Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-00014 IN THL COURT OF' COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D, CLARK, Plaintiff v, GENERAL MILLS, Ina Defendant Civil Action • Law No.: 99-14 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO INCLUSION OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER CONTAINED IN DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER Barry ll. Clark, by and through his counsel, McGraw, t-lair, & Deitchman, hereby ,~ moves this F-lanotable Court to grant his Preliminary Objection to paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter, pursuant to 1'a.R.C.P. 1028 (a)(2), and, in support thereof, avers the following: 1, In Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Mattee, it alleges; "tit all times material to PlainpfFs cause of action, Plaintiff,l3arry Clark, had no legitimate business scheduled with Defendant, General Mills, inc., its agents, and/or employees." A uue and correct copy of the New Ivlattcr is attached as I_'sxhibit A. 2. Plaintiff objects to the inclusion of Paragraph 33 in Defendant's Clew Matter on the basis of scandalous or impertinent matter contained therein. a. T'he only reason to include the statement made in that paragraph is to suggest some kind of wrongdoing on the part of Plaintiff. b. At all relevant times, Plaintiff remained on a public road, a Fact that is admitted by Defendant in paragraph 7 of the Answer. c, Even if Plaintiff were on Defendant's property, (which he was not) Plaintiff was never told he was not permitted on llcfcndant's property after his resignation. Fnr ..instance, former employees customarily visited in llefcndant's lunchroom, and Defendant also anticipated Plaintiff coming back to return his uniform. 'I4tesc averments arc admitted I;y llcfcndant in paragraph G of the Answer. 3. $ecsiuse it is undisputed that. Plaintiff was legally on a public road at all relevant times, [he suggestion that Plaintiff "had no Ie~;itimate business scheduled with Defendant" could only be included to suggest that Plaintiff was somehow In the wrong, and to taint his character through this suggestion, 't'he statement contained in paragraph 33 is impertinent or scandalous, and shduld be stricken from Defendant's New Matter. WHL,REI~C>I2I3,1'laintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be tequired to strike paragraph 33 from its New fatten Rcspcct8dly submitted, McGRAW, HAI'1' & DII'fCHMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff Daka~©~ Nora S, Gibson, PA ID # 81918 4 Liberty Avcnuc Carlisle, PA 1'1(113 (717) 249-4500 (717) 249.2411 (fax) CERTIFICAT'11 OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereh}' certify that a u1~e and correct copy of the foregoing PRl?I,IMINARY OBJh,C'I'IONS was scived by U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties ,listed below at the following address: Robot G. Hanna, f r., Esquuc Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esquire MarshaA, llennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 100 Pine Street, 4'" Moor ' P.Q. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 L~~~ i ~I) V (ti. .. -' 1 ~ ~: uat ~ l ri . ~ ; ~ r ! A ~~ ( 11 ~ u~ 'r7i~ Cr -N ~l1 y~ .. _ W~1~ CY- ~ _ ~ ! 41.1 - - ' V G7r Z7 r IN "I'HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PF,NNSYLVANIA BARRY U. CLARK, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW v, , GENERAL, MILLS, INC., NO, 99-1a C[VIL TERM Defendant JURY'fRIAL DEMANDED DEFF,NDANT"S REPLY TO PLAINTIF_ F'S pliFl IMINAF;Y OBJECTION Defendant, General Mills, Ino„ by and through its counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, hereby responds to Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections to Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New 64atter, and in support thereof, states the following; I • Admitted, 2, Denied. The facts aven•ed in Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter arc neither scandalous, nor impertinent, but rather, directly relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of defamation and false imprisonment. Moreover, contrary to what Plaintiff suggests, there is certainly more than one reason why that affirmative defense has been raised, including, but not limited to, a suggestion that Plaintiffs presence on the General Mills property was neither invited, nor desired, 3. Denied. Contrary to the averments contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections, Defendant, General Mills, Inc. will show, that Plaintiff's presence was neither invited, nor desired, on the General Mills properly on the evening in question. Certainly, thorn 1A Il10YC Shan Ono r0aa011 l0 SlIb6C8t (hill Plaltlllff had n0 IO~Itillinte hnsinexs With 1)Cfetldaflt scheduled an that dnto. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Genernl Milis, tnc., respectfillly requests this Honorablo -Court to dismiss PlaintifFs Preliminary Objection to Pnragraph 33 of its New Mattor and direct Plaintiff to file an Answor and/or Reply to Defendant"s New Matter, MARSHr1LL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, CO .,EMAN & GOGGW i ,, . f ~, __ ll ~ ( D~ : l a I (_b~JJI _-li 1. L'~ _.-. SFI RON M,~ONNELL, F.SQ, I,D, No. 79457 100, ine Street, 4th F-oor P,O, Dox 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 (717) 231-3791 Attornoys for Defondant DATL~, s/~i ~5' \OS A\LIAa\SMO\LLP01273)4WCS\13200\0382; 2 f1~ : ~ F" ,. 1. ~ ~ 1 ; , i ~_ ~~ ~. ` ii CU f 'Y . 1 CL `. Y y ~Lla . - ~ , ti, J.. f~ ;y i-, IN T'IiG COURT OF COMMON PL13A5 OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PRNN5YI,VANIA BARRY U, CLARK, Plaintiff v. CTiNERAL MILLS, INC„ Defendant • CIVIL ACTION -LAW' NO. 99-14 CIVIL'1'ERM JURY'I'RIAT. llEiMANDED CF,RTIFICATE_OF SERVICE I, Sharon M. O'Donnell, an associate with the lnw firm of Marshtill, Dcnnehey, Warner, Colemcn & Coggin, hereby certify that on qie o2 ~ `~'~-day of May, 1999, a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Reply and Brief opposing 1'IaintifPs Preliminary Objections was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following; Nora 5, Gibson, Esquire McCRAW, HAIT & DEITCHMAN 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17813 c_ Sharon M: O'Donnell, (squire ,. ~ - k- f 1 ~. f~ ~ ~ ~, 141. ~ ./ ' ~ ~ ~- i : ` ~ l(U f ' ii~:.l - } jd~ " ~a l.1.. BgRk y l~, C/,ARKS p/rilptlf/. v, c;~N~~~ Mit,r S fNc nafahd~~nt I N 1 //Is CUU 'I ~'/vl~ A~~t/~ Nn C'O(~N~ Y Mc~NS y'q,5' tip )N••f,AW r,vANrq No, 0~' ~ T pUFpRNUgN 99•/q ~IVIf, I~RM g~ 0~~~ ~gINTITF~~CO~Nq~Y Ess Mp Pra/im~ ryD6~w.this23rddaYoURUEROFCOUR~R,~~ Gq~NT aeeompahYihB oPiniohn th to pl a'nti f ~archn19,99, after enrc • o , cor Plaint ful c nsr Prelihunary ob ,and daratio /actions fo arc denie r the raas°ns ~ bafehdant s I~ y d. tad ih the TyF CUR T Nora S Cibso n, Bs 4 ~ heMY Av~t ~ De tc fia ~'arlisla, pA 1703 h n Aftor4eY for p/aintiff' Rober t Sharon M. I f&nna, /r, L,s Marshall, D~ el anal/, r q, 10 uMb FYoor Y, warp p. ~ ~ x ~ tract er' ~'olem ph & Co88/n Harris ~3 Attorh A l7/pR•~803 (; aYs for efe ,,~,;, D hdant ice ~' wash L/ ~ l;? / YOf~~/ ,~4C 3 • ~~3~~7. -'~ 7'. BARRY D, CLARK, Plnintil'1' v, G[3NERAL, MILLS, INC„ Defendant IN'fhl[: Ct)I1RT OI' COMMON PLEAS Oh CI1MH[?RLAND COIJN'I'Y, PIiNNSYF.VANIA CIVIL AC:'1'ION -- I,AW No. 99-14 CIV1F,'l'ERM IN RE: DEFENDAN'T'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE IiESS and OLER, ,IJ. OPINION and ORDE2 OF C,OLfRT OLER, J., March 23, 1999, In this civil action, an individual plaintiff has sued a corporate defendant for false imprisonment and detnmation as the result of an alleged incident in which plaintiff was detained by police following a report by Defendant. Presently before the court are preliminary ohjcctions to the complaint in the nature of deniurrers. The matter was argued on March 3, ..1999. For the reasons stated. in this opinion, Defendant's preliminary objections will he denied, S'I'A'CFMENI' OF__ FACTS 'fhe facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, filed January 4, 1999, may be summarized as follows. Plaintiff is Barry D. Clark, an individual residing in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant is General Mills, [nc„ a corporation with its place of business in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.2 On August 7, 1998, Plaintiff resigned as an employee of Defendant.' At the time, ~ Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 1, Z Id., paragraph 2. ' Id„ paragraph 6. ~_ ~ __- Plaintitl~'was informed that he could return to the promises to turn in his uniform; in addition, former employees of Defendant were generally permitted to return to the premises to dine with current ernplayees in Defendant's lunch room, (Dn August 9, I<)9K, a security guard employed by Defendant stopped Plaintiff as he drove with a companion on a public street abutting Defendant's premises,` Ylalntiff's vehicle was surrounded by police cars "at the behest of Defendant's security guard,"6 Plaintifl'was detained by police for fi[tecn to twenty minutes in view of the general public,' and he and his companion were suhjccted to questioning." Specifically, Plaintiff was questioned as to the reason for his presence in the area of hi:, former employer.`' During the detention, Plaintiff was told that police knew of concerns that he might return to Defendant's premises and cause damage, and that he was stopped for that reason.10 I lowever, the report to police was false and malicious,' ~ and no reasonable basis existed for 1'laintitl's detention,12 Defendant's preliminary objections to Plainti ff's complaint were filed on January 27, 1999. With respect to the claim far false imprisonment, Defendant's demurrer is premised ~ /d. s Id, paragraph 8. ~' /d., paragraph 9• ' Id., paragraphs 11, 15. " /d., paragraph 11. /d., paragraph 9. 10 /d, paragraph l l• " .Id•, paragraphs 17.19. ''- Id., paragraph 14. 2 upon the utgumcnt that an investigatrny detention by police could not rise to the level ol'tidse imprisonment," "There was," according to De1ondanl's brief; "no arrest, no COntlnCtltenl, and no charges brought."'a With respect to the claim Ibr defiunation, I)elcndant's demurrer is premised upon the absence of a specific defamatory statement from the averments of the complaint," and the absence of a sufficient averment of harm to the l'laintifl'."' Defendant's argument nn these points is as follows: Pa, R,CJ'. 1019(x) requires a plaintiff to plead a statement, made by the defendant, which he considers to he defamatory, in a concise and summary form. Plaintiff must plead that a particular communication was defamatory in nature, The communication must be attributable to the defendant. Here, Plaintiff has tailed to plead facks describing any statement or speech specifically attributed to any ernployee of General Mills. Instead, in Parg, I I, he claims that one of the officers explained that there were "concerns about him coming back to General Mills, and causing damage, and that is why we pulled you over". After the officer's discussion was complete, there was nn arrest, no confinement, and no criminal charges filed. Whether or not a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning is a question for the court, However, even before such a determination can be made, the Plaintiff must plead facts describing some harm resulting from an alleged defamatory statement. Pennsylvania law requires that such harm to, at least, be alleged to have "blackened the plaintiff's reputation or to Preliminary Objections of Defendant, General Mills, Inc., paragraphs 7-9 14 Defendant's Momorandum of Law at 3. '` Preliminary Objections of Defendant, General Mills, Inc„ paragraphs 12-13. "' /d., paragraph 14. 3 expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to igjure him in his business or profession",17 l11'zGlLS.