Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1906IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and MICHAEL T. WELLS, Petitioners, File No. Q 7 ~' ~ 9 Q ~i C ~ ~,f ~"C6'k vs. STEVEN WATSON Respondent. PETITION FOR LETTER ROGATORY PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. & 5326 COMES NOW, Petitioners Griffin Industries, Inc. ("Griffin") and Michael T. Wells ("Mr. Wells") (collectively, the "Petitioners"), showing this Court as follows: 1. Petitioner Griffin is a Kentucky corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Georgia. Its corporate headquarters are located at 4221 Alexandria Pike, Cold Springs, Kentucky 41076. 2. Petitioner Wells is a resident of Rockdale County, Georgia and resides at 3002 Granite Drive, Conyers, Georgia 30012. 3. Respondent Steven Watson ("Respondent") is a resident of Battlesboro, North Carolina, with an address of P.O. Box 130, Battlesboro, North Carolina 27809. 4. On or about September 27, 2006, Respondent filed a Complaint for damages in Fulton County, Georgia, arising from his alleged injuries he received as a result of atractor-trailer accident involving Defendant Wells (the "Underlying Action"). See Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." On or about November 28, 2006, Petitioners each filed their Answer to Respondent's Complaint. See Answers, attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 5. The Underlying Action arose out of atractor-trailer accident that occurred on September 28, 2004 on Interstate 285 in Fulton County, Georgia when atractor-trailer in which Respondent was a passenger struck Petitioner's tractor-trailer in the rear (the "Accident"). 6. At the time of the Accident, Petitioner and a co-driver, Chuck Roberts, were traveling in atractor-trailer on behalf of, and in the scope of their employment with, USF Glen Moore, a Pennsylvania corporation, located at 1711 Shearer Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17103, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent was riding in the sleeper bunker of the USF Glen Moore truck and the co-driver, Mr. Roberts, was driving the truck. 7. Petitioner Wells was driving atractor-trailer on behalf of, and in the scope of his employment with, Petitioner Griffin at the time of the Accident. 8. Respondent claims that Petitioners' negligence caused the Accident and seeks damages including medical expenses, attorney's fees, and pain and suffering, as a result. 9. Petitioners believe that the negligence of Respondent's co-driver, Mr. Roberts, caused the Accident. 10. Petitioner Wells and the co-driver, Mr. Roberts, both received traffic citations as a result of the Accident. Petitioner Wells' citation was later withdrawn by the investigating officer. Mr. Roberts paid the fine associated with his citation. 11. Petitioner Griffin has produced documents in its files related to Petitioner Wells' employment at Griffin and the Accident, including the Griffin truck's tachograph, showing the speed of the truck driven by Petitioner Wells at the time of the Accident. 12. Respondent is no longer employed by USF Glen Moore. USF Glen Moore is also not a party to the Underlying Action. As a result, Petitioners cannot complete their investigation into Respondent's allegations, as USF Glen Moore is the only entity in possession of documents related to the employment files, Department of Transportation files, and training of Respondent and Mr. Roberts at the time of the Accident. Moreover, USF Glen Moore has relevant -and critical -documents related to its investigation of the Accident, and any amounts its insurance carrier(s) paid as a result of such Accident. See Petitioners' Subpoena to USF Glen Moore, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Such documents are relevant in the determination of liability of all parties and the extent of damages, if any. 13. As a result, if this Court does not order USF Glen Moore to produce those documents in its possession related to the Accident, the full administration of justice in the Underlying Action will fail as the parties will not be able to complete their discovery related to the alleged claims and asserted defenses to such claims. Without USF Glen Moore documents related to Respondent, Mr. Roberts, and the Accident, the parties and the Underlying action will be grossly prejudiced as USF Glen Moore has information that neither these parties nor any other entity has in regards to the Accident. 14. In an effort to conserve judicial resources and conduct speedy discovery, Petitioners have contacted USF Glen Moore in an attempt to coordinate production of the relevant documents. As of the date of this Petition, however, no representative of USF Glen Moore has returned Petitioners' calls. 15. It now appears to Petitioners that discovery may only be completed by the issuance of a letter rogatory and subpoena, requiring the production of all documents in possession of USF Glen Moore that relate to, or concern, the Accident, and its former employees, Respondent Watson and his co-driver, Mr. Roberts. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Honorable Court issue an Order requiring that USF Glen Moore produce those documents described in Exhibit A of the Petitioners' subpoena, attached hereto. Dated this ~~ day of April, 2007. One Midtown Plaza., Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404.214.1254 Facsimile: 404.214.1251 FIELDS, HOWELL, ATHANS & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP Michael J. Athans Georgia Bar No. 026285 Stacey S. Farrell Georgia Bar No. 255877 Attorneys for Petitioners Griffin Industries, Inc. and Michael T. Wells Sfaite Geurit oi` Fult:on ~outrtjl ***E~Tft„E~*** I.exisNexis Transaction Ib: 12478511 ...Date:. Sep27.. 2006 ..4::4£~PM -~ ~ Mark Warper, Clerk YN '1'l~E STATE COURT dJF 1H QILTON CUUNTX Plaintiff S'~"'~IEN WATSON, } tSvil Action No.: vs. GP.IFF'fN IlVDUSTRIES,INC., I~CIIAEL T. WELLS, and G~P.CA7" pXCA.N pVSURANCE C4. Aefendax~. } ~ab~ ~~ oo t12,o b COMPLAiN'I' P'OYt DAl-3AGE5 COaV17S NOW Stevcn Vi~atson, Plaintiff in the above styled matter, and files his Complaint against Defendants Griffin indusn'ies, Inc., ivficl~ael T. Wens atad Cxreat American InSUrat3ce Ccmapany. Plaintiff shows this Court the following: 1. Plaintiff Steven VJet.~n is a residarrt of Batdeboro, North Carolina 27809. Plaintiff's mailing address is P.O. }3ox 130, Battlcboro, North C=arc,lina 27809. 2. Defend~t Griffin Indus+aaes, Xnc. is x foreign corporation oz~ganized under the laws of the Slate of Kentucky and is authorised to do business in the .,^mte of Grargia; Defendant Griffin Industries, inc.'s corpora headc{uarr,~xs are located at 4221 Alexandria Pile, Cold Spring, Kentucky 4107b. Defendant Grii~n Industries, Xnc_ is subject to the jurisdictaoxx and venire oftlus Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-10-31;14,2- 510. Defendant Griffffn Industries, Inc. may be served with a copy of the Sunnmons and C~,mplaint by anal through. its Registered Ag~en#, Corporation Process Company, 180 t;herolcee Street, NE, Marietta, Cobb (;ounty, Georgia 30060. 69G£8GS6S8 ,L3J £S'60 9002-b0-~~O t9/Tj 3. t Michael T. Wells is a resident of Rockdale County, Georgia a~ Uefendazz service may be maw L1P°ri Defendant Welts at his residence at 31)02 Cxrdniie Drive, ers Georgia 30012. Defendant Wells is s„bjet;t to the jurisdiction and venue ofthis Ccmy , Court pursuantto (}.C.GA. § 9-10-31. ~ . 4. an is a foreign corporation Defendant Great American ],pgurmlc:e Comp y authorized to do business in the State of Georgia; Defendant Great ,Ame'riran Insurance an 's corporate l~eadquarl~ers arc located at 580 Walnut Street, (,j~ci~onati, 4bxo Camp y 2-2575. Defendant Great American Insurance Camp~Y is subject to the jurisdictiom 4520 venue hf this Court. pursuant to {).C.G.A. §§ 9-IU-31; 14-2-510. Defendant Greer anal Insurance Company maY be served with a cnFY of the Summons and A~m~encan 1201 Peachtree Complaint by and thmuDh its registered Agent, ~ Corpazatyon System, Street, N.E., Atlanta, l~lton, County, Gem'P~a 30361. FACTS 5. Inc;. as a 1n Septennt~' of 2004 P1aiz7til~ was employed by USF Glen Moore, • mercial tna~clc driver. Im his capacity as a eomnaercial truck driver, Plaintiff was c,cnn traveling through the City of Atlanta an September 28, 2004. b. oral L~+agle P1amtlff was paired with a ro-driver and ixr'veling in a 2005 Internati ~,~/t~er commezcial truck. In accordance witb tkie~r employer's policy, the co- drivers traded driving sh~.i}s eVeTY flue (5) hours. 