the results of the MRI films and X- rays were the only pieces of information requested by Defendant's expert in order to perform the physical examination of Plaintiff Louise Tinkler. 17. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4010(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of Defendant's expert report written following the examination of Plaintiff Louise Tinkler. 1224482.1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui to provide efendant s expert report written following the examination of Plaintiff Lomse Tmkler within twenty (20) days. Date: BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1224482.1 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery of Expert Report has been served this ~?day of d~qdar' ,d / 2004, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC By: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinkler 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1224482.1 5 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC RonaM H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court I.D. No. 52586 126 East King Street I.ancaster, P~l 17602 (717) 290-5201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAdx!D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 JLrRy TRLAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (SET NO. 1) Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs John E. and Louise Tinlder (hereinafter "Plaintiff') request that Defendant produce the documents and things hereinafter described and permit Plaintiffthrough his attorneys, to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Plaintiffrequests that the documents and things be made available for this inspection at the offices of Plaintiff's attorneys located at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof. Plaintiff's attorneys will be responsible for these documents and things so long as they are in their possession~ Copying will be done at Plaintiff's expense and the documents and things will be properly retumed after copying has been completed. I 175558_1.DOC This request is intended to cover all documents and things in the possession, custody and control of Defendant, their agents, employees, insurance carriers and attorneys. The documents and things specifically covered by this request are: 1. All investigations, reports, test results, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, surveys, measurements or other representations, drawings, sketches, summaries or records of or which relate to the accident. 2. All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any person interviewed or contacted, expert or otherwise, whether or not they will be called as a witness at trial. 3-, All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any witness to the accident. 4. All correspondence with, statements of, and notes of conversations with any party, their agents or employees concerning the accident and events surrounding it. 5. A current curriculum vitae for each expert. 6. All documents and things prepared by each expert identified together with all correspondence between expert and Defendant or anyone acting on his behalf. 7. All documents and things or other demonstrative evidence which you anticipate may be offered, introduced, or used at trial or at depositions. 8. All medical records, hospital records, x-ray records, emergency room records, billing statements, and non-privileged correspondence concerning Plaintiff. Any and all reports of physicians who reviewed Plaintiff's medical records. 2 10. All documents and things which refer to or verify insurance policy coverage and payment of benefits in connection with the accident which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 11. The declaration page of any and all motor vehicle/automobile insurance policies on which Defendant was a named insured, an insured or a covered person at the time of this accident. 12. The entire contents of the claim file in connection with this accident. 13. All documents and things identified, referenced or used in answering Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to Defendant - Set No. 1. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC · 'Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1175558-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I haye this 15th day of August, 2003, served an original and one copy of Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Copying of Docmnents and Things (Set No. I), via first class mail, upon: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, TO PL~IFFS, RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui, by and through his attorneys, Hartman, Osborne & Rettig, P.C. and responds to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents as follows: 2. discovepy. See documents attached. Objection. The requested information is beyond the scope of permissible 3-4. See documents attached. 5-6. The identity of any expert or experts to provide testimony on behalf of Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui at the trial of the above-captioned action has not yet been determined. Once such a determination is made, a timely response to this Request, to the extent required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, will be provided. 7. The identity of any exhibit or exhibits to be introduced into evidence on behalf of Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui at the trial of the above-captioned action has not yet been determined. Once such a determination is made, a timely response to this Request, to the extent required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, will be provided. 8. Please refer to the medical records of Plaintiff, presumably already in your possession. To the extent that Plalntiffis not in possession of the records of Gettysburg Family Practice, KDV Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation and Go Sport Physical Therapy, complete copies will be provided upon further request. o discovery. Objection. The requested information is beyond the scope of permissible 10-12. See documents attached. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Dated: By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui JAN 2 8 2004 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant No. 03-2428 FtJRY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ~z~day of ~_x,~, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery of Expert Report, A RULE is hereby entered against Defendant to show cause, if any, why the relief requested in the motion should not be granted; This RULE is returnable in BY THE COURT:~ ~ ,J. O).