~ll2r( PrelirnJnnry ohjection !n mature of denau•rer' --general. A prclimihary objection In tho nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in gases that clearly and without doubt fail to state a claim upon which relief cttn be granted. County afAllcrgheny v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa, 360, 372, 490 A.2d 407., 408 (1985), in addition, "a claim should not be ..,dismissed for mere lack of specificity." Garrett Electronics Corp, v. Cornnaomvealth, 46 Cumberland L,,J. 256, 260 (1997), citing Cloodrich-Amrarn 2d § 1017(b): 12, at 256 (1991), rurthcrmore, deficiencies of specificity will generally not result in relief on preliminary objections where "the objecting party may be presumed to have at feast as much information as does the pleader." Borough of New Cumberland v. C;ntes, 47 Cumberland L.J. 21, 27 (1997); 5 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d §25:60, at 170 (1993).'" False imprisonment. The tort of false imprisonment is described in Section 35 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as follows: An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if (ir) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor, and (b) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and ~' I~efendtmt's Memorandum of Law ut 4, '" A deficiency which is so fundamental as to deprive a pleading of legal sufficiency can not be disregarded do the ground that the ahjccting party is probably aware of the information or that it could be learned in discovery, Cross v. United Engineer:c and Canrtructor:c, Inc., 224 Pa. Super. 233, 302 A.2d 370, allocatur ref rsed, 302 A,2d 370 (Pa. 1973). 4 (c) the other is conscious ofthe confinement or is hnrmed by 1t.19 The confinement maybe caused directly or lndircctly,zi it nlay COn9iSt Ofa CU9todial status imposed by legal authority.~1 '['he geographical arer- of confinement may he extensive.22 A specific duration of constraint is not included in the ele-nents of the tort. In the present case, if the allegations of the complaint arc accepted as true, with no tiirther record having been developed in the case, and based upon the foregoing authority, it cannot be said that Pltrintift's claim for raise imprisonrncnt is meritless, Consequently, Defendnnt's preliminary objection in the nature of t- demurrer to Plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment will he denied. Defamation. The tort of defamation is described in Scetlon S58 of the Restatement (Second) of'Corts as follows: To create liability for defamation there must be; (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged[27]peblication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 19 Restatement (Second)of'Corts§35(1)(1965), zo Id. X37. 21 Id. §41; see, e,g., Renk v. City gfPlttshurgft, 537 Pa, 6R, 641 A.2d 289 (1994). z'- "The area within which another is completely confined may be large and need not be stationary," Comment h, Restatement (Second) of'1'orts §35 (1965) (example provided of confinement to state by invalid writ). 21 Privilege, in Pennsylvania, is an affirmative defense. Fa, R.C.P, 1030(a), The effect of a conditional privilege to del'tunc is, in general, not considered on preliminary objections. See Cordon v. Lancaster Osteopcrtlttc Hospital; Assn, htc., 340 Pa. Super. 253, 489 A.2d 1364 (1985), 5 (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publicntion,''' Where a defamatory slatement in the tbrm ot'slander is not actionable per sc,25 liability is dependant apon "special hanr.,"2f' inter ilia. Special harm ,,, is the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value, In its origin, this goes back to the ancient conflict of jurisdiction between the royal and the ecclesiastical courts, in which the former acquired ,jurisdiction over some kinds of defamation only because they could be found to have resulted in "temporal" rather than "spiritual" damage.... The more modem decisions have shown some tendency to liberalize the old rule, and to Lind pecuniary loss when the plaintiff has been deprived of benefit which has a more or less indirect financial value to him,,,, The tendency has been in the direction of finding an indirect benefit to be sut3icient. Special harm must result from the conduct of a person other than the defamer or the one defamed and must be legally caused'by the defamation,27 In the present case, Plaintiff s complaint suggests that an agent of Defendant falsely and maliciously reported to police that Plaintiff represented a danger to Defendant's establishment if he came within its vicinity, and that as a consequence Plaintiff was deprived of his freedom for fiReen to twenty minutes icy authorities. Although more specificity with respect to the allegedly defamatory statement would be desirable in the pleading, and although it is not clear at this stage whether the detention, if it occurced, will be shown to zn Restatement (Second) of Torts §SSR (1977). zs See Comment b, Restatement (Second) of Torts §569 (1.977). `'~ Agri,c:e v. Roadway Express, /nc., 334 Pa. Super. 295, 4R3 A.2d 456 (1984). 27 Comment b, Restatement (Second) of Torts §575(1977). have been tnntamounf to economic deprivation, the cqurt cannnt on the basis ol'the complaint alone hold that Plaintiff clearly and without doubt can not recover for defamation. ,.R OF~O~gj AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 1999, after careful consideration of Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiffs complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the prelimir-ary objections are denied. AY 'I HE COURT, /s/ 1, Weslev Qler Jr• J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Nora S. Gibson, Esq. McGraw, Hait & Deitchman 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esq. Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin Fourth Floor 100 Pine Street P,O, Aox 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108.0803 Attorneys for Defendant PRACCI'E I~OR LISTING CASE FOR AR(;l1MENT .. ~_._T___r.__. ~-_. _.~____---_~_._.-.__r_. (Must be typewritten aril sutnuttexl in duplicate) TO 1'NE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Pleaso list the within matter for tha r>Eatt Argument Court. ---------°----------------^°..-_-_°°---°-----°°-_-_-----~-__--------'c'~--u~; --Sri"-° CAPTION OF CASE -~~i, ~ ~ rt u (entire caption ernest be stated in full) ~~' i ~~ .i r•.~ ;._. ~" '}c:~ r.~ i7~,~. ~_J ~ 1. ~ ~ r,:i'i T. i --' ~ ~ ti.~l Barry D. Clark ~ ~<o (Plaintiff) vs. General Mills, Inc. (Deferxlant ) ~, 99-14 Civil Law 1999 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plcuntiff's erotion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Plaint.iff's Preliminary Objection to Inclusion of Scandalous or Impertinent Matter contained in Defendant's Answer. to New Matter. 2. Identify oounsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff.: iJora 5. Gibson, Esq. Address: 9 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esq. Address: 100 Pine Street, 4th hloor P.O. Box 8U3 Harrisburg, PA 1'7108-0803 3. I will ratify all parti~.s in writing within tMV days that this case has been Listed for argunent. 4. Argtment Court Date: May 26, 1999 Dated: "I'/a-d ~/ ! At:t r~ey far Ines '~1 FEB ~ 41ggg IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY p, CLARK, , plaintiff , v. Civil Action • Law No,; 99-14 Civil. Term QENERAL MILLS, Inc. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant , BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S REgUEST FOR PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Staternent of the Facts Plaintiff filed a complaint on tl4/99 and the sheriff served Defendant on 1/8/99. Tho complaint alleged two counts: false imprisonment and defamation. (The complaint Is attached hereto as Exhibll A.) Prior to the filing of an Answer, Defendant flied the subject Preliminary Objections, presumably in the form of a demurrer. Plaintiff did not receive the moving party's brief until 2123/99. Plaintiff's brief in response to those objections now follows. estion Presented HAS PLAINTIFF PLED SUFFICIENTLY ITS TWO CAl1SES OF ACTION, SO THAT, IF THE PLEADINGS WERE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AVERMENTS STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED9 [suggested answer: yesj Discussion The question, where a preliminary objection in the form of a demurrer has been made, is whether any theory of law will support the pleadings rhallenged by the objection. Cian(rani v. Commw. Sfafa Ernployoos' Retirornanf EJd., 505 Pa. 294,.479 A.2d 468 (1984). If the facts pled do state a claim, then the preliminary objection must be denied. Wlllof v. PA Medical Catastrophe Loss Furrd, 702 A 2d 850 (Pa 1997). Doubt as tc the applicable law or clarity of the pleadinys is not determinative. Lewin v. Sfato Bd. OI Medicine, 535 A.2d 243 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). Moreover, the Cpurt's decision must be based solely on the pleadings, as opposed to facts alleged in briefs or other outside sources. Bonanni v. Lston Hauling, Inc., 392 Pa. 248, 140 A.2d 591 (1958) In paragraphs 8 and 9 of tl~e demurrer, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff does not state that he was arrested or that charges were filed against him, concluding that Plaintiff has not pled a count for false imprisonment, However, false arrest (which Plaintiff has not plead) and false imprisonment are separate and distinct torts. Being arrested or charged is not a necessary element of false imprisonment. There is a civil action called "false arrest." This action sometimes overlaps with that of false imprisonment. However, the law does distinguish the two. For instance, the statute of limitations for false arrest is one year, while for false imprisonment, it is two. Gagliardi v. Lynn, 446 Pa. 144, 147, 285 A.2d 109 (1971), In Gagliari, the court distinguished these torts and. discussed their interplay within the facts of that case. See also Gilbert v. Feldi, 842 F. Supp. 803 (E. D. Pa. 1993). Plaintiff does not dispute that he has not filed a claim for false arrest. Plaintiff's complaint, however, does state a claim for false imprisonment. The elements of that tort under Pennsylvania law are: 1) The actor intended to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor; and 2i His act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it Rue v. Operation Rosouei, 710 F. Supp. 577 (F. D. Pa. 1989) (citing Hnrne v. Farrell, 560 F. Supp. 219, 226 (M.D Pa. 1963); Gagliardi v. Lynn, 446 Pa 144, 148 n.2, 285 A.2d 109 (1971)). The facts, as pled, meet the elements of this tort In the following way: Plaintiff contends that Defendant, through an agent hired as security personnel, instructed other police officers to detain Plaintiff. The officers were armed and numerous. Plaintiff was not free to leave. Plaintiff was conscious of his being detained and suffered humiliation as a result. If true, these facts would state a cause of action under the law. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny Defendant's demurrer as to the false imprisonment count. Defendant also has filed an objection to the second count of the Complaint, which is for defamation. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the demurrer, Defendant has stated that the quote in the Complaint is "not capable of defamatory meaning." There is authority that a demurrer may be sustained if the Plaintiff cannot plead any material facts upon which the defamation was based. Krochalis v. Insurance Com,oany of Norfh Amer., 629 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (citing Itri v. Lewisi, 281 f'a. Super. 521, 523, 422 A.2d 591, 59?_ (1980); Gross v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 224 Pa. Super. 