2 69LE8GS6S8 ,L3J ~S'60 9002-b0-~~~ ~. On September 28, 20U~4, Plaintiff and his eo-driver were traveling in a south bound Hone on interstate 2$S in the general Area of west bound intcrstate 2U. Plaintiff was traveling in the slecpcr/bunk. portion of the truck cab preparing to assume has driving shift. A. While in the sleeper/bunk portion of. his vehicle, a comnnercial tr~ctoz'/trailer, owned by common cF-trieT Defendant Crriffin industries, Inc. and driven by Defendant Michael T. Wells, attempt to pass Plaiamf~s vehicle in the left lane. 9. The tractor/trailer operatah by Lefendant Wells passed Plaintiff's vehicle and immediately pulled in from of Plaintii~s vehicle, in the same lane. Defendant Wells, now ~sitioned invnediately ia~ front of Plaintiffs vehicle abruptly applied the brakes of his tractvr/irailer. 10. Because Defendant Wells positioned his vehicle directly in front of and in close proximity w the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a pez~ger, the driver of Plaiuti~s vehicle was fcm~tl to abruptly apply the brakes. Due to the erratic driving and abrupt braking of Defendant Wells, Plaintiff was thrust forward from the sleeplbunk area of the tractor/trailcr aad struck his head and right shoul~.der against the wall ofthe cab with great fnrc:e. 3 T9/£Z 69L£8GS6S8 ,L3J bS~60 .9002-b0-~~0 11. The vehicle in which Plaintiff was traveling struck the rear of 13te vehicle being operated by Defendant Wells. Both vahicle.c pulled to the side of the inteTSfate and the vehicle tun which 131aint~iffwas traveling could not be driven ai~ex tlxe accident. 12. I.aw enforcxancut officers from the City of Atlanta Police p~arhnart were called to the scene of the accident. Defendant Wells received a traffic citaticm for an improper lens change. 13. Un the date of the accident, ",epteanbcr 28, 2004, pefendant'OVells was enxployed as a commercial truck driver by Griffin Industries at its 44] 3 'fanner Church Road, Ellenwood, Georgia location.. At the time of the accident)_7efenddnt: Wells was drivirkg a 1994 General Motors tractorhrailer owned b'Y Griffa~ Industries and registered by Griffin Industries in the State of Kebtucky in 'the course of his employment by ' ' I,ndusbries, a common carrier. 14. Du September 29, 2404 Plaintiff preseztted to Conccntra Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia with cornplaiTrts of intense pain in his neck, right shoulder and back as a result of the mater vehicle accident caused by Defendant 'Wells. Physicians who examined and tread Plaintii~ on September 29, 2404 diagnosed injiu'ies of a cervical strain, a strain of Plaintiff s trap~cit~s and rhomboid (right shoulder), and a thoracic strain. ~4 T9/bT 69G£8GS6St3 ,L3J i~S ~ 60 9002-~0-~~0 1S. Plaintifl'retutned to North Carolina where he continued to experience pain in his neck and right shoulder, including some numbness in his right arm. ?he diagnoses of cervical strain, lumbar strain and right shoulder/rotator cuff strain were confirmed by PlaintitFs medical providers in North Carolina. Plaintiff began a course of physical therapy and was unable to ~~tuzn to work as a lrn~g-haul commercial truck driver due to his injuries. 1 G. Plaintiffs injuries minirnaliy xespooded to physical therapy and failed to totally resolve. Plaintiff continues to experience paiuo. in his neck, back and right she>ulderr. Subsequent to the accident, Plaintiff began experiencing proxiunal right thigh pain and mm~bnes,5, which wras diagnosed as Meralgia paresthetica and attribvt;ed to the September 2$, 2004 ~onotor vehicle accidern caused by Defendant Wells. Eledrophysiological tests confiraned a compro'olise of the right lateral femoral cutat~ous nerve. 17. As a result of his injuries frcnn the motor vehicle aecidenf ati issue herein, Plaintiff was unable to ret~irn to his job at USF Cilert Moore, Inc. from the date of the accidcnt through June 9, 2005. 18. Td date, Plaintiff's Meralgia paresfihetica has not resolvod. 11s a result of the ncmibness in his right leg and inability to slit for long periods of time, PiaiuYti~' is unablc to return to work as along-haul comnnercial. truck driver with USl~ Glen Moore, Inc. or any other commercial carrier. 5 19/ST 69G£8LS6S8 .L3J i~S ° 60 9002-fi~0-~~0 19. At #l~e time of the motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff earned a net: weekly imcome of $814.77 from USF Glcn Moore, loc. As a direct result of the injuries Plaintiff suffered in the September 28, 2004 motor vehicle accident described herein, Plaintiff can only work a.5 a shod:-haul truck driver az-d earns approximately 5440 of net weekly iuncome. 20. Defendant Crrifliln Industries, luc. is a national Agrl-Business headquartered im floe State of Kentucky. As a regular filnction of its business and services, Defendant Griffin. Industries, Inc. ships goods and products by commercial tractor/trallers an the highways and streets of the State of Georgia as a comuoaon carrier registered with t11e Public Service Commission. 21. in the State of Creorgi.a, Defendant Griffin Industries, Inc. operates numerous facilities, including a facility loca#ed at 4413 Tanner Church Road, Ellenwood,fxeorgia. On September 28, 2004, Defendant 1vJichael T. Wells was employed by C"rri~n Industries, inc. at the 4413 Tanner Church Ztoad i"ac:ility. 22. On September 2$, 2004 Griffu Industries, Yaac. owned and operated a commercial vehicle identified as a 1994 White GM Truck, license number 9NS219, anal registered in the State of Kentucky. Ole this date, as an employee of Griffin Industries, Inc., Uefendarlt Michael T. Wells was operating the 1944 White GM Truck owned by Defardant Cxrlffun indusrtries, loc. b T9/9T 69G£8LS6St3 J.dJ SS ~ 60 9002-i~0-~~0 23. Defendant Griffin Industries, inc. purchased liability insurance from Great American Insurance Company for its cornmeceial trucking operations in the State of Georgia. The policy of insurance issued >ay Great tlmerican Insurance Company to Defendant Griffin Industries, Iac. was in effect on September 28, 2U04 and may provide coverage for Plaintiffs claims agautst nefencianis Griffin Industries, inc. and Michael T. Wells. Pursuant to Geargia law, the policy or insurance must have been filed and approved bythe Public Service Commission_ COiTNT I - NEGZ;J<GI~:NCE 24. I'lainLitl' re-pleads and inGazpordf~es hr~'ein by reference Pam~~ 1°23 of his Complaixrt as if fully set out herein. 25. On September 28, 2U04 Defendant Nfichael T. Wells negligartiy operated the commercial vehicle described hereim and owned by Griffin Industries, Inc. on the public highways of the Smote of Georgia. 2G_ Defendant Wel1s's lure to abide by the traffic laws of the State of Georgia, by completing an improper la3oe change, violated his duty of care orrved to other motcsrists traveling on the highway and constituted willful and reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff: ~irther, based on the facts cited herein, Defendant Wells negligently failed to maintain his vehicle under proper control, ncgliaetrtly failed in keep a proper lookout, negligently faiicd to use or sound a signal or warning, negligently failed to make timely 7 T9/LZ 69G£8GS6S8 J,3J SS~60 9002-b0-~~0 and proper application of brakes and any other acts of negligence that may be proven at trial 27. Defendant's negligence ard violation of Crec~rgia's motor vehicle laws constituted negligence per se and negligence as a matter of law. zs. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Wel ls's negligence, breach of the applicable standard of. care for like individuals in like circumsttmces, willful and reckless conduct and through no fault of his own, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his person from the moor vehicle accident between the vehicle drivar by Defendant webs and the vehicle in which plaitrtiff was a passenger. 29. As a direct attd pro~cimate result of the negligence of Defendant wells, Plair~iff. received injuries which caused pain and suffering, resuhnd in a sio nificant period of time in which Plaintiff was unable to work; and, ultiutnateiy have Prevented Plaintiff from returning to work a5 a long haul commercial truck driver. 30. As a result of Defendant wells's negligence, Plaintiff incurred reaScmable, necessary, and <,;ontinuing medical expenses from the injuries, and will continue to incur expenses in the future, in an amvumt to be proven at trial. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant wells, Plaintiff i& entitled to d~agcs for pain and suffering, lest wages, spacial damages, loss of future 8 T9/81 69L£8GS6S8 ,L3J SS~60 9002-~0-~~0 income and earning potential, a,~d punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of a jury. COTJIV'T' XY 1~IZEGIdG)t~TG'E A,rtn RESrolynir.A?' ~Cr~~Ult~ 32. Plaini~ilt' re-pleads and ipcorporates Herein by reference paragraphs 1-31 of his Complaiuat as if hilly set out herein. 33_ 4n September 28, 2004 Defendant Griffin Industries, Inc. employed Defendant Wens as a truck driver at its facility located at 44`13 'Taiuter Church Road, Ellenwood, Georgia. As a truck driver for Crriffm Industries, Inc., i>efendar~l, Wells's job duties, the time, manner and me~od of carrying out his track driving responsibilities wore in the sole control of his superiors at Defendant Griffin Industries, Inc. and applicable corporate policies and procedures of his employer. 34. On September 2$, 2004 at the time of the motor vehicle accident described herein, Defendant Wells was on duty and engaged in: comroercidl enterprise on behalf of and for the benefit of his employer Defendant Griffiin ~dustries, inc. ;35. 4n September 28, 2004 Defendant Griffin industries, Inc. failed tci properly tram its commercial track driver Defendant Wells and load notice of the inferior training and u~rporate policies and procedures regarding the safe operation of its comaac~cial vehicles. ?Defendant GTiffn Industries, Inc. negligently caused the commercial vehicle described 9 T9/6j 69L68GS6S8 ,L3J SS~60 9002-60-~~0 herein, and driven, by its employee Defendant Wells, io be operated on the public highways of the State of Georgia in an unsafe manner thereby causing inj ury to Plaintiff. 36. Defendant Grim Industries, lnc, knew ar should have known that its employee, Defendant ~W'ells, was improperly t[ained as a commercial truck driver and presented an imminent danger to other vehicles and ztaotorists on the highways and streets of this State. 37. Defendant Griffin Industries, l~nc_ failed i;o properly supervise and manage its anployce, Defendant Wells, in his operation of a co~Er-mercial vehicle which was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries to Plaintiff. 38. As a direct aid proximate result of the negligencx ofDefendant Griffin Industries, Tnc., Plaintiff is entitled to damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, special damages, loss of future income and earning potential, and punitive damages in an arnouat to be determined by the enlightened cpnscience o1'a jury. CU 39. Plaintiff re-pleads and ixxcorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-38 of his Complaint as if folly set out herein,. 40. Defendant Great American Insurance Company issued a policy of liability insttrancc andlor indemnity insurarECe to Defendant Grim Industries, inc. as a ccm~rnan carder for the operation of commercial vehicles in the State of Georgia. Y4 T9/OZ 69G£8GS6S8 ,L.3J 9560 9002-b0-~o0 41.. As descnbed herein, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and economic damages as a direct and pmximate result of the negligence of Aefer~dant5 Wells and Crrif6n industries, lnc. in the operation of a commercial vehicle covered by the policy issued by Defendant trreen American Insurance Company. 42. The personal injuries suffered hY Piairrtiff, resulting from the negligence of Defendants Wells and Grif~%n Industries, Xnc., is a condition precedent necessary to trigger the coverage a$brded by the policy of iuasurance issued by Defendant Great American Insurance Company. Therefore, :I)efe~ndarrt Crreat American Insurance Company may be liable in whole or in part for any injuries and economic dainagcs y-offered by plai~ifi'ss a resull; ofthe ncgligEnce of its insureds. 43. As a direct amd proximate result of the negligence of Defardastt Griffin Industries, Iae., and Defendant Wells, Defendant (xreat American Insurances Company is liable to Plaintiff for damages far pain. and suffering, lost wages, special damages, loss of future income and earning pote~al, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of a jury. 44. i'ursuant to D.C.Cr.A. § 46-7-12(c) Defendant Great American Insurance Company is a proper party to this action. WHERE1~OIiE the Plaintiffprays as fiollows: a) l~or medical and doctor e~cpensss in an amount to be proven through the I1 T9/T2 69GE8GS6S8 Z3J 9560 9002-i~0-~~0 evidence at the tone of trial for the past, present and futua c costs; b) For Iost wages and loss of earning capacity in as amount for the past, present and future which will be proven at the time of trial through the evldenCe; c) For pain and suffering, both for the past, presem and future on behalf of PlaintifF, d} For atbomey's fees and cost of litigation in an amount which wil[ he proven through the evidence at the lime of trial; e) For'all general, special, compensatory, incxden-tal, punitive, consequential and all other permissible damages and expenses associated with the Plaintiff's injuries and damages im an amount which will be proven at the time of trial; g) That a jury be impaneled to resolve all factr~l. disputes; and h) For ail further los.5es and recovery as deemed proper by the Court. TRIAL $Y J'Cli1Z'SC )<S liERES1' DEMANDED. Respectfully submitted this the 27~' day of September, 2006• 'THE HOFFECKER LAW C;ROUE, P.C. Js! Charles Hoffecker Charles E. Hoff Georgia Bat No.: 35961.5 1lttorney for Plaintiff The Proscenium 1170 Peachtree Street Suite 1200 1Ltlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: 404-3 $ 8-773 7 Fax: 404-885-5747 12 S9/Z2 69G68GS6S8 ,L3J 9S°60 9002-i~0-~~O IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA STEVE WATSON, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., ) MICHAEL T. WELLS, and GREAT ) AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. ) Defendants. CNIL ACTION FILE NO.: 2006-CV-0011206 DEFENDANT GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAIriTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW, Defendant Griffin Industries, Inc. ("Griffin Industries") and files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Steven Watson's ("Plaintiff') Complaint for Damages (the "Complaint"), showing this Court as follows: First Affirmative Defense Plaintiff s Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense Plaintiff's claims and allegations about the automobile accident as set forth in the Complaint were caused in whole or in part by acts or omissions of parties other than this Defendant. Third Affirmative Defense The negligent acts or omissions by the driver of the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger were the cause of and/or a contributing factor to the automobile accident described in the Complaint. Fourth Affirmative Defense If any named Defendant is found to have been negligent in any act or omission relating to the matters alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, such negligence was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff s alleged injuries and damages. Fifth Affirmative Defense Griffin Industries denies any negligence as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Sixth Affirmative Defense Griffin Industries reserves the right to assert additional Affirmative Defenses based upon the facts as they are developed or disclosed during the course of the investigation and discovery. 1. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 1. 2. Griffin Industries admits the allegations set forth in Pazagraph No. 2. 3. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 3. 4. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Pazagraph No. 4. -2- FACTS 5. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 5. 6. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 6. 7. Griffin Industries admits that the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger was traveling South on Interstate 285 at the time of the accident. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 7. 8. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 8. 9. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 9. 10. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 10. 11. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the condition of the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger after the accident at issue in this action. Griffin Industries admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 11. -3- 12. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph No 12, Griffin Industries states that, on the same day of the accident, Mr. Wells received a telephone call from the investigating olice officer who advised Mr. Wells that after review of the accident information, it showed that P Mr. Wells was not responsible for the accident. The police officer instructed Mr. Wells to tear u the ticket and further advised that Mr. Wells did not have to attend the scheduled court date P listed on the ticket. Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Wells attended court where the court clerk advised that Mr. Wells did not have a matter on the docket. Mr. Wells' motor vehicle report shows no record of any traffic citation relating to the September 28, 2004 accident. Thus, Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was charged or responsible for the accident at issue mn this case. 13. Griffin Industries denies that the tractor/trailer operated by Mr. Wells on the date of the accident at issue in this action was registered in the State of Kentucky. Griffin Industries admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 13. 14. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff s alleged resulting injuries. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 14. 15. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 15. -4- 16. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff's alleged resulting injuries. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 16. 17. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Pazagraph No. 17. 18. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 18. 19. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff's alleged resulting injuries. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 19. 20. Griffin Industries admits that it is a national Agri-Business headquartered in Kentucky. Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 20. 21. Griffin Industries denies that it operates "numerous" facilities as alleged in Paragraph No. 21. Griffin Industries admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 21. 22. Griffin Industries denies that the commercial vehicle identified in Pazagraph No. 22 and the accident at issue in this action was registered in the State of Kentucky. Griffin involved in Industries admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 22. -5- 23. Griffin Industries admits that it had a liability insurance policy issued by Great American Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The Policy, itself, is the best evidence for its terms, conditions and limitations. Griffin Industries denies the allegations in Paragraph No. 23 to the extent that such allegations call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 23. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE 24. Griffin Industries incorporates its responses to Paragraph Nos. 1-23 as if fully set forth herein. 25. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 25. 26. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells failed to abide by traffic laws and further denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way• Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 26. 27. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 27. 28. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way. Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 28. -6- 29. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way. Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 29. 30. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 30. 31. Griffin Industries denies that Mr. Wells was negligent in any way. Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 31. 32. Griffin Industries incorporates its responses to Paragraph Nos. 1-31 as if fully incorporated herein. 33. Griffin Industries admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 33. 34. Griffin Industries admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 34. 35. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 35. 36. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 36. 37. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 37. -7- 38. Griffin Industries denies that it was negligent in any way remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 38. COQ T III Griffin Industries denies the 39. Griffin Industries incorporates its responses to Pazagraph Nos. 1-38 as if fully incorporated herein. 40. Griffin Industries admits that Great American Insurance Company issued a commercial liability policy to Griffin Industries, subject to such policy's terms, conditions, and limitations. The policy, itself, is the best evidence of its terms and conditions. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 40. 41. Griffin Industries denies that any of the named defendants caused Plaintiff s alleged injuries. Griffin Industries is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 41. 42. Griffin Industries denies that any of the named defendants caused Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Griffin Industries admits that a Great American commercial liability policy was in place at the time of the accid conditions, and limitations. Paragraph No. 42. ent. The policy, itself, is the best evidence of the policy's terms, Griffin Industries denies the remaining allegations set forth in 43. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 43. -8- 44. The allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 44 draw a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Griffin Industries denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 44 to the extent the allegations require a response. Griffin Industries denies the allegations and prayers for relief in the unnumbered «~EgEFORE" paragraph, including subsections (a) - (h) and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. To the extent that any allegations have not been admitted or denied in this Answer, Griffin Industries hereby denies such allegations. WHEREFORE, Griffin Industries prays: (a) that this Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, with costs and fees chazged to Plaintiff; and (b) grant such other relief as is just and proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted this ~-'day of November, 2006. One Midtown Plaza, Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 214-1250 Facsimile: (404) 214-1251 FIELDS, HC~ELL, ATHANS & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP Georgia Bar. No:'026285 Stacey S. Farrell Georgia Baz No. 255877 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL T. WELLS, AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY -9- IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA STEVE WATSON, ~ Plaintiff, ~ v. ~ GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., ~ MICHAEL T.