-dq 1227534.1 JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs, V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. No examination was performed as provided for under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied as stated. There was no agreement to conduct a physical examination as provided for under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. It is admitted that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that following an examination, the party causing the exam shall provide a written report from the examiner. It is denied however that any such examination took place in this instance. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. On the contrary, the request was specifically for the defendant to produce, "any and all reports of physicians who reviewed plaintiff's medical records." The request did not seek, as the plaintiff now contends, the "discovery of the report authored as a result of the examination pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010(b)." Further, there was no such examination. 10. Denied as stated· The defense does not contend that a report of an independent medical examination would not be discoverable. The defense does contend however that the report of an individual reviewing only medical records and not conducting a physical exam of plaintiff is not discoverable if the party causing that review of medical records does not intend to call that witness to testify at the trial of the matter. 11. Denied. This medical review does not constitute an examination as contemplated by Rule 4010 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of the report. Admitted. Furthermore, this report falls precisely within the scope of Rule 12. 4003.5(a)(3). 13. Admitted. However, the review that was conducted by the expert specially retained in anticipation of litigation is not a "physical examination" as set forth in Rule 4010 and, therefore, this circumstance is controlled by Rule 4003.5(a)(3) and precludes the discovery of the requested information. 14. Denied. Rule 4010 pertains to the physical examination of a party. No physical examination of this party was conducted. The plaintiff did not submit for an actual physical examination by the expert who instead merely reviewed medical records. 15. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that defendant's expert did not examine plaintiff in person. It is denied that the expert performed a physical examination of her. No physical examination was performed on the plaintiff. The defendant's expert merely reviewed the medical records. 16. Denied as stated. A physical examination of the plaintiffcould have been performed by defendant's expert through actual touching of the plaintiff and close clinical examination. Such examination would have included, for instance, range of motion analysis of various body parts; analysis of the strength of various muscle groups; analysis of the motor and sensory response to various nerve root innervated muscles, and reflex examination of plaintiff. No such physical examination was conducted. It is admitted that as an adjunct to such a physical examination, a given examiner may review medical records. Review of medical records only occurred in this case and hence this did not constitute a physical examination as referenced in Rule 4010. 17. Denied. No physical examination of the plainfiffwas conducted. A mere medical records review was conducted by defendant's expert and, therefore, that is not subject to discovery. WHEREFORE, defendant requests that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel be denied. NEW MATTER 18. A pretrial review of medical records often helps the defense to evaluate the damage claim in a given case. Proper evaluation ora damage claim prior to trial is essential to the settlement 19. process. 20. The defense in a lawsuit should be permitted to conduct a review of medical records without the fear that that review will somehow be subject to discovery. 21. Should a mere review of medical records be subject to discover, it would have a chilling effect on the ability of the defense to evaluate a case for settlement purposes and result in fewer pretrial settlements. 22. Only in the instance where the defense goes beyond a mere review of medical records and conducts an actual physical examination of the plaintiff, is the defense required to produce the expert's report. WHEREFORE, defendant requests that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel be denied. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attomey for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui Dated: February 3, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senti & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Plaintiffi Date: February 3, 2004 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D.//34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this l0th day of February, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Answers to Discovery, and of the Answer of Defendant Javed Rafat Siddiqui, to Rule To Show Cause, and with the concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel, the motion is deemed moot and the rule issued on December 5, 2003, is deemed moot. BY THE COURT, Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esq. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Attorney for Plaintiffs Kevin E. Osborne, Esq. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant J./sley Oler, J., J. JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs, V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURy TRIAL I)EMANDED AND NOW, this day of , upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Brief in Support and defendants' Answer and Brief in Opposition, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion is HEREBY DENIED. BY THE COURT: Jo JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. No examination was performed as provided for ul~l~,~the .~) _. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied as stated. There was no agreement to conduct a physical examination as provided for under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. It is admitted that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that following an examination, the party causing the exam shall provide a written report from the examiner. It is denied however that any such examination took place in this instance. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. On the contrary, the request was specifically for the defendant to produce, "any and all reports of physicians who reviewed plaintiff's medical records." The 12. 4003.5(a)(3). request did not seek, as the plaintiffnow contends, the "discovery of the report authored as a result of the examination pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010(b)." Further, there was no such examination. 10. Denied as stated. The defense does not contend that a report of an independent medical examination would not be discoverable. The defense does contend however that the report of an individual reviewing only medical records and not conducting a physical exam of plainfiffis not discoverable if the party causing that review of medical records does not intend to call that witness to testify at the trial of the matter. 11. Denied. This medical review does not constitute an examination as contemplated by Rule 4010 of the Pennsylvania Rules o f Civil Procedure and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of the report. Admitted. Furthermore, this report falls precisely within the scope of Rule Admitted. However, the review that was conducted by the expert specially retained in anticipation of litigation is not a "physical examination" as set forth in Rule 4010 and, therefore, this circumstance is controlled by Rule 4003.5(a)(3) and precludes the discovery of the requested information. 14. Denied. Rule 4010 pertains to the physical examination of a party. No physical examination of this party was conducted. The plaintiffdid not submit for an actual physical examination by the expert who instead merely reviewed medical records. 15. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that defendant's expert did not examine plaintiffin person. It is denied that the expert performed a physical examination of her. No physical examination was performed on the plaintiff. The defendant's expert merely reviewed the medical records. 16. Denied as stated. A physical examination of the plaintiffcould have been performed by defendant's expert through actual touching of the plaintiffand close clinical examination. Such examination would have included, for instance, range of motion analysis of various body parts; analysis of the strength of various muscle groups; analysis of the motor and sensory response to various nerve root innervated muscles, and reflex examination of plaintiff. No such physical examination was conducted. It is admitted that as an adjunct to such a physical examination, a given examiner may review medical records. Review of medical records only occurred in this case and hence this did not constitute a physical examination as referenced in Rule 4010. 17. Denied. No physical examination of the plaintiff was conducted. A mere medical records review was conducted by defendant's expert and, therefore, that is not subject to discovery. WICIEREFORE, defendant requests that plaintffi§' Motion to Compel be denied. NEW MATTER 18. A pretrial review of medical records often helps the defense to evaluate the damage claim in a given case. Proper evaluation of a damage claim prior to trial is essential to the settlement 19. process. 20. The defense in a lawsuit should be permitted to conduct a review of medical records without the fear that that review will somehow be subject to discovery. Dated: February 3, 2004 21. Should a mere review of medical records be subject to discovery, it would have a chilling effect on the ability of the defense to evaluate a case for settlement purposes and result in fewer pretrial settlements. 22. Only in the instance where the defense goes beyond a mere review of medical records and conducts an actual physical examination of the plaimiff, is the defense required to produce the expert's report. WI[tEREFORE, defendant requests that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel be denied. Respectfully submitted, ItARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I mn this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senti & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Date: February 3, 2004 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Slxeet Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER, Plaintiffs, V. JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 03-2428 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MORON ~O COMPEL DISCOVERY OF EXPERT ~RT In answer to the Rule/Motion the defendant incorporates herein by reference its Answers to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery filed on February 4, 2004. A copy of both the documents are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and "B" respectively. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: f/..t.~. ~~__ / Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Dated: Febru~y 13, 2004 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senti & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Plaintiff) HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Ke'vin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Date: February 13, 2004 Attorney for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court LD. No. 52586 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 299-5201 .4ttv,rneys for Plaintiffs JOHN E. AND LOUISE TINKLER Plaintiffs JAVED RAFAT SIDDIQUI Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLA2qD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 03-2428 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: PRAECIPE Robert H. Getz, Jr., Prothonotary Please mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued and ended, with costs paid. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC By: aid H. Pollock, Sr., Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1305246_1.DOC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as tbllows: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senff & Cohen, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for PlaintifJ) Dated: August 24, 2004 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Hanfsburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attomey for Defendant, Javed Rafat Siddiqui