233, 235, 302 A.2d 370 {1973); (additional cite omitted]). However, Plaintiff has provided such a statement, and additionally contends that Defendant must have said something defamatory about Plaintiff to result in his being detained by police. Pennsylvania has set out the elements of a cause of action for defamation by statute, The Plaintiff must prove: 1) the defamatory character of the comrnunication; 2) its publication by the defendant; 3) its application to the plaintiff; 4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; 5) the understanding by the recipient of it as Intended to be applied to the plaintiff; 6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; 7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion. 42 Pa. Cons. Stet, Ann. § 8343, In addition, Pennsylvania recognizes not only spoken defamatory statements, but even non-verbal acts capable of defamatory meaning, See Berg v. Consolidated Froighfways, Inc., 280 Pa. Super. 495, 421 A.2d 831 (1980). In the instant case, Plaintiff has offered a sperific verbal statement as well as one implied through innuendo. In any case, the jury would be the bust arbiters of whether a staternent had defamatory meaning. Resfafemenf (Second) of Torts § 617 (b). As written in the fZestatement "The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express." Therefor©, while it is understood that Defendant will likely debate whether the averred statement(s) era capable of defamatory meaning, disposing of that factual question at this time would not be proper. Moreover, if the allegations in the Complaint are accepted as true, Plaintiff has stated a claim for defamation. One can imply that Defendant, through its hired security personnel, said something defamatory about the plaintiff. The officers would have to understand the defamatory meaning of Defendant's statements for them to actually pull him over with all the back-up trey had. Further, the officers admitted that they did not pull Plaintiff over for any traffic violation but because Chore were "concerns abouA (him] coming back to General Mills and causing damage." By inference, Defendant, through its hired security guard, must have told the officers that Plaintiff was likely to commit a crime (vandalism, presumably) upon its property. As a result, Plaintiff experienced harm by being confined against his will and publicly humiliated before his comparnon and the general public observing the incident frarn the road. For these reasons, Plaintiff contends that he has stated an action for defamation and respectfully requests this Court to deny Defendant's demurrer as to Count II. Coniauslon WHEREFORE, Plaintlfi contends that Defendant's Prellminary Objactlon cannot be suetalned. Accepting the averments in the Complaint as true, Plaintiff has pled legally sufficient claims for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff requosts this Honorable Court to deny Defendant's Preliminary Objection in whole. Respectfully submitted, McGRAW, HAIT i~ DEITCNMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff ' ~ / Nora S. Gibson, ID # 81918 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-4900 / (717) 249-2411 (fax) Rate... ~ ~ ~ l9r ~i r IN 'I'IIIC COURT OI' COMMON I'L,h,AS U~ ClIM111~,RLAND CUUN'I'Y, 1'E;NNSYI,VANIA UARKY U. CLARK, Pleinliff v. Civil Action -Law ~ ~ ~+`.; ~ No.: v9--~~~ c~,~Ut~c ~-2r~ ,.,, GI:NL.RAL, MILLS, Inc. Jl1RY't'KIAL UE:MANDE;U r ~' ;~s.i Uefcndxnt ''~ NO'I'ICIP,'1'O DF,FI?ND , ~ , :~ •• ~ You Have been sued in court. If you wish to defend againsLlhe claims 9ef fortiv in :.! the following pages, you must take action within twenty days after Uris 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. 1'oii are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other clairn or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOUd,D'I'AKIr.'11-IIS i'APFR TO YOUR LAWYER A'I' ONCI'. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWI'I?R OR CANNOT' AFFORD ONI, GO l~0 OR '1'F.I.GPI-IONS TFIE OFFIC[~; Sts"I' I~OR'PIi BELOW TO FIND OUT' WHTRG YOU CAN GI3'f I,I?CAI, f IELp. Cumberland County 13ar Association 2 I,ibcrty Avcnuc Carlisle, I'A 17011 (717)249-3166 IN TIIF COUR7' OF COMMON 1'I,F.AS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PF,NNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, Plaintiff v. Clvll Action -Law No.: GENERAL MILLS, btc. JURY TRIAh UN;MANUEU Defendant COM PL,A I N'I' Partits/Jw•isdiction I. Complainant is an individual residing at 105 Hope 'Terrace, Ctulisle, Cumberland County, Ponnsylvania. 2. Defendant is a corporation that maintains its place of business at IGOS Shearer Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted through its agents, servants., and employees whp in turn were acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment for the llefendnnt, Vcnuc Q. Alf events complained of herein look place within Cumberland County. Count 1- Fnlsc Inutrisonrnent S. Paragraphs I.4 are incorprnated herein by reference. 6. On rn' about August 7, 1993, Plaintiff resip,ned ti'om his employmett with Defendant Plaintiff, at his time of resignation, was not instructed to stay away from fire vicinity of company property Othat Axntc:r employees, in fact, routinely joined Delcnd:nu's employees in the Dcl'cndant's lunch-room. Moreover, Plaintiff bed been insuuclcd by Derek 1lodge, Defendant's Sal'cly Administrator, that I'laintill' could return to Defendant's prcntises to return his uniforms. 7. On ar about August 9, 1998, Plillnlifidl'nVC by DCfCndail'S pla(:c of businoss with his cornpanion Plaiotill' drove by an a public read. Plaiotiffnever drove onto Defendant's property, stopped his vehicle in flont of Defendant's property, ar in any other way trespassed or appcnred to trespass on Defendant's property At all times, Plaintiff continued driving on the public roadway and traveled past Defendant's place of business 8 A few minutes later, as Plaintiff was on High 5irecl in Carlisle, Defendant's security personnel indicated to PlaiNiff with his (lashing lights that he. should pull over. Plaintiff was not vii,lating any traffic laws at that time. 2 As Plaintiff pulled btto the nearest parking lot; Ilve. police cacs surrounded his vehicle. '(base other officers were acting at the behest of Dclendaa('s security guard, "I'wo officers stood at the back of his vehicle with (heir hands on their holsters. A third officer came to the window of his vehicle and asked fix identification. When „ Plaintiff produced his driver's license, the officer compared his photo with a picture provided by Defendant. PlaintifT was asked "What were you doing at General Mills?" I Ic was not given any other reason for being pulled over at That time. 10. "fhe socunb' !;card was hired, amlractal or otherwise employed to guard ~thc ~~ prcntises of Cienerfd Mills, Inc 'I'hc other policeoliicers were summoned by the hired agau of I)clcndant to assist in dcriining I'laintif7~ I I Plaintiff and his companion were gnesliuned separately by the police or security guard fur about fifteen to Iwcnty minuus and were not lull ih:n either was freo to leave during This questioning. During this limo, one of Ilte ollicers explflincd to Plaintiff' that there wcru "concerns about him coming hack to Gcricral Mills and causing damage, and that's why we pulled you over." 12 1'laintill'did not feel he could reasonably Icave or end his confinement because he felt contpclled w obey Defendant's police or security guard 13 When Defendant's agent detained Plaintiff, he was acting, within the scope of his employment with Urfcndant. 14 PlaintilTwas detained without any reasonably or probable cause. I5. While the incident nn August 9'~' was acctnring, Plaintiff' noticed many people slowing as they drove by, getting a closer look at the incident involving five police cars, Plaintiff found this ordeal humiliating because he was made to look like a criminal in the eyes of the passers-by on a very trafficked street. He was also humiliated that this incident happened in the company of his companion. WHLREI'OREi, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in an amount in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier t;f fact, interest costs, and any other relief the Court deems just. ('amt Il -Defamation 16 Paragraphs I-IS arcincorporated herein by reference. 17 pcl'endant's agent made some statement to the local police officers about the Plaintiff which resulted in those ollicers assisting Dclbndant in detaining I'laintil'f In addition, by virtue ~~1'ihc officer's slatyntenl hr Plaunif~l', as rclbrcncal in parauraph 1 I I of this Complaint, I'IaintilTallcgesfhat Dulendaut made knowingly I'nlsc staternonis about I'lainlill's propensity to conunil nets of vandalism. 18 Defendant's staterents were litlse in nature becausel'lainti(1'had not coauriittcd nny crime, di<9 not truspae,v cm Defendant's propmly, and there wiry no probable cause otherwise for 1lcfendtutl and lh~, local police lojustil'y pulling I'lainlifl'over to question and detain him. 19. Even if Defendant had a qualified privilege to make some reports to lavv enfi~rcentcnl officers about possible crimes, Dclendant abused that privilege because any such statements with respect to Plahvifl'wcre t~lse, and Defendant ntadc those statements with actual malice. 20 As a result of the defamatory statements made by Defendant to the Iocal police, Plaintiff suffered embarrassment and humiliation because ol'all the ptrssers-hy watching him being detained, and the five police cars surrounding his vehicle, anti because of the embarrassment oPthis occurring when Plaintiff was wish his companion. WHI;REFOF2L:, Plaintiff' demands judgment against Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in an amount in excess of $2ti,000, and far punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, interest cos!s, tuid any other relief the Court deems just. a a\a t\1\~, ' (..0\\\\l\a\\\1 v\~ ,O\\\1\i ~,~;r~" l+ \a~~~, a\at any .\\\ t\\a C,,,~b w ~h ask\\o Casts not oC \ecoC~ s~CO a\atton aa~ ba\\ ~ ea r C Sact\on A~~A ,a \ C \ vaC\Cy that a°`1 ~y know\ebb ~ tha P°oalttas t oC to t to tha yas da s`\bCect \o a~a. r\a ana coC\aa \\ to aUtbo<\~\as. tan'a\\tsha\a ~ ~-~ ~, Q Ca\sa sta r Ca\s\C\cat\o i ` ~. to \\osv+°\ % ~ - ~, ,,. vaAatAnb ~l fir! . --'' Ba~~ pato',.y CERTIFICATE AF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAIN'TIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS was served by U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties listed below at the following address: Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esquire Marshall, Uennehey, Warner, Coleman & Coggin 100 Pine Street, 4'h Floor P.O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 ,. \°~ f'I~r3 ? 1~~J~~ IN "I'I II? COlll('I' Of COMMON I'I,f?Ati Oh CUMI3EIiLAND COUN"1'Y, I'HNNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, CIVIL AC7'lON --LAW Plaintiff , N0.99-14 CiVIL'I'IRM v, , OENF,ItA); MILLS, INC., Defendant ,Il1RY'I'RIAL, DF,MANDI3D MGMOR•ANDUM OF L,AW t ~2F,VIEW OF PLAINTIFF'4 C'OMPI AINT Plaintiff, Barry D. Clark lives at 105 liopc 'T'errace, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. I . General Mills, Inc. is a corporation with a husincss address at 1605 Shcarcr Drive, Carlilse, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. ?, On August 7, 1998, PI<iintifl'resigncd Oom his employment with the Defendant, (Parg, fi). 3. (hi Augusl 9, 1998. 