~ LURANCE COAT j AMERICAN ~ Defendants. ~ CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 2006-CV-OOl 1206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendant Griffin Industries, Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Steven Watson's Complaint for Damages was served upon the following counsel of record by placing a true and correct copy of same in the U.S. Mail, properly addressed and with adequate postage affixed thereto: Chazles E. Hoffecker, Esq. The Hoffecker Law Group, P.C. The Proscenium 1170 Peachtree Street Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Dated this ~~ day of November, 2006. --- ATHANS & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP One Midtown Plaza, Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404.214.1250 Facsimile: 404.214.1251 Georgia Bar No. 255877 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN IND USTRIES, INC., MICHAEL T. WELLS, AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE STATE COUORF GEORG AON COUNTY STA STEVE WATSON, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., ) MICHAEL T• WELLS, and GREAT ) AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. ) Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 2006-CV-0011206 DEFENDANT MICHAEL T• WELLS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW, Defendant Michael T. Wells ("Mr. Wells") and files his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Steven Watson's ("Plaintiff'), Complaint for Damages (the "Complaint"), showing this Court as follows: First Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs claims and allegations about the automobile accident as set forth in the Com hint were caused P in whole or in part by acts or omissions of parties other than this Defendant. Third Affirmative Defense The negligent acts or omissions by the driver of the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a assenger were the cause of and/or a contributing factor to the automobile accident described in P the Complaint. Fourth Affirmative Defense If any named Defendant is found to have been negligent in any act or omission relating to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, such negligence was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. Fifth Affirmative Defense Mr. Wells denies any negligence as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Sixth Affirmative Defense Mr. Wells reserves the right to assert additional Affirmative Defenses based upon the facts as they aze developed or disclosed during the course of the investigation and discovery. 1. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Pazagraph No. 1. 2. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 2. 3. Mr. Wells admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 3. 4. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Pazagraph No. 4. -2- FACTS 5. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 5. 6. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. b. 7. Mr. Wells admits that the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger was traveling South on Interstate 285 at the time of the accident. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 7. 8. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 8. 9. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 9. 10. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 10. 11. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit" or deny the condition of the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger after the accident at issue in this action. Mr. Wells admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 11. 12. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph No 12, Mr. Wells states that, on the same day of the accident, he received a telephone call from the investigating police officer who -3- advised that after review of the accident information, it showed that he was not responsible for the accident. The police officer instructed Mr. Wells to tear up the ticket and further advised that Mr. Wells did not have to attend the scheduled court date listed on the ticket. Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Wells attended court where the court clerk advised that Mr. Wells did not have a matter on the docket. Mr. Wells' motor vehicle report shows no record of any traffic citation relating to the September 28, 2004 accident. Thus, Mr. Wells denies that he was charged or responsible for the accident at issue in this case. 13. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the tractor/trailer he operated on the date of the accident at issue in this action was registered in the State of Kentucky. Mr. Wells admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 13. 14. Mr. Wells denies that he caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff s alleged resulting injuries. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 14. 15. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 15. 16. Mr. Wells denies that he caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff s alleged resulting injuries. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 16. -4- 17. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 17. 18 Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 18. 19. Mr. Wells denies that he caused the accident at issue in this litigation or Plaintiff s alleged resulting injuries. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 19. 20. Mr. Wells admits that Crriffm Industries is a national Agri-Business headquartered in Kentucky. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 20. 21. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the number of facilities operated by Griffin Industries in the State of Georgia. Mr. Wells admits the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 21. 22. Mr. Wells admits that he operated a 1994 White GMC Truck on behalf of Griffin Industries at the time of the accident at issue in this case. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 22. -5- 23. Mr. Wells denies the allegations in Pazagraph No. 23 to the extent such allegations call for a le al conclusion to which no response is required. Mr. Wells is without sufficient g information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 23. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE 24. Mr. Wells incorporates his responses to Paragraph Nos. 1-23 as if fully set forth herein. 25. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 25. 26. Mr. Wells denies that he failed to abide by traffic laws and further denies that he was ne ligent in any way• Mr. Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 26. g 27. Mr. Wells denies that he was negligent in any way• Mr• Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 27. 28. Mr. Wells denies that he was negligent in any way. Mr. Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 28. 29. Mr. Wells denies that he was negligent in any way Mr. Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 29. 30. Mr. Wells denies that he was negligent in any way• MI'• Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 30. -6- 31. Mr. Wells denies that he was negligent in any way. Mr. Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 31. COUNT II -NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 32. Mr. Wells incorporates his responses to Paragraph Nos. 1-31 as if fully incorporated herein. 33. Mr. Wells admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 33. 34. Mr. Wells admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 34. 35. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 35. 36. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 36. 37. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 37. 38. Mr. Wells denies that Griffin Industries was negligent in any way. Mr. Wells denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 3 8. COUNT III 39. Mr. Wells incorporates his responses to Pazagraph Nos. 1-38 as if fully incorporated herein. -7- 40. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 40. 41. Mr. Wells denies that any of the named defendants caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth Mr. in Paragraph No. 41. 42. Mr. Wells denies that any of the named defendants caused the accident or Plaintiff s e ed resulting injuries. Mr. Wells is without sufficient information to admit or deny the all g remaining allegations in Paragraph No. 42. 43. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 43. 44. The allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 44 draw a legal conclusion to which no res onse is required. Mr. Wells denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 44 to the extent P such allegations require a response. ~. Wells denies the allegations and prayers for relief in the unnumbered «~gREFORE" paragraph, including subsections (a) - (h) and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. To the extent that any allegations have not been admitted or denied in this Answer, Mr. Wells hereby denies such allegations. -8- ~EgEFORE, Mr. Wells prays: a that this Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, with costs and fees charged () to Plaintiff; and (b) grant such other relief as is just and proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted this Z f v day of November, 2006. One Midtown Plaza, Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 214-1250 Facsimile: (404) 214-1251 FIELDS, HOWELL, ATHANS & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP Gael J~. Athans U Georgia Bar. No. 0 285 Stacey S. Farrell Georgia Baz No. 255877 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN IND USTRI CAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND GREAT AMERI -9- IN THE STATE CTE OF EORGIAON COUNTY STA STEVE WATSON, ~ Plaintiff, ~ v. ) GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., ~ MICHAEL T. WELLS, and GREAT ~ AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. ~ Defendants. ~ CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 2006-CV-0011206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendant Michael T. Wells' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Steven Watson's Complaint for Damages was served upon the following counsel of record by placing a true and correct copy. of same in the U.S. Mail, properly addressed and with adequate postage affixed thereto: Charles E. Hoffecker, Esq. The Hoffecker Law Group, P.C. The Proscenium 1170 Peachtree Street Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Dated this 2 ` J day of November, 2006. One Midtown Plaza, Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404.214.1250 Facsimile: 404.214.1251 FtELDS,~J~~L~ ATHANS & McLAU~xL~, LLP Mic ael ~!Athansv Ge rgia Bar. No. 026285 St cey S. Farrell Georgia Bar No. 255877 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL T. WELLS, AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY L COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and ) MICHAEL T. WELLS, ) Petitioners, ) File No. vs. ) STEVEN WATSON ) Respondent. ) SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: USF Glen Moore 1711 Shearer Drive (CNa~rt,e of Person onEn ,ri vania 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: See Exhibit "A "attached hereto. Street NE Atlanta Geor is 30309 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the tdecumen~~oi g this requesgat the addre b list ld subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to p~'h' above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. y p 20 da s If you fail to produce the documents or thing eek a court order compelling you t ttco ply with it. after its service, the party serving this subpoena may THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Stace S. Farrell Es . ADDRE dtown Paza Suite 800 a1360 PeachtreelStreet NE One M Atlanta Geor is 30309 TELEPHONE: 404 214-1247 SUPREME COURT ID# ATTORNEY FOR: Petitioners Griffin Industries Inc. and Michael T. Wells BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Date: Deputy Seal of the Court • EXHIBIT "A" e is ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: USF Glen Moor Steven Watson ertaining to former employee, (1) A copy of any and all documents p tember 28, 2004, including, but « employed by USF Glen Moore on Sep ortation file, all motor ( Mr. Watson"), ersonnel file, Department of Transp to ment not limited to, Mr. Watson's p to ment, emp Y vehicle accident reports and related records, all contracts o emp Y r wa a and salary verification, job descriptiodns tianme applications, resumes, payroll records, S vacation records, sick leave records, attendance reco kind, sheets, absentee records, ensation records, medical information of any written evaluations, all worker's comp kind, health insurance records, health insurance training records of any on behalf of promotions, correspondence or statements received frowatson. claims, separation notices, any to Mr. or regarding Mr. Watson, and any and all other documents relating to former employee, Chuck Roberts (2) A copy of any and all documents pertaining tember 28, 2004, including, but ("Mr. Roberts"), employed by USF Glen Mooreaome epof Transportation file, all motor ersonnel file, Dep to ment, employment not limited to, Mr. Roberts' p ob descri tion, time vehicle accident reports and related records, all contract/ rif cation, j p a roll records, wage and salary y applications, resumes, p y kind, ntee records, vacation records, sick leave ~ d dal n ee rman on of oany ~ an sheets, abse ensation records, written evaluations, all worker's comp kind, health insurance records, health insurance promotions, training records of any otices, any correspondence or statements r~ n i t ~ oRo~ rt ehalf o claims, separation n or regarding Mr. Roberts, and any and all other documents re a g concerning, or in any way related to a (3) A copy of any and all documents regarding, Mr Watson and Mr. Roberts (the trucking accident on September 28, 2004 involving hoto ra hs, « including, but not limited to, correspondde ally doceumentsnor~ files whether Accident ), cater printouts of any kin , kind or drawings, diagrams, comp and/or writings of each and every maintained electronically or by hard-copy, to the Accident and USF Glen Moore's investigation of such Acci ent. nature pertammg and all documents related to the 2005 International Eagle, with (4) A copy of any ber 92007HY, driven by Mr. Roberts at th tol he Ac dent and Alto Tennessee tag num eriod immediately pnor the Accident, for the twelve month p time eriod of September 1, 2003 - and including the month following the Accident ( and all maintenance and/or repair October 31, 2004), including but not limited to any and any and all other documents records, accident history, service records and history, related to such vehicle for the relevant time period described herein. 