13tn'ry ('lurk clrovc t»' Del'cndunt's hlacc of husincss with a - companion, on a public rostd, and never entered the property of General Mills, (Parg. 7). ' 4. A few minutes later on I ligh SU•cct in Carlisle, Defendant's security personnel indicated that he should pull over, (Parg. 8), S• As he Pulled over, live pollee cw:c ,~ tvindoty of his window, • tiurrnurtde'I his vo ,uul asked lia• idemitlr hick, one,', ' loin , lhccr CnrpF In Ute b at CICnCYItI tti"II. A'II'. ('Il11'k ryas trekc~d, ,. , Mills'?", (harg•')1 u hot were G. )'cnr •1'hc sccurlty guard, (icncral N ' ~ (not idcnlilicd), wn•s ertt cloy I ul k, guar'I the premises of fills, Inc. The other police ullica's were suntrtt"ned lu ussi.e ' 7• 'I'hc questioning lasted 20 rninutas, t Ittrtt, IParg• I0), toldhlainti/Tthtrtthcre ,,, Burin, concerns shout him amtin~ which tinu,, one of were the police officers damab'e, and lht+t is wh 6 hack to (icncral M11ills, and causing Y we pulled you over", noticed man h Whilu the incident on Au , ,, Y pco Ic slowing as they drove h btrsl r), 1998 , this ordeal butnilialing, Y, barrio , ' Mr, Clark b rt closer look at the incident. f lc found Plaintifl'has plead a ttvo C' , c unt complaint, with the C'o Imprisonment", and (,Door 11 entitled " unt I entitled "1•idsc IL 11j, Uc1u,u<ttiou", ,STIO 1'It1,SI,Nq'1;I) A• liar 1'laintifl'sttrte1l a clahrt nl'f (S~ctg!~cslcd iLnswcr: Ilse imprisonment? Nu, ( I;• Has hlalntiffstr'tccl <t claim soundin , (Su6geste<1 Answer; No ( but dcl'amation7 «>nl• s~2AUU o~ ---__KF, vow Pennsylvania is a fret pleadin , Pennsylvania system of ('net pleadirt , b state, 'mill___I-~ro.~, 4?.1 ~ A.~d, 743 (1980 6 the f,•u't ilcadcr mast define tha issues: ) ' Under the P~'rli,rmrutcc cssc'ntitrl In that end mull he set liuth in the (' cvorY ncc or Nat. Mut. c' „rrtpl:'irtt. ,ti;tiiria •n v_ ,, as. Lts. Co , 613 A.2d. 1235 (1992); Sec Pa,(2,('.1'. --b-_. 1_~iu s Ivanitt I-V~ UhS~SS-(I~r 1019, A. C'nrrrrl / _ rN.te /nrprlsnnp1enr I ' 'I'hls cnse army be one of prst impression. I'or it, I present to this Court, the question oi' whelha• ur not au invcsdgalory slop, conunouly rufcrrud to us n "furry slop", can oonsliluto 1111se imprisonment. ;1'ce~•}~,~_Ohiit, KK ILS, IK6K (196K1; (itlglitirali a__~_I,f~nn, 466 I'a. 144, 2K5 n,2d I(19 (1971 I'a. 1.1?XIS 615), "11tc iorl of false Intprisumucnl. as acloplcd and consUual by I'unt~sylvanin aiurts, requires a pleading of the following elements iia order to ultimately produce facts which would establish liability on (he part of an actor where, {a) he/she acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by, the actor, and (b) his acct directly or indirectly resuhs in such a continernent of the other, and (c) the other is conscious of the conlincmcnt or is harmed by it. (iattliardi, citinc, sec, 35 of the Restatement 2d, "forts (1965), The (ia[tliardi court noted nt footnote 3 Iltat "fhlsc arrest" requires a pleading of facts. giving rise to on "arrest", i,a, "the taking ol'mtothcr into the custody ol'tlac actor for the actual or purported purpose of brining the other hcforu a court, or of olhcrwisu securing the adnunistrution of the law." Id, nt 1 I I . As plead, this case suggests that Mr. Clark's vehicle was stopped, and he was questioned out of concerns for public safety, and release. I'herc was no arrest, no conlinemaat, and no charges brought. "hhcrrlnrr, I)efcndant, (icncral ~9ills, respcctfully requusls Ihul I'laintil'I"s anutl Ibr `litlse imprisonment' be dismissed with prejudice. B. CwuN 1/ - DefnemNon hrnn action tnr dcfanuuiun, the I'laintil'I' nuisl prove, a.) the dclinnalory churacler of the unnununicutirnt; h,) publicuuon by the clelenclant; c.) iu; obligation to the I'laintil'I'; d.) understanding by the rccipicnls of its deliunalory ntcuning; c.l undcrstcmding hy' (I1C fCClplent Of it t!s intended to he ,y,l,licd to the PlainlilT; I'.1 spcrial hhrm to the pluintifl; tt.l abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion, Mklll_'r v,_Maict~i, 671 A2d, 701 (19'15), Pa, ILC.I', 1019(x) requires a plaintiff to plead a statentcnt, mule by the defendant, which he considers to be dcfamtttnry, in n concise and summary (brut. I'laintil'f must plead that a particular communication was defamatory in nature. The conununicatirnt must be attributable to the defendant. I Ierc, Plaintiff ha:; fhiled to plead facts describing any statement or speech specifically attributed to any employee of (icncral Mills. Instead, in 1'arg, I I, he claims that one of the officers explained that Ihere were `boncerns about him coming back to (icncral Mills, and causing damage, and that is why we pulled you over". A(ior the off cer's discussion was complete, there was no tu•rest, no conlinement, and no criminal churgcs lilcd. Whether or not a stalcntcnt is capable ul'adc nuuory metuting is t, question for the court, I lowcver, even before such a detcrminnlion can he made, the Plaintiff nntsl plcacl Ihcts describing some hatrm resulting I`rom an nllcgcd cteliunatory statement, Pennsylvania law requires that such harm In, ut least, he nllcgcd U, have "blackened the plaintiffs reputation or to expose him to public hatral, contempt, or ridicule, or to igjurc him in his business or prolissirnt", ~~~h ~__I'Itila~lgli,llin,.l_?L~~~tric ('o., )4 Phila. 1311, 1097 Phila. (.'ty. Rptr. LI3XIS (ib (1997); Cushdo ur v. Mcrc lios~tal of Pitt.~bur ~h, 406 I'a. Supcc 606, 595 A,2d 70 (199 i ). ' (',nnversation may occur during the course ol'tut irrvestignlory stop may be annoying, crnbarrussit,g, unannli,rtublc, Irul is not generally speaking, dcliunalory. ICI. N~6crc I'htintil'f has failed to allege more than a merely uubarrassing or uncomfortable c•onversnlion, n„ claim li,r dcl'amtUion has been properly nutcla ',I'hereli,re, Uel'endant, (icneral Mills, rrspcclfully requests ibis I lonorahle Court to dismiss 1'luintifhs claim I:n• dcfpnuttion with pr4judicc. Y. CONCLUSION. for all of the fort:going reasom, it is respectfully submitted that PlainlifF has ftriled to state n claim upon which rcliel`ean be granted, and thin the Complaint should be dismissed, MnIZSFIALI„ Dl?NNIiIiF?Y, WA12NI?R; 1%( l,f?MAN i,: CiOCi(iIN K )I31iR'I'(i. II NNA,.IR„ IiSQUIRI;-- I I). No. 17890 ,'IiAKON M. O'I)ONNIiLI., I:SQUIRG l.ll. Nn, 79457 100 Pinc Sircet, 4°i Floor P.O, 13ox 803 Llarrisburg, 1'P, 1710Rd)R(13 AUorncys lilt Dclcntltntl IN THE CUUR'1' OF CUMMUN PLEAS UT CUMBERLAND CUUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D, CLARK, , Plaintiff' ; v. , GENERAL M-LLS, Inc. , Defendant ; Civil Action -Law No.s 99-~ iy C',ut~~ `-r~~, . JURY 'CRIAL DEMANDED N07'ICE TO DEFEND You Have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims sot forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty days aRer this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE ThIl5 PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEAFIONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-3166 dN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D, CLARK, , Plaintiff ; v, Civil Action -Law GENERAL MILLS, inc. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant , COMPLAINT Parties/Jurisdi~ I. Complainant is an individual residing at 105 Hope Terrace, Carlisie, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2, Defendant is a corporation that maintains its place of business at IE05 Shearer Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted through its agents, servants, and employees who in turn were acting within the course and scope of thou agency and/or employment for the Defendant. Venue 4, All events complained of herein took place within Cumberland Cormty. Count I - Fslse [m ro isonment 5. Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated herein by reference, 6. On or about August 7, 1998, Nlaintiff resigned from his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff, at his time of resignation, was not instructed to stay away from the vicinity of company property.. Other former employees, in fact, routinely joined Defendant's employees in the Defendant's lunch-room. Moreover, Plaintiff had been instructed by Derek Hodge, Defendant's Safety Administrator, that Plaintiff could return to Defendant's premises to return his uniforms. 7, Qn or about August 9, 1998, Plaintiff drove by Defendant's place of business with his campanioa Plaintiff' drove by rnr a public cond. Plaintiff never drove onto Uofendant's property, stopped his vehicle in front of Defendant's property, or in any other way u•espassed or appeared to trespass on Defendant's property. At al! times, Plaintiff continued driving on the public roadway and traveled past Defendant's place of business. 8. A few minutes later, as Plaintifl'was on High Street in Carlisle, Defendant's security personnel indicated -o Plaintiff with his flashing lights that he should pull over. Plaintiff was not violating any traffic laws at that rime. 9. As Plaintiff pulled into the nearest parking lot, five police cars surrounded his vehicle. These other officers were acting at the behest of Defendant's security guard. Two officers stood at the back of his vehicle with thou hands on their holsters. A third oftictr came to the window of his vehicle and asked for identification. When .Plaintiff produced his driver's license, the officer compared his photo with a picture provided by Defendant. Plaintiff was asked "What were you doing at General Mills?" He was not given any other reason for being pulled over at that time. 10, The security guard was hired, contracted or otherwise employed to guard the premises of General Mills, Inc. The other police officers were summoned by the hired agent of Defendant to assist in detaining Plaintiff. I I. Plaintiff and his companion were questioned separately by the police or security guard for about fifteen to twenty minutes and were not told that Dither was free to 2 leave during this questioning. During this time, one of the officers explained to Plaintiff that thore 'were "concerns about him coming back to Gt;neral Mills and causing damage, and that's why we pulled you ovor." 12. Plaintiff did not fool he could reasonably leave or end his confinernent because he felt compelled to obey Defendant's police or security guard. I). Whon llefendant's agent detained Plaintiff, he was acting within the scope of his employment with Defendant. 14. Plaintiff was detained without any reasonable or probable cause. I5. While the incident on August 9°i was occurring, Plaintiff noticed many people slowing as they drove by, getting a closer look at the incident involving five police cars. Plaintiff found this ordeal humiliatinE; because he was made to look like a criminal in the eyes of the passers-by on a very trafficked street. tie was also humiliated that this incident happened in the company of his companion. WHEREFORE, PlaintifT demands judgment against Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in an amount in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, interest costs, and any other relief the Court deemsjust. Count li - Defam ion 16. Paragraphs 1-IS are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Defendant's agent made some statement to the local police officers about dre Plaintiff' which resulted in those officers assisting Defendant in detaining Plaintiff. In addition, by virtue of the officer's statement to Plaintiff', as referenced in paragraph 1 ] I of this Complaint, Plaintiff' alleges that Defendant made knowingly false statements about Plaintiff s propensity to commit acts of vandalism. It3, Defendant's statements were tirlse in nature because Plaintiff had not committed any crime, did not trespass on Defendant's property, and there was no probable cause otherwise fbr Defendant and the load police tojustify pulling Plaintiffover to question and detain him. 19, Even if Defendant had a qualified privilege to make some reports to law enforcement officers about possible crimes, Defendant abused that privilege because any such statements with respect to Plaintiff were false, and Defendant made those statomonts with actual malice. 20. As a result of the defamatory statements made by Defendant to the local polis:c, Plaintiff suffered embarrassment and humiliation because of all the passers-by watching him being detained, and the five police cars surrounding his vehicle, and because of the embarrassment of this occurring whop Plaintiff was with his' companion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in an amount in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, interest costs, and any other relief the Court dooms just. 4 AF'F'IDAVIT 1 verify that any facts not of record set forth in the forogoing Complaint arc true and correct to the bast of my knowledge, information and belief I acknowledge that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of I tf Pa.C.5, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Barry D. Clam IN THP., COURT OI~ COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - I,AW Plaintiff NO, 99.14 CIVIL TERM v, GENERAL MILLS, INC„ Defendant .iURY TRIAL, DEMANDED TO THE PRUTHONO'I'ARY; Kiudly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in the above- captioned case. MARSEIALL, UENNBHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN ti~_._.~ ROBERT G. HANNA, JR., F,S ,DIRE LD. No, 17890 ~~ SHARON M. O'UONNELL, ES L11RE I,D. No. 79457 100 Pine Street, 4°i Floor P.O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 DATE; ~'' 1~` ~ r _ Attorneys for Defendant IN TILE CO1.1R'f OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY[,VANIA BARRY D. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Plaintiff NO. 99-14 CIVIL TERM v. , GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED S;ER,~I~I~f~,OF SERYI~R I, Robert Cr. Hanna, Jr., Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~~day of January, 1999, ! served a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follpws: Nora S. Gibson, Esquire 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle YA 17013 ROBERT G, HANNA, JR,~'ESQ, .. i -, tt ~ ~. ~. <,~ -. tip ~ ,.' y. :; - ~ ` ,: '` ~ , ~ i:, 1 ~. ('l ~~ ~.. :. - ' y .. PRAECTPE FGR I~i;i'I'TNG_CASR FOk~ARGUMENT ltMu,t he typewritten and sutmitted in duplicate)) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMtiERGAND COUNTY: Pleat)e 1Lgt the within rtattar for ttre nart An3emant i;aurt, CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must he stated in fixll) Harry D. Clark, (Plaintiff) Vs. General Mills, Ina. (Defendant) Nn. 19 Civil Term 99 _ 19 1, State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial., defendant's denuz~er to ec~laint; etc. ): Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. 2. Identify ca:nsel who will. argue ca.9e: (a) for plaintiff; Nara S. Gibson, Esy. Address: McGraw, Flait & Dotichman 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (h) for defPrdant: Robert G. Hanna, Jr „ Esq, or Sharon M, O'Donnell, Address: Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin Esq. 100 Pine St, 4th F.l, P,O. Hox 803 3. I will not. ~ Harrisb.uzc~~ pA 1~10~80~ ~-fS' parties in wrztz wi. s t thi$ cue has been listed for argtment. 4. Argument Court (kite; March 3, 1999 ~ Ir ~' ~ ~~ _ KG(•_ Dated: January i7, 1999 Attorney far plaintiff ~~ ~' '~= ~ c; ~ ~` > : ; , ~. ~ a. ~ r ~~~ "I` cv i G:F~ 1i~ . ~ s~ 4i C~ rn 4`• :: C) -. ~ ;~ 9HEAIFF'8 RETURN - REdULAR CppAMSppE NOt 1999-00p014 P COUNTYWOFLCUMHERLANDSYLVANIA~ CLARK BARRY D VS. S~ENERAL MILLS INQ _TIMOTHY REIT2 Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, Mho bein® duly sworn aooordinp to law, says, the within NOTICE AND COMPLAINT wa^ served upon _4p;NERAL MILLS I~r _ th• defendant, at 1046 HOURS, an the 9th day of 7a uarv 19~,Q •t _J1609 SHEARER DRIVE CARLISLE. PA 7013 _ .CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to DOUGLAS BARRICK (OPERATOR! a true and attested copy of the _NOTICE AND CONPLAINT and at the same time direating dj,R attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff'r Coete~ Dooketinp Service Affidavit Surahsrge Sworn •nd subscribed to before me thi^ ~ day af~T 4~4~-0~„ 19~~ A. D. y7- 1 roe ono a~r~~ So anewere~ 18.00 f,,y ,,roe ~`,~/,~ 3.10 4~ ..;~:r-<<A,, ,.,r, . 00 e, 00 ITT oma• .I ne, e~i° ri"£f iZtJ:I~?ICdRAW, BAIT b DEITGHMAN 01/12/1999 ~"' f~/~--- ~~. - epu y e IN'I'I1E COl1R'I' OF COMMON 1`LP,AS Oh Cl1MRl?RI,AND COl1N"I'1', I'IiNNSYI,VANIR l3Af(RY D. C:I,ARK, CIVIL AC'T'ION -LAW I'laintifl' , . N0.99-14 CIVI1, "ffiRM v. Ci[iNF'RAI, MILLS, INC„ I)efendmit JURY TRIAL, DIMANlltiD PROPOSED ORDEtk AND NOW, this _ -day of ___ ___--~_^----' 1999, anon considerntion of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, it is hereby ORDGRGD, ADJIJDOED, and DLCREPD that Plaintif'f's Complaint is dismissed. IN 'fHE COURT' OF COMMON PF,FiAS Ot' Ci1MBERl.ANU COUNTY, PF,NNSYLVANIA BARRY D, CLARK, ('IVIL ACTION - I,AW Plaintiff N0. 99-14 CIVII,'1'ERM v, OENERAL M[LLS, INC., Defendant ,IURY'I'RIAL DEMANDED P E IM CRY OBJF.CTIC)NS OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MR,LS,;INC. Uefendant, Gcucrul Mills, Inc., by and throuE;h its ecrunscl, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &• Cioggin, hereby moves this l lonaruhie Court to grant its Prclimiisfvy Objections to Plaintiff s Complaint, and in support thereof, avers the following; 1. Plaintiff, Barry D, Clark, has filed a civil action under the above Coutt tcrnt and dockrt numher. A true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 2. On or tibaut August 7, 199R, Plaintifl'resigned from his employment with the Defendant 3, On or about August 9, 1 ~t9R, I'laintifTdrovc by Delendant's place of business. 4. Plaintiff alleges that he drove by on a public road, never drove onto the Defondant's property, stopped his vehicle in Gont of Defendant's property, or in any other way, trespassed on Defendant's property. S• I Ic nllcgos Ihtd he was stopped turd <luustioned My the police; cote afwhom explained to him that there were "concerns about hits coming buck to (lcncral Mills tmd causing datnagc, and that is why we pulled you over", 6. While NlninlilTducs not identify the police department, prusuntahly the department was the Carlisle Horough I'olicc, because the stop was alleged to ofoccurred on High Street in Carlisle. 7. In his Complaint, Plaintiff has described tm investigatory stop, sometimes referred to as n "'ferry stop" g. Plaintiff does not allege that he was arrested, or that any c~targes were filed against him. 9. Plaintiff has simply not plead a Count tilt lidse imprisonment. 10. Plaintiff s sccrntd Count is titled "C'ount If - Detitmation" 1 I. In an action for defamation, the Plaintiff must allege and prove a.) the defamatory character of the communication; h.) publication by the defendant; c.) its application to the Plaintil7; d.) understtmding by the recipients of its defamatory meaning; c.) understanding by the recipient of it as intended to applied to the Plaintiff; and/or f.) abuse of n conditionally privileged occasion. Sec, Maier v• Nlt rct i, G71 A.2d 701, (1995)• 12. The only statement made by the police, and not by any employee of the moving Defendant is contained in I'arg, I 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, and is quoted about. 13. T'he statement t~rat the police olliccr's httd concerns shout him coming hack to C;eneral Mills and causing damage, is not capable of a defamaiory meaning. 14. Plaintiff has not alleged any harm caused by this investigatory stop, Flivn'.P WIIIiR[:C'OR[s, Del'undnn(, Oencral Mills, hx;„ hereby moves this I lonarnblc ('Dart to adopt and crtur its propasud Order disntissin6 I'Inintil'f"s ('nntplydnl. ~fARSI IAI,L, I)I?NNIstiF.Y, WARNIiR, COLI'sMAN K, (iO(i(iIN I)Y;--- - - ~' RO IiR'1' G, I IANNA, , ~., F.SQU l.D, No. 17890 SIIARON M. O'[)ONNIiLI,, 1SQ(JIRE LD. No. 79457 I1)01'inc Strcel, 4'~' floor P,O. l3ox 803 Ilmrisburg, 1'A 17108.0803 I)ATG; ' - ~ ~ l Attorneys for llefendAnt J _~ t4fiF'M GMI ,F~PLawO'IPEMT LFgW1 0'~'J2~ JI"'-'~ liY 177~Tr~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~+rw. , ... ._._. ~ d. ,...... N... .,.~... R+1 THg C'OU D (."OUN't<'Y~llClttNSY~ L ~1~ . CIF tCUM'ld~W.AN ~t9f D. CLJ-LRit. ' " plaiet{Ir a v. [ Civtl At j9 /~ l.. ~ l Na: 'i- .. a tc,r GLN1C1gAL M11,L5, U[t. i J'(JitY'YRIAY. DEMANDED DsPpadsuas ' N077CB TO DF~~ You Have been sand in uoutt., if you with to defend ayainal the claims aet forth to ^ the fallawiag pat;ea, You must tale action within:wanly days after this wmplaim anA .. ttaRiix a[o aerved,by onteriag a writtm~ appearance Persot[aliY or by tutorney and filing in writing with the court you[ defet»ta9 ar abjec[ions to the claims ~[ Conn against yau. You'are warned [4ac if you fail to do so [he caa~ may prooMd'withont y[ru tad a A[tdgrtlent may be entered against yau by the court withoutfunha aotieo't'br any money ... claimed in the oampialat or for a„y other 41aim or relief requested by the Plaltnif£ You . m.y lase money or pml~nY a' other riflhts impanatn w °!~. , YOU 5HUULD TAKE T--I1S pA!-ER TO POUF. LAWYER AT ONCE." 1F YOU l70 NOT HAYS A LAW YER OR CANNQT AFFURD ON1r, 04 TO OR T6LEPHONB T[~ OFFICE SET 1'C1R1'N BELOW ~G FII~ CIUT t1yt1ERE YOU CAN GET ],E(3AL F¢I.P, Cumbertendt',•rwnty Bar Assoeiuion - 2 Ube[tY Avenue Carllsla "PA 19413 (717) 2~9-3166 TRUE G4P1f ~R~M REG~1A0 M TIMtlMdllr r111MNf,1 MIA Mlle III IMy ItlllO ails tltI a littll M c~AM; -~- _,,._ ~ '~I•j5 ~ (,(,~,)y •~rt .1 Y^la 0.fIr4V II C1\1 LI'WI V4ii Jam' ~"tlV li(iP01t,,,,,..~•~ ' ~ '~Y "~ "wrM vAM;w,~w \, ~• ~ ~ f ~ .~,.. ..4 ..• ._..... JK/ (~ a ikwlf'rl nel ~ cavri<x ar tcoe~-tox rnY>~-s ,, or t^><.Arm caclxT°r, paNxeYrvAxrA .. 1A1RitY D. C'.LA1RIt;, PlaiaNfr w : Citln AeWn , LM xo.a , CY,xYPAL lY(IId18,'Iaa ' 7[J~tX'1'lg1A11. Dl~htAiYD>I+D ~ • DeRlr~tat .. : ' ~ ~ , CpMP1.MVT , ~'i151~~3t1~{ICdgY . i, Cdtnpleitta~ is an individual naldiog at 10~ hope 'fgrsce, Garliste, Cutnberlsnd Catrpty, Prnnsytveitia. 2. De~etknt is a corporation that rnaimairu its place of budnesa at It~05 Shearer' Arive, Culiale, Cutttberlend Cottmty, Pennsylvania. 3. At all limps material hereto, Defendant wKed through itn rgentr, aaervants, and employtxs wha is rum were actlrtg within the course sad scope of their sgsnGy rrtd/ar empioymeat far the Doiaadav~ Ventrs s. ~tll events compWnod of heroin cask platy within Cumbnrlaad County, _ etutt,j-PaLa~'Igprimnateet . ., paragraphs 1-4 aroincorparateel herein by reference, 6. Un ar about Augwt 7, 1998, Pisimiff signed item his empbyment with L7ef'endtnr, plaintiff, a his limo uf.KSigc+ation, was not in~tucted to stay atr+ay from the vicinity • of carnpany pu+oparty Other farmer employees, in fact. routinely joined Defhtulant'y employees in the Oafendaar's lunch•roam, Marnuver, Plaintik~f had beee instrocted .,,, F,L .~ .u.. Y..,n IYVi+V~.. ... ~ . • asst Byt dAN.~Q~'39 0;s47Prt F+hII l;l^»<'LG~YhENT'C{~IJ1 U26a~ Jtr"'~•n9 .ti7i(jPM}~ ~ ~ ,}~yr,~'y~~ >~' L)erslc Nodes f~aEartdant'e ~tMY Admislstramr, thltt llalntld' oouW rqunt to UetYudnae'a preatlaet m rctwn his ttttlfbrail, T, On or about Att~ust 4, 199/, PWtttid'drove by Defisttdutt's place otbuairtosa with his ptuttpaaion. Plalndtt' drove by an a public road, Pl~iaiff nwar drove omo Otttlettdautt'a property. stopped his vehicle in firotn of Dtafettderrt's property, or In any _ P. outer way treapttaaed or appeared to trasprus on Defartdanr's property. At ell times, ' Plaintiff ontnlnued driving on the public rosdwey and traveled ptust DeRsndsnt's place . ofbusiness, N. A fow minuua leer, as plaintiff wra on High Street in Carlisle, .t)etbndatn's security • ptKagnnel indicated W Plaintiff tvhh his flashing IigMs that hs should pull ~vtt', Plainiff was not violating aay trtflic laws at chat tuna, 9. Aa Plaintiff pulled into the nearest parkiag lot, five police ears surruuntled his , _ vehicle, Thst+ other ott;icen we-e rdisag at tits bst+att of Defendant's seauity guard. Twq officers stood at the kwck of hid vehicle whh their hands an their holsters, ,a (bird oCllrsr tune to tt-e..windaw of hia vehicle and asked Pot identiGtn<tion. When Plnio[iff produced his drivnr's IiceIlfE, the officer' 4omparcd his photo with a picture •• providal by Defcttdant. Plaintiff wu asked "What were you doinyl at Gataal Milla9" ~e wu pot given any otlKr canton for beia~.pullaf over at than time. 10, The seourlty guard was hired, corttraaed ur otherwise employed to guard the promises of Claneral Mills,°lnc The other police oifiaers were tumtnonal by the . • ' ' hired agatt of Uetettdant to assist in daalning Plairriff. t l .Plaintiff and hia ootnpaaion were questioned ssparatety by the police or ascurity iNa-'d ftw about Hftaen to twenty minutes and wetw aol told Chet other was PFes to Y ,• +i~ _."