005 of an and all documents related to t ennessee tratle h tagt number (5) A copy y with T le at the time of the Accident, eriod immediately prior to the International Eag Mr. Roberts, for the twelve month p eriod of 92007HY driven by the month following the Accident (time p and all Accident and up to and including tember 1, 2003 -October 31, 2004), including but not limited to any Sep r service records and history, and anY eriod described maintenance an~Or repair records, accident history, uments related to such vehicle for the relevant time p and all other doc herein. or monitoring ra h, and~or anY and all o Ea le drv en by Mg Roberts at the (6) A copy of the Tachog p 28~ 2004. evices, used and/or installed in t ae2005 Internationa g ' nt for the time period of September 27 - d the Acci time of, and involved in, hones in the possession of Mr• hone records from cellular p cellular phone usage by (7) pny and all cellular p 28~ 2004. n and Mr. Roberts at the time of the Aceri d o f September 27 - Watso either Mr. Watson or Mr. Roberts for the time p or in any way related to and all documents regarding concerning, insurance carriers on behalf of (8) A COpy °f any USF Glen Moore, or any a ments were any and all payments made by re ardless to whom such p Y USF Glen Moore, arising out of the Accident, g made. eriod of September 26-28~ The log book maintained by Mr. Watson for the time p (9) tember 26-28, 2004. eriod of Sep The log book maintained by Mr• Roberts for the time p (10) 2004. is of any kind, regardless of whether such d G1~enMoore (11) Any and all documen h~d_copy, m the possession of USF or by maintained electronically d to, the Accident, on which USF Elxhib ° A ~reviewe or or in any waY relate oena, regarding, re acing its responses to this Subp otherwise referenced in p p 2 ~~~iyi~~ ~ ~ti ~ ~ - a ,~ APR I l 2001 h' t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and MICHAEL T. WELLS, Petitioners, File No. o ~ - ~ ~ G ~ c~ ~, ( ~~~w vs. STEVEN WATSON Respondent. ORDER THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the papers formerly read upon the Petition for Letter Rogatory, by counsel, requesting the Court to authorize the production of documents by USF Glen Moore, anon-resident of the State of Georgia, pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5326; and IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that U5F Glen Moore resides in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and that it has in its possession relevant documents critical to the claims and defenses alleged by the parties in the Underlying Action; and IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that a Letter Rogatory and subpoena should issue out of this Court directing that USF Glen Moore shall produce such documents as requested in Petitioners' Subpoena, which Letter Rogatory will assist the Petitioners in obtaining process from the Courts of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to compel the production of documents from USF Glen Moore; it is therefore ORDERED that: .,,,- _ ~~ ~::^ `-'( rw =;~= ~ _ ,!, - ~,. t 1. Said Petition be, and the same is, hereby granted; that a Letter Rogatory and Subpoena issue out of and under the seal of this Court directed to USF Glen Moore at the following address: USF Glen Moore 1711 Shearer Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Such subpoena, with its attached Exhibit "A," shall order USF Glen Moore to produce those documents described therein; and 2. That the said document production be made de bene esse, for purposes of discovery, and to be read as evidence in the above-entitled cause as well as in the Underlying Action. ENTERED this / 2' day of ,~, ~ , 2007. A~ Judge ~re~tit Co of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania CDu-+~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and MICHAEL T. WELLS, Petitioners, vs. File No. 07-1906 STEVEN WATSON, Respondent. USF GLEN MOORE. INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 COMES NOW non-party USF Glen Moore, Inc. and responds to the Subpoena to Produce Documents or Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22, as follows: 1. A copy of any and all documents pertaining to former employee, Steven Watson ("Mr. Watson"), employed by USF Glen Moore on September 28, 2004, including, but not limited to, Mr. Watson's personnel file, Department of Transportation file, all motor vehicle accident reports and related records, all contracts of employment, employment applications, resumes, payroll records, wage and salary verification, job description, time sheets, absentee records, vacation records, sick leave records, attendance records, any written evaluations, all worker's compensation records, medical information of any kind, promotions, training records of any kind, health insurance records, health insurance claims, separation notices, any correspondence or statements received from, on behalf of or regarding Mr. Watson, and any and all other documents relating to Mr. Watson. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome, on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine andiorafforney-client privilege or as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and on the ground that it seeks information that is confidential. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it will produce a copy of the following: (1) Driver Application for Employment; (2) USF Glen Moore Master (Top Sheet) Info; (3) Declarations of Employment Status; (4) Prior Employment Inquiry /Investigation records (redacted as to drug/alcohol testing on grounds that said information is confidential); (5) First Seat Road Test; (6) Motor Vehicle Driver's Certification of Compliance with Driver License Requirements; (7) Employee's Rights & Duties Under Section 306 (f.1) of the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act; (8} Employment Eligibility Verification; (9) Commercial Driver License; -2- (10) Driver Data Sheet; (11) Driver Statement; (12) New Hire Security Bond Agreement; (13) Equipment Abandonment Agreement; (14) Receipt and Acknowledgment of Driver Handbook; (15) Driver's Receipt of Hazardous Materials Compliance Pocketbook; (16) Employee's Receipt of 2000 Emergency Response Guidebook; (17) Driver's Receipt of FMCSR Pocketbook; (18) Disclosure and Release; (19) Air-Cuff Security Device; (20) Conditional Qualification & Financial Responsibility Agreement; (21) Haz-Mat Certification Test #2; (22) Driver's Manual Test Questions; (23) 5'" Wheel Pull Handle Receipt; (24) Certificate of Training of Enroute Motor Carrier Security Program; (25) Certificate of Training of Federal HOS regulations; (26) Verification of participation and completion of the Drug ~ Alcohol Testing program; (27) Verification of participation and completion of the Hazmat Training Basics program; (28) Driver Qualification 8~ Identification Certificate; (29) Meal and Routine Stops; (30) Certification of Road Test; -3- (31) Medical Examiner's Certificate dated September 8, 2006; and, (32) Medical Examination Report. 2. A copy of any and all documents pertaining to former employee, Chuck Roberts ("Mr. Roberts"), employed by USF Glen Moore on September 28, 2004, including, but not limited to, Mr. Roberts' personnel file, Department of Transportation file, all motor vehicle accident reports and related records, all contracts of employment, employment applications, resumes, payroll records, wage and salary verification, job description, time sheets, absentee records, vacation records, sick leave records, attendance records, any written evaluations, all worker's compensation records, medical information of any kind, promotions, training records of any kind, health insurance records, health insurance claims, separation notices, any correspondence or statements received from, on behalf of or regarding Mr. Roberts, and any and all other documents relating to Mr. Roberts. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome, on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine andlor attorney-client privilege or as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and on the ground that it seeks information that is confidential. -4- 3. A copy of any and all documents regarding, concerning, or in any way related to a trucking accident on September 28, 2004 involving Mr. Watson and Mr. Roberts (the "Accident"), including, but not limited to, correspondence, notes, memo, photographs, drawings, diagrams, computer printouts of any kind, all documents or files whether maintained electronically or by hard-copy, and/or writings of each and every kind or nature pertaining to the Accident and USF Glen Moore's investigation of such Accident. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome, on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine andlor attorney-client privilege or as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and on the grounds that it seeks information that is confidential. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it will produce a copy of the following: (1) 26 photographs of the vehicles involved in the subject motor vehicle accident (redacted as to handwritten notes contained thereon); (2J October 13, 2004, letter from Jennifer Trethaway to Dana Hand; (3) December 15, 2004, letter from Dana Hand to Jennifer Trethaway; (4) January 18, 2005, letter from Carolyn McGaughey to Tom Rainey; -5- (5) February 15, 2005, letter from Mary Ellen Norton to Chuck Roberts; (6) March 23, 2005, letter from Rhonda Bennett to Mike Wells; (7) April 6, 2005, letter from Rhonda Bennett to Mike Wells; (8) Release In Full singed by Mike Wells; (9) June 16, 2005, and July 13, 2005, fetters from Mary Ellen Norton to National Union Fire; (10) September 19, 2005, letter from Mary Ellen Norton to AIG Claim Services; (11) November 28, 2005, letter from Mary Ellen Norton to USF Glen; (12) January 13, 2006, letter from Rhonda Bennett to Alternative Markets Division; (13) September 29, 2004, letter from Jennifer Monger to Atlanta Police Department; and, (14) Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Report dated September 28, 2004; It appears that Mike Wells gave a recorded statement to Crawford & Company on October 6, 2004. USF Glen Moore is searching its files for the recorded statement and will produce same at a later date. 4. A copy of any and all documents related to the 2005 International Eagle, with Tennessee tag number 92007HY, driven by Mr. Roberts at the time of, and involved in, the Accident, for the twelve month period immediately prior to the Accident and up to and including the month following the Accident (time period of September 1, 2003 -6- October 31, 2004), including but not limited to any and all maintenance and/or repair records, accident history, service records and history, and any and al{ other documents related to such vehicle for the relevant time period described herein. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 4 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it will produce a copy of documents entitled RO History Workcards dated May 14, 2004, through October 4, 2004, Estimate of Repairs from Nalley Motor Trucks dated September 29, 2004, and Invoice No. 9428 from Nalley Motor Trucks dated October 29, 2004. 5. A copy of any and all documents related to the trailer attached to 2005 International Eagle at the time of the Accident, with Tennessee trailer tag number 92007HY driven by Mr. Roberts, for the twelve month period immediately prior to the Accident and up to and including the month following the Accident (time period of September 1, 2003 -October 31, 2004), including but not limited to any and all maintenance and/or repair records, accident history, service records and history, and any and all other documents related to such vehicle for the relevant time period described herein. -7- RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 5 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it will produce a copy of documents entitled RO History Workcards dated September 20, 2003, through September 6, 2004. 6. A copy of the Tachograph, andlor any and all other speed recording or monitoring devices, used and/or installed in the 2005 International Eagle driven by Mr. Roberts at the time of, and involved in, the Accident for the time period of September 27 - 28, 2004. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 6 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it cannot on its own download or in any other way retrieve the information stored on the ECM system contained within the subject tractor. It may be possible that this information can be retrieved by the engine's dealer. -8- 7. Any and all cellular phone records from cellular phones in the possession of Mr. Watson and Mr. Roberts at the time of the Accident, showing cellular phone usage by either Mr. Watson or Mr. Roberts for the time period of September 27 - 28, 2004. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore shows that it is not in possession of any such documents. 8. A copy of any and all documents regarding, concerning, or in any way related to any and all payments made by USF Glen Moore, or any insurance carriers on behalf of USF Glen Moore, arising out of the Accident, regardless to whom such payments were made. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 8 on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine and/or attorney- client privilege or as material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, USF Glen Moore shows that it will produce a copy of the letters dated March 23, 2005, and April 6, 2005, from Rhonda Bennett of Constitution State Services to Mike Wells and a copy of the Release In Full singed by Mike Wells. -9- 9. The log book maintained by Mr. Watson for the time period of September 26-28, 2004. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore shows that it is not in possession of any such documents. 10. The log book maintained by Mr. Roberts for the time period of September 26-28, 2004. RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore shows that it is not in possession of any such documents. 11. Any and all documents of any kind, regardless of whether such documents are maintained electronically or by hard copy, in the possession of USF Glen Moore regarding, or in any way related to, the Accident on which USF Glen Moore reviewed or otherwise referenced in preparing its responses to this Subpoena, Exhibit "A." RESPONSE: USF Glen Moore objects to Request No. 11 on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome, on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege or as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and on the grounds that it seeks -10- information that is confidential. Subject to said objections and without waiving the same, see responses to Requests above. Upon request, USF Glen Moore, Inc. will provide a privilege log of the documents it is withholding from production based upon the objections provided above. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT P. CORBIN GERMAN, GALLAGHER & MURTAGH, P.C. 200 S. Broad Street The Bellevue, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Telephone: (215) 545-7700 Telecopier: (215) 732-4182 Attorney ID No. 17897 Attorney for non-party USF Glen Moore, Inc. -11- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and MICHAEL T. WELLS, Petitioners, vs. File No. 07-1906 STEVEN WATSON, Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert P. Corbin, Esquire, hereby certifies that he is the attorney for non- party USF Glen Moore, Inc. in the above-captioned matter, and that on May 15, 2007, he served upon each of the counsel listed herein below, at the addresses more fully set forth hereinbelow, with a copy of the within responses and objections of USF Glen Moore, Inc. to subpoena to produce documents or things for discovery pursuant to Rule 4009.22 and that said service was by regular first class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Stacey S. Farrell, Esquire Fields, Howell, Athans & McLaughlin, LLP One Midtown Plaza, Suite 800 1360 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Charles E. Hoffecker, Esquire The Hoffecker Law Group, P.C. Midtown Proscenium Center 1170 Peachtree Street Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 .~ Robert P. Corbin, Esquire ~ C? ~ -a rt .. ~. -r: -r, ^F~` ~.~ 'i"1 , tai ~. 4'~ ~-~ ~= .4 .~ ~ - ..Y :.~, - ~^ ,R s {'4 /s } ~~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2007-01906 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES INC ET AL VS WATSON STEVEN MARK CONKLIN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within SUBPOENA was served upon USF GLEN MOORE the WITNESS at 0820:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of April 2007 at 1711 SHEARER DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to JENNIFER MONGER, CLAIMS MANAGER a true and attested copy of SUBPOENA together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 4.80 Postage .39 Surcharge 10.00 .00 ~~~a~~~ ~ 33.19 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: f;~~~ '~ ` R. Thomas Kline 04/17/2007 FIELDS HOWELL ATHANS MCLAUGHLI By. put iff A.D.