^~7.SttC7tSwR'ars~..,.~:..:r.~e.+~~, .,..,..:.«~ , .~ . ,.;, ~ ~. .-ar ' r.. sent tly; 4911.}e._'~._.e;:a'~rt rrit ~t~arrtenT CFadt o24a; rr°-~~aw s:n+iw~ tae ~s~~~ teaw d+ritt~ Htla quetelaldn6. , Wtlsy~ tlria slttt~ oM. o! the oAteeta atpWmtd to Plaiatllt' that"tMrs vnrce "aonoerat about bins eorein` kraek to Garwal Milts and cauaiog datnsge, std ~atY why vae pttUed you Duerr." il. Plaiadt[ did nut Ceei he cotdd resaoatbly leave or std hit u>At$nanerrt beauty he Ak campeRed to obey Uefdadattt's polico or acr+ritY !dam '~ 13, When UeEetrdam's went damned Plairuilt; by was toting within the tcopt at" hit empbytnettt with Dsfbrdam. i4. PIr-imift'waa detained without any reasoeable or probable cause. 15. While~ehe incident on Au4utPt 9a veers eccumng; PtaintitF~rwticed numY~ peapk slowing as they drover by, geuing a closer lock at the incident involving live police cart. PlaituitY Found this ordeal humilittisg because he eras made to lank like t criminal in the eyes of the passers-by on a ~e,y trafficked street. fie was aLw humiliated that thin incident hrppened in the cnmptny oPhis contptnion. Wi~R1r1F'QRE, pklntiff demands jud~ruCnt against Defandant. General hlillrr, Itw . - in an arrrotwt in czceat of S2S,OgQ, and far punitive damages in an amount to be detat»tlned by tha user of fact, Iotereat casts, and any other relief tare Court deems just. Caaot~mtjlQp 16. Puagrapits 1-15 ua incorporated herein by reference. 17, Detbndan['s agem madn same atatanenl to rho Itrcal polka officers about tiro Plaintiff which reaulend in rhaae officers aaeistinll Defendant in detaining Plsinti£f, In addition, by virtue of Ure a£tlcer's stuernent to Pltindff, as rafarenccd in paragraph y !tent ey; ~I9S'I.~@.'~t. f~;'4t3F'M tint ~r~~avrt:nr ~awt nslssl Jr'~•YA 1:9SPM~ 09 '~''~irt~, a , r~a Ulat ttrWa 1feOWH~y cw. ' ~ '~, ~ 11 OiT ~ - ~aeteista epeyt ptaisttilE'a pnatteerrity to wtnmit Dicta e4vandslutt-. ., , 1 g, DeAn~~a sRatertterts tNpC $If0 M rtalute btxaure Plaietitl' had not aotnmittad any • orhnq, did mt trwpeaa on Dt-hndant's Prapeny, ~d thtre waa na probable cutue otherwise for Dpfrpdant sad the lxd'polioe to Justify pulling Plaimif>; over to • quastlan and detaia biro. , 19. Evart if 1]efondarlt had a quallfted privilege to make wmo reports to law enlixaetrtent _ otlicars about possible crlmea, Defendant abusod that privilttgo because any pleb iilaiemenes with ts>ypect to Plaintiff wao false, and Defendant mado those statements with actual malice. 20. M a result of the de6smatury statements made by Defendant to thn local pollee, pWtuiff sut'Iked ambarcasatnet-t and humiliation becauas ofall the passePS~hy • watching him befog detained, and the flue police cars sw•roundinl4 his vehicle, anQ peosuse of the embar+lasment of this occutriug when P iaint1ff was with his companiun• Wl{EItEPORE, Plaintiff demands judgntem against Defendann, Gena•al Mills, lnc„ ', ~in an amount in excess of 325',tltl0. and fttr punitive damages in an nnawnt to be ,. datatmirted by the trier of fktx, iuterase coos, and,any other relief the Courc Aenms just. { ~. .- VGRII~IC'A'i'ION I, Sharon M• O'I)onncll, Attorney for l)cl'endant, <;enurni Mills, lnc„ voritics that tho facds set forth in the 1'rcliminury Ohicetians are true to the best of her knowledge, infcrmalion and belief• If the above sttUements arc not true, the deponent is subjoct to the ponaltios of 1 S Pa,C,S• $Q9(14 rciating to unsworn falsification to authorities• I, Rnbort G, }lannu, ,Ir„ ksyuirc, do hcrehy curtil'y that a True and correct copy of the foregoing document was survcd upon all parties by lirst class moil nt tho fbllnwing addresses nn this _/ ~~ day of _ ~ G~LJG'~~(~LG , 1999: --~---- - Nora S, Gibson, lsquire rred Ii, Hait, Rsquirc McGRAW, BAIT & DEI'fCtIMAN A hiberty Avenge Carlisle:, PA 17013 .. . ,. P` {.. ~ , • ~ ~ (7 t } t; 11~~~~ ~ i 11 rr' ~ ~-a. C•i , ! ~ L~ 1 r'`- Ili. F- v..~ ~ . Gh L`. G", ~J ~ - i - - . i .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Oh CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY U, CLARK, Plaintiff v• GENERAL MILLS, INC„ Defendant • CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99.14 C1VIL TERM JURY TR1AL DEMANDED NOTICE. TO PLCAU 1'O; Plaintiff Barry Clark c/o Nora. S. Gibson, Esquire McGRAW, HAI'I' & DEITCHMAN 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may he Bled against you. MARSFIALL,, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: ~- r U~+.~lar . li RON M• O'll0 NELL, ESQUIRh LU. ~o, 79457 RO IiR'f G. I InNNA, ,-R., ESQUIRE LD• No, 17890 100 Pine Street, 4th floor P•O• Box 803 Flarrishurg, PA 17108-0803 (717) 231.3791 ntkrrncys for Defendant nnrr: IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS qI~ Cl1MDERLAND COUN'T'Y, PENNSYLVANIA DARRY D. CLARK, , Plaintiff , • CIVIL ACTION -LAW v , • NO, 99-14 CIVIL TERM GENCRAL, MILLS, INC., , Dofendant JURY'I'RIAL, DEMANDED ~ISWER WITH NF,W MATTFR The Defendant, General Mills, Ina, by and through its counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Ooggin, hereby respond to Plaintiff s Complaint wrd in support thereof assert the following: 1 • Donied• After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without knowledge or informtttion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 2• Admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that at all times material to Plaintiffs cause of action, to wit, August 9-12, 1998, Defendant, Goneral Mills, Inc., engaged and/or contracted with the Carlisle Police Department to provide security for the Oencral Mills promises located at 1605 Sheuror Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Ponnsylvania• "fhe remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint arc denied as conclusions of law• 4. It is admitted that venue is proper in this proceeding. 5. "I'he answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc•, incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1.3 above as fidly as if the same were herein set forth at length. fi• Admitted, !ty way of thrther answer, Derek llodge informed Plaintiff, on August 7, 1998, as he escorted Plaintiff from the building, that all of Plaintiffs uniforms remained the property of General Mills and were to be rehtrned to General Mills at some point in the ti~ture. Mr• 1lndge did not specifically instruct Plaintiff to return his uniforms on any date certain. Moreovor, Mr. Bodge fully anticipated that Plaintiff would return his uniform during the shift hours within which Plaintiff had performed his duties as nn operatorlmachanic for General Mills. 7. Admitted upon information and belief: t3. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was pulled over on a public roadway by Defendant's security personnel. 'fo the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over by an on- duty Carlisle Police officer. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that five police cars surrounded Plaintiff's vehicle at the time Plaintiff was pulled over by an on-duty Carlisle Police officer, 'fo the oontrary, Defendant's information is that Plaintiff was pulled over by a single marked Carlisle polic^ vehicle. 'fwo security officers, operating unmarked cars, pulled behind the Carlisle Police officer's vehicle. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied in that, after reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc,, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments, Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, il'relevant. ]0. Denied. 'I'o the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over by a single, on-duty police officer employed by the Carlisle Police Department, Other persons present at the scene are believed to be, by the answering Defendant, em off-duty security guard and an on-duty security guard, both of whom were engaiged to provide security, patrol and services for the answering Defendant, 11, Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant, General Ivtills, lac., is without knowledge or information sufficient to form tt belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Moreover, the allegations of Paragraph I 1 are denied to the extent that they constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 12. Denied. The allegations of Plaintiff s Complaint alleging that Plaintiff was confined by any security officer, either on-duty, or off-duty, employed by the answering Defendant are specifically denied. 'l'o the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over for the purposes of what Defendant believes to have been an investigatory stop or an "mere encounter" initiated by the on-duty Carlisle Police officer. Plaintiffs confinement, or his belief that he was confined, is due solely to the actions of the on-duty Carlisle police officer who made the stop. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff s Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 13. Denied. It is specifically denied that any agent or employee of the Defe~~dant detain the Plaintiff, or made the subject stop. 'fo the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over and/or stopped by an on-duty Carlisle Police officer acting within the scope of her employment with the Carlisle Police Department. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 14. Denied as a conclusiat of law to which no further response is required. 15. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph I S are denied by the answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc., in that after reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or ipformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 'the remaining averments of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff s Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. WHEREFORE., tho answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc„ requests this I{onorahle Court to dismiss Count i of Plaintiffs Corplaint and to enter,judgment in its favor, together with interest and costs. CO[1NT II - DEFAM T[O 16. The answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc., incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-15 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length: 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that any statement made by any employee of the Defendant, General Mills, Inc., to an on-duty Carlisle Police officer on August 9, 1998, was made with the intention that the Plaintiff would be detained or otherwise confined, To the contrary, no employee of the Defendant made any statement to a local police officer which was intended to, or was made directly for the purpose of resulting in Plaintiff's detention. Moreover, it is specifically denied that any statement made by any agent of the Defendant, General Mills, Inc., to any security officer, or other person, including the on-duty Carlisle Police officer, that the Plaintiff had a propensity to commit acts of vandalism. Moreover, no statement made by any employee or agent of the Defendant was made to any third party that can be characterized as "knowingly false", The remaining allegations and averments of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no furthet response is required. Strict proof- thereof is demanded at trial r. 18. Denied, -t is specifically denied that any agent or employee of the Defendant made a statement false in nature regarding the Plaintiff, Derry Clark. 1'hc remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 R of Plaintiff s Complaint are denied in that after reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations. Moreover, the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s Complaint are denied to the extent that they constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Strict proof thereof .is demanded at trial, 19, It is specifically denied that Defendant abused any conditional privilege to report to law enforcement officers about possible crimes, including a possible crime about to be committed by the Plaintiff, Barry Clark. It is further specifically denied that Defendant made any statements that were knowingly false, or were made with actual malice toward the Plaintiff, Barry Clark. The remaining allegations and averments of Paragraph 19 era denied as conclusions ofiaw to which no further response is required, Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial 20. Denied. It is specifically denied that any agent or employee of the Defendant made a false, malicious, or otherwise defamatory statement to the local police. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiff was surrounded by five police curs, The remaining allegations and averments Paragraph 20 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Wl-ItiRE1~ORG, Defendant, General Mills, Inc., requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff s Complaint, in addition to Plaintiff s claim for punitive damages, and to render a judgment in favor of the Defendant, General Mills, Inc., together with interest and costs. 5 NFW MA1'TFR 21, Plaintiff has failed to state any cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 2?„ Plaintiff has failed to state any cause of action upon which a claim for punitive damages may be granted. 23. At all times material to Plaintiff s cause of action, the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees acted reasonably, prudently, and in good faith. 24, Any statement or statements made by any employee or agent of the llefendant, General Mills, to a third party is conditionally privileged, 25. Neither the Defendant, nor its agents or employees, abused any conditional privilege that applies to any statement made by Defendant, its agents or employees. 26. All statements made by the Defendant, through its agents; and/or employees, regarding the Plaintiff, Liarcy Clark, at all times material to Plaintiff's cause of action, wore true. 27, All statements made by the Defendant, its agents, or employees, were made as a manor of public concern. 28, Plaintiff has failed to show special harm resulting to him from any communication made by Defendant, its agents or employees, to third parties, and in particular, the Carlisle Police Department, or its officers. 29. Any statement made by the Defendant, its agents, or employees, about the Plaintiff, to third parties, and in particular, the Carlisle Police, is not capable of having a defamatory meaning. 6 30, Plaintiff has failed to establish that any comnsunication made by the Defendant tended to deter third persons from associating with him or to hnrm his reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community. 31. Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant, through its agents and/or eaployees, acted intending to confine him within boundaries tixed by General Mills, its agents or employees. 32. At all times material to Plaintiff's cause of action, Defendant's employees, and/or agents, acted with reasonable or probable cause to contact an on-duty Carlisle Police officer on August 9, 1998. 33. At all times material to Plaintiffs cause of action, Plaintiff, Barry Clark, had no legitimate business scheduled with Defendant, General Mills, Inc., its agents, and/or employees. MARSHALL, DF,NNEHEY, WARNER, C{)LPPd'AN & GOGGIN BY: DATE: SH ON M. O'DONNELL, ESQUIRE LD. 0.79457 RO ERT G. HANNA, JR., ESQU[RE 1. . No. 17890 1 0 Pine Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 (717)231-379! Attorneys for Defendant 7 VERI('IC'ATION Sharon M. O'Donnell, Attorney for Defendant, General Mills, Inc„ verities that the facts set forth in the Answer with New Matter are true to the host. of her knowledge, information and belicE Ifth~ above statetnents are not true, the deponent is subject to the penaliies of 18 Pa,C.S, §4904 relating to tmsworn falsification tc authorities, ~~~_ ~~ ,/ ' ~ Sha on M. O'Donnell, Fsgtdre ~` ~ DATE: IN'I'fIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMGERI,AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, , Plaintiff , CIV[L AC"PION -LAW v, , N0.99-14CIVIL'fERNt GENERAL MILLS, INC., , Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICA7,E pF SERVICE I, Sharon M. O'Donnell, an associate with the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, hereby certify that on the ~~ day of April, 1999, a espy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter was sent via First Class U.S, Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Nora S. Gibson, L^squire McGRAW, HALT do DEITCI-IMAN 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 - Sharon M, O'Donnell, 6sGuire ,: (, 1 y~ tati 1 ;:: I ~ { 4,~1! . Y ~ ra Ln (~; ... .r ~ ;r 411 41 ("!: ' ~ I I I Q _ ~ ~ ~.4_ G. lf ltl - 1_. ~Y T _ ~-" ' C1\ U i .. ... ~, ,,r is 4 ~'. `~~'~~ J ~.,,, BARRY U, CLARK, IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF Pluintiff CUMI3ERLANU COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIh ACTION - hAW GENERAL MLLLS, -NC„ Uefendant 99-14 CIVII. •I'FiRM IN RE.: PLAWTIFr'S I'RII.IMINARY O~I3 I~,~'~~'(ON 'I'0 DL:FLNDAN'I"__,~' ~W MA_ 1"f~.R )}ErOR " IIOhI~ER. P J . )I ~.R AN tt Itnn i~, r/ AND NOW, this ;L L (`~ day of MFry, 1999, upon consideration of "PlaintifFs PreNminary Objection to Inclusion of Scandalous or Impertinent Matter Contained in Defendant's Answer [with] New Mauer," the preliminary objection is UENIEU. I3Y THE COURT, Nora 5, Gibson, Esquire McGraw, Hait & Deitchman 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attomey for {'laintiff esley Oler, J ., , Sharon M. O'Donnell, Gsquirc Marshall, Uennchey, Wamer, Coleman & Coggin 4th Nloor, l001'ine Street P• O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0R03 Attomey for Defendant ~",~,i~r ~! ;~ ;~'; ,~ ~ ~ ~'~ ...- i,-U:1.ti ,~- IN RE; IN THE-COURT OP COMMON PI,I:AS OF' ; CUMDGRLAND L'C)lJN'fY, P8NN5YL,VANIA ADAM SH-PP DFTT'CiGR , 99-55 C-VII, S?13.L?.&R AND NQW, this Z ~ ~ day of May, 1999, hearing in the above name change matter set for Thursday, May 27, 1999, is continued to 'T'hursday, June 10, 1999, at 9:00 a,m, in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland !'aunty Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. Notice shall be gluon by advertisement in one newspaper of general circulation within Cumberland County and shall include the date, time and location of the hearing as scheduled. DY THI; COURT, ~~~~ ~~ KeviryA, Hess, J. Adam Shipp Danger ( ,,r' a7 9 , 3825 Carriage House Drive ~ '~~0' m~~ l l ,d ,b', Camp Hiil, PA 17011 ;rlm -,: W Lr n) ~. III ~.) A I ) ~.. l.Ji 1 .' itfl ~- ~., -.I l~ 1. «..~ (,' G"+ lJ IN 7'NE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D. C1.AR%, , PleintittE' ; v. ; GI±NEltA1. MII..LS, Inc. , Dtfendt~nt , Civil Action - Lww No.t q9- ~'~" JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFF,NDANT'S NEW MA'T'TER 21: Paragraph 21 is a conclusion of law to which no response is requited. 22, Paragraph 22 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 23. After reasonable investigation, Pl.ntiff is without knowledge or infortnadan sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Defendant's allegation that it acted reasonably, prudently, or in good faith, All such allegations arc, therefore, denied, 24. Paragraph 24 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 25, Paragraph 25 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 26. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a bclirf as to the truth or falsity of "all" statements made by Defendant, its agents, OI employees, to a third party regarding Plaintiff. AU such allegations arc, therefore, denied, 27. Paragraph 27 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. '1'o the extcn! that such allegations are not conclusions of law, it is denied that any statementx were made as a matter of public concern, liecausc Defendant had no reason to believe that Plaintiff was committing any crime, 2R, Denied that Plaintiff has not averred special harm rrsulting from the communications made by Defendant, its agents or etnployces to thud parties regarding the Plaintiff To the contrary, Plaintiff has been harmed by having been stopped by the police, detained, and queatianed in full view of all persons passing by. 29, Paragraph 29 is a conclusion of law to which no response is rcycdred. 30, Paragraph 3(1 is a conclusion of law to which no response is requured. "I'o the extent It is alleged that Plaintiff did nut suffer harm to his reputation as a result of the defamatory statements of llefcndant, its agents, or enrplayecs, 1'hdnriff denies sarnc, 31. l)enled that Defendant, through its agents or employees did not intend to confine Plaintiff within fixed boundaries. '1'o the contrary, llefendant's security personnel and polce confined Plaintiff to fixed boundaries when they detained him on August 9, 1998. 32. Paragraph 32 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required• 'Co the extent Defendant Is alleging it acted reasonably by contacting a police officer to detain Plaintiff after Plaintiff drove 6y General Mills on a public road, Plaintiff denies same, 33. Admitted that,l'laintiff had no scheduled business with General Mills on August 9, 1998. All remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Rcspectfu8y submitted, MCGRAW, f lAl'C & DLI'I'CHMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff ~~ ~_ / q / Date ~ 1 }3Y -~'L~-----~ Nora S. Gibson, hA ID # 81918 fired I [.1-lair, PA Ill # 34331 41.11 crry Avenue Carhslc, I'A 17(113 717-2A9-4500 249-2411 (fax) APPIAAVI`1' Plaindffe job as an over-the-road driver has taken hitn out of the juriadicdon, and he has been unavailable to personally verify this Reply. 'Therefore, I verify that any facto not of record set forth in the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to llcfcndant's New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, informapon and bc8ef, 1 acknowledge that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C..S. Section 4904 relating to unawom falsification to authorities. / ~ Date ! ~ ~ t / -_-~~~ Nora S, Gibson , CERTIFIGA7'E OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and carrcct copy of the foregoing Piaindff's Reply to Defendant's Ncw Matter was served by 11.5, Illcst Class Mail on this date, to rho partiex listed below at the following address, Sharon M, O'Donnell, Fsyuirc Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & GoRBitt 100 Pine Street, 4's Rloor P.p. Rox 803 1-Ilarrieburg, PA 17108-0803 Data ~ - ~f ~9 ~, IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, , PlaintitE , ~• Civil Action -Law No.: 99-I4 GENERAL MILLS, Inc, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant , PRAECIFE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF AFFIDAVIT 'I'O THP, PRO'f'FIONO'fARY: Kindly attach the attached Affidavit to Plaintiffx Reply to llefendant's Ncw Matter, the original of which has been previously filed with the Cotu•t. Respectfully submitted, McGraw, Hait & Deitchman sy ~ ~ Nora S, Gibson, IU #A191A 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-4500 717-249-2411 (fax) MPIDAVIT I vgtify that any facts neat of record ect forth in the foregoing Plainriff a Reply to Acfendant's New Matter arc true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infortrtarion and belleE l acknowledge that any false statements hercuc arc made subject to the pcnaldea of 18 pa.C.S, Section 491W rcladng to unswom falsification to authorities, 1)ate~~ CERTIPICATE OP SEICVICE I, the undersiRnecl, hereby ccrtlfy that a true and correct copy of the. foregoln8 Ptaecipe for Substitution of Affidavit was scrvcd by L1,S, I~icst Class Mail on this date, to the parties Uetcd below at the ('oUowing address, Sharon M. O'DonneU, I?syuirc Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &. (ioggtn -100 Plnc Strcet, 4~' Flaor P,O. Box 8(13 flarrlsburg, PA 17108-0803 r Date v 8 / ~'~~ ^ ~~ ~F ~, ~ a. t~; ~u_,~ ~~ C~.: ~ f S~ c T t~1~; n~ r.. ,~ ~,.~ ~ L ~ ' ~ Li_ 1 Sr L y C:, rn V~ _ ' , t.J - i ~..: -- ~, . IN TIIF C'UUR7' OF CUMMON PLEAS OP C;UMQERI.AND COUN'1"1', PENNSYY,VANIA BARRY D, CLARK, t Plwintlll' t t v, t Civil Action • Lww t No.t 99-14 GENERAL, MILLS,lnc, t JURY 'fRIAI.DEMANDED Dcfendwnt t CEIt'I'INICA'1'f PRIk13QI11S1'1'E TU SERVICE OLt A SUBPOENA PURSUAN'f'1'U RULE 4009.22 As a prr+reyuixite tr. xrrvice of x xubpocnn lirr ducutncnts and things pursuanfto Rule 41NI9,22, Plainrifl certiliex thou 1, a notice rrf irvcnl to xervc tha xuhpocna with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto wax nutih'd or delivered to anc6 party prior to the date nn which the subpoena is sought to buserved, 2, a copy of the notica of intent, ineludinu the. proposed subpoena, is attached to this cortiflcate, 3. I)e&,ndant hex waived the ?.It day period and has no objection to the subpoena being xcrved, and 4. The xubpucna thm will be xcrvad is identicsd to the xubpoena that is ansched to the notiw of intent to serve the xubpoena. //, I7atc_,_.[o ~~ ~~ ___..~_.. r ~. , ~_ ~j z~_-'L.--- Nora C, Gibson, ID #81918 Attorney for Plaintiff McGraw, Bait & Dcitchrnan 4 Liberty Avenue (:arlixlc, PA 17013 717-249.4500 717-249.2411 (fax) Nor;t S. Gibson Pa. I D !18191 N McGRAW, HAI'I' & DE1TCIiMAN •1 I.ibcrrt~ Avenue Carlisle, PA 17(113 Phone: (717)249.giUU I~ax: (7F7)2~I9-0500 Attomcys f`or Plairuif( IN '1'IiI3 COUlt'1' OI' COMMON PLhAS bl~ CUh1131':R1.r1N1~ (~OUNT'ti', YI?NNSYI,VANlr1 IiAKRI' D. CI„1RIk, Case No.; 99-14(:11'11. 1'1;811 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A vs. SUBPOENA TO PROllUCE (.il:Nf~.R.AL Mll,l.ti, INC.., DOCUMENTS ANll THINGS FOR Defendant DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,21 (URY "1'K[N, DIiMANI?I:?D • 9'O: A0 parties in the abovrcaptioned action: Plaintiffs intend to sen~e a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice You have hventy (211) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the unclcrsigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Dated this R"'day nr June, 1994 Iit. .N tra S. Gibson 1'n. IDta~8191ri n1eGl(nvt~, i lArr ~~ Defl cnnl;~N I.ibcrry :lvcnuc Carlisle, PA 17013 I'hnnc (717)2QO.g5U0 Suhnnnnn Nnti(~r GIB:I!"t'll'I(;A'~'IS(?I+SI;KYI(;1 1, NUr11 ~, t111 i9i ~11,'Iicl-1'I1~' rl'rlll)' illllt IInS }Id' ll,ly' 1il ~1111C, I~+~I9, CCf P('CI it C(11)y ul Ihl G~rr1; tuil~ NO'1'I(:1'. UI+ IN'I'ISN"I' 'I'O SL;RVI; A SIIHI'UIsNA "l'O PROlll1Cf• 1)OCUMI':N'I'ti ANI)'1'111NCiS 1+<)R 1)ItiCOVf;RY I'IIRSIIAN'I"1'O RULE 40Q9,21 ulx>n r6c (nllnwutl; uuheulualhl ur cnlilt'(u~4) I~t 1' .ti I ir,i (:Inns Iu~siaJm In_i, hall nraih hhnrnn ~I, O'Ihnuudl, Issyunc Alnrthall, Ih~nuchcq, ~tVnrncr, Culcrn~m c~ (~~~•y;in Illfl F Inc tirrecr, 4°' I~luur I'•( ), Iil1X HILL I larriybw};, PA 17111ti OHOi ~' i /~r: 5uhnncntt Nr111Pd' r77hpgN,rWP711lI'Il nl' PI~NN:~YINANIA (IMINI'Y OI''UIMI467tIANlI linty p. Claik, P1aR><:iif V. (] y>.rrl. Mi-Lis, Ire, I~fr~rlmt f i In No, civil ,hi:i.m -Jaw 99-14 _ _ SU[if?OENA_TO I'ROfx1[X: DOCtf.S:NTS.gR 1HINC3S t`O!?_0IS(Y1V[ftY_f'UftSUANT ]'O_Rth.f X009.?? 7'0: yrzaet~ (]z;<cxli~t,-Carl.isle-Rriin>-f{4rtir,uLix_~s, 53 W. ~iiatli StirnL, Ci'u-1tsle, PA 17013 (Name of Person or- Lnt. i ty) _ _ _ Within twenty (20) days after service of this subrx>cena, yrxr arc cxdered by tho cant to prcxiuce the foi Icnainq cinc'unents a• things: Al.l-dxure~c >.ElaCirr3 to the c}.5rr.,rin~ ot_~2y_U..yl~rk rn_8/9/9A, irrlydirrl, Izrt mt Lirrtita3-tn: di,~z3tr#i__~(?~r1s. / xe[xg-i-G, grrl arty dtr~- iurz>~, / rt~rats c~~r(~-atff7 / drl'airrsl ns~rrlurl 1~try D. (`laiic _ .- _ __.. _. at _ __ .__ _ _ _._ _...._ _..._ __.-- - - . . _ : `in= of t+tQaw, Fhi.t & LtiildtrHrY _ - 4 Lilz3ty A«xue, Qirlisle, PA 17013 _ _ _ __ _ _ - -.__._ (Addres ; ) v<x.r rnny delrver a- mail legible copies of Chn tkx~urr_u~iL:a or produce things requested by ibis e:ub(xxxra, together with the certificate rif ccYrpliance, to tha party making this request at the nddrea listed atxwu• Yar have the right. t.o seek in advance tlm reasonable cost of preparing the cr~~ies or producing the things scrrght. rf You fail to produce the docunenta a• Chines rcc~air•ed by this subpxrra wit.hir. twenty (70) days after its sa'vice, the party serving Cl;is sub{x>ena rray soak a court order aaipellin9 Y~ to crxrply with it. T1iI S SUE3f'CENA WAS I SSUI;G AT THE REQUEST OF 11JE FO(.LOWI tJ , PERSON; NAt'E ; t3aa S_ . Gilsn nDpRfSS: 9 Lalx!rtY A~ic: _ _ _ Grz3lsle, i'A-17013 _ -- - _ . _ .____ _ _. - r1:LEPHJNE : 717-249-4500 aIfREFE COl1R1' ID (l E191E _ _' -__ - , __ ~T'fORNfY f011: Plalyd.iff i Alf: r>„~ 6~±~ /i; /.~f S. ~ of Chn cix,r f. - --. (3Y 1T//i[: ~IURI: Protlxxx~Lary/C Kirk, Qivrl Divts{ai -tioputy ([ff. 7/97) IN THF. COl1R'P nF (;OMMON PLF,AS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARRY D. CLARK, Plaintltf , v Clvii Action -Law No.:99-14 GENERAL MILLS, Ina JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant . CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE W[TH SUHPOENA'CO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 }, __.^_.__ (person served with subpoena) certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena Issued on ~ . (date of subpoena) have been produced, Iaate Person served with subpoena ., BARRY D, CLARK, IN '1'111: COURT dF COMMON PLEAS Oh i~laintiff CUMI;IsRL,AND CdUN'I'Y, PENNSYLVANIA v. C1VIL, ACTION -• LAW (3C;NERAL MILLS, INC„ Defendant N0.99-0014 CIVIL'I'ERM dRDGR dF cOl1RT AND NdW, this `d~5day of November, 1999, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for A Protective Order, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not he granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, Nora 5. Gibson, Esq, 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff _ ~~ ,-r~~ l I~q ~99 `8 ~ ~ • Sharon M. d'Donnell, Esq. ' 100 Pine Street, 4`h Floor P.d. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 Attorney for Defendant :rc ,. ! ~:;~ i, ' ~, ° ~,.,.i , o ,,i {~ ..,,~ Au, 4 aJl:~. .~ LA I i QF CUMUERLAND COUNTY PE•NN9YI,VA~ DARRY D, CLARK, , Plaintiff , CIVIL ACTION -LAW v, , NO, 99-14 CIVIL TERM dENERAL MILLS, INC„ , Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this ~_ day of __ __ , 1999, it is hereby ORDERED that followin& an !n camera inspection of a letter attached as Exhibit "A" to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, and it being this Court's opinion that the content of Exhibit "A" is sensitive to third-persons not parties to this lawsuit and that discovery into the matters set forth in Exhibit "A" may be detrimental to the health and welfare of third•persons not parties to this lawsuit, it is ORDERED that Exhibit "A" is immune from discovery by Flaintiffand that Dofendant shall not be required to disclose same pursuant to Plaintiff s discovery requests. BY THE COURT: ~~~) ~N HT E COJZRT OF COMMON FLEAS OF CU~E${~ COUNTY. PENNSYL.V N~1 , DARRY D, CLARK, Plaintiff CIVIL, ACTION -LAW v, NO, 99-14 CIVIL TERM GENERAL MILLS, INC„ Defendant JURY 7'RIAi, DEMANDED !l1.4TION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Dofendant, General Mills, ]na, by and through its counsel, Marshall, Donnehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, hereby moves this Court for a Protective Order and in support thereof, states the following; 1, Plaintiff has requested from Defendant a complete copy of Plaintiff s personnel file, 2, Defendant has produced the entirety of Plaintiffs personnel file, and othor records rotating to Plaintiff not identified as Plaintiff's personnel fllc, but for a copy of a letter addressed to Kevin Fitzpatrick, Goneral Mills, ]nc., signed by one "Linda", attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. As evidenced from the enclosed letter, the same might be deemed confidential and not subject to disclosure in discovery for the protections ofthird-persons not parties to this litigation. 4. Pa.R.C.P. 4012 provides that the Court may make arty Order which justice requires to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense, 5. Defendant, Genoral Mills, Inc., requests this Honorable Court to determine, In camera, whether the attached exhibit should be disclosed in discovery, and, if so, to set limitation on any discovery by the Plaintiff as the Court may deem just and proper. 6, Defendant has provided Alalntiffs counsel with a copy of this Motion, save "Exhibit ,A„~ WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cleneral Mills, Ina, requests this Honorable Court to issue an Order following an in camera inspection of the attached Exhibit directing that said Exhibit is deemed immune from discovery; ar, in the alternative, setting forth limitations and/or restrictions on Plaintiff's discovery with respect to the attached Exhibit, as the Court decrosjust and proper. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMA & GOCGIN ^~~ DATE; IO I~ 1.~.J I ~ .^ BY:_ ~ . 1 ~` r ARON M. O O ELL, ESQ. D. NO. 79457 00 Pine St., 4s' Fl. P,O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108.0803 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMLiERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LiARRY D, CLARK, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW v, N0.99-14 CIVIL TERM GENERAL MILLS, INC., , Defendant JiIRY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC>;: I, Sharon M, O'Donnell, an associate with th/e~ law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Wamer, Coleman & Coggin, horeby certify that on the !~/'i~ day of October , 1999, a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order (w/o Exhibit "A") and proposed Court .Order were sent vla First Class U.S, Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Nora S. Gibson, Esquire McGRAW, HALT Bc DEITCHMAN 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 1701,'i ~1 fw I11~,L ~ ~ t.l ' ~~ f ~ F ~ ••y 'y~i~ } iii (.I. ' Cl. '_ a '.~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON I'LEA5 OP CUMIIERLAND COUNTY, Pe.NNS4'LVANIA I3AkRX D, CLACK, . Plainllff . ~. Civil Action -Law . No..99-14 GENERAL MILLS, Inc, , Defendant , P.&1>CIM~~'_Q[i~?1544 ~t~1LI..®LV~F '1'0: Prothonotary: Please mark the above-captioned case settled and discontinual with prejudice. Respectfully submitted,. McGittl~C~', I-IAI1' & DLI'I'CIiMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff ora S, Gibso , Gsquirc PA ID # 81918 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, 1'A 17(113 717-249-4500 717.249-?,411 (F.4x) Date ~S r ~ CER'I'IF7lCATE pF SERVICE tetchy u;rtity rhstr a true stud cota•c~t copy of the foregoing VraeCipr, for Diseontintrance ~t~as serval by IJ.S. I'irsr Class Mail un this , ~S~- day of ,~2YIP~t', 1999, to counsel at the ti~llowing address: Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esyuirc Marshall, Dcnnehcy, Warner, Colenrut & Goggin 10(1 Vine Street, a"' Floor P.O. 13ox H03 }larrishury;, PA 171UR-fIR(13 r ~~,- ~ / ~__ ~~