HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-08IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: ESTATE OF ORPHAN'S COURT DIVI~O~T ~ _ _~
ROBERT M. MUMMA, "' ~' ~
Deceased N0.21-86-398 r'
-
~ ;/ ~
`
~ r, ,
~ o
m
RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO THE EXECUTRICES'
MOTION TO COMPEL FILED APRIL 30, 2008
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, who hereby responds as follows to the
Executrices' Motion to Compel filed Apri130, 2008:
1. Admitted as stated. By way of further answer, discovery issues attendant to this case have
been referred by the Orphans' Court to the Auditor. In referring discovery matters to the
Auditor, the Orphans' Court's Orders are generally in the form of a rule to show cause with the
rule being returnable in a given number of days. The Orphans' Court's Orders also routinely
refer discovery matters to the Auditor for purposes of a brief interim report on the discovery
issue and a recommended order. However, the undersigned is not aware of any interim reports
filed by the Auditor subsequent to the Auditor's Interim Report filed on December 30, 2005.
1
2. Admitted as stated. By way of further response, see the averments of Paragraph 1 and
Paragraph 5 herein which are hereby incorporated by reference. By way of even further
response, the Interrogatories resubmitted on or about March 4, 2008 consist of fifteen (15)
separate pages and are comprised of a minimum of sixty-five (65) subparagraphs or subdivisions
within said Interrogatories.
3. Admitted as stated. By way of further response, see the averments of Paragraph 1
hereinabove which are hereby incorporated by reference.
4. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph #4 constitute legal conclusions to which no
response is required, and therefore same are denied. By way of further response, see the
averments of Paragraph 5 hereinbelow which are hereby incorporated by reference.
5. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph #5 constitute legal conclusions to which no
response is required, and therefore same are denied. By way of further response, see the
averments of Paragraph 1 hereinabove which are hereby incorporated by reference. Byway of
even further response, Counsel for the Estate propounded Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents upon the undersigned on or about April 11, 2008 which consisted of
eighteen (18) separate sheets of paper and which were comprised of a minimum of eighty-two
(82) subparagraphs or subdivisions within said Interrogatories. On April 15, 2008, the
undersigned filed a Motion to Quash and General Objection based upon Pa.R.C.P. 4005(c),
C.C.R.P. 4005-1, and appellate case law. Thereafter, on Apri122, 2008, the Orphans' Court
issued an Order which referred the matter to the Auditor for purposes of a brief interim report on
the issue and a recommended order. Unlike many prior motions in this case, the Orphans'
Court's Order of Apri122, 2008 was not in the form of a rule to show cause and was not
returnable in a given number of days. To date, the Auditor has not filed an interim report and
has not proposed a recommended order notwithstanding the Apri122, 2008 Order. As the instant
Motion to Compel raises identical issues under Pa.R.C.P. 4005(c), C.C.R.P. 4005-1, and
appellate case law as was also presented by the undersigned's Motion to Quash and General
Objection filed on April 15, 2008 to that particular set of Interrogatories, the disposition of the
latter motion will most likely govern the outcome of the instant motion which also pertains to the
answering of interrogatories, and it is anticipated that the Orphans' Court will once again refer
this discovery matter to the Auditor for purposes of an interim report and a recommended order.
6. Denied as stated. Judge Oler's Order of October 3, 2007 states in its Paragraph #3 as follows:
"On or before play 31, 2008, all additional discovery relating to any supplemental objections
filed shall have been completed, any further procedural or dispositive-type motion shall have
been filed, and any expert reports of the estate shall have been served on all other interested
parties."
7. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph #7 constitute legal conclusions to which no
response is required, and therefore same are denied. By way of further response, see the
averments of Paragraph 5 hereinabove which are hereby incorporated by reference.
8. Admitted as stated.
9. Admitted that Judge Oler has been previously assigned to this case.
WHEREFORE, Robert M. Mumma, II respectfully requests that the Executrices' Motion
to Compel filed on April 30, 2008 be DENIED for the reasons set forth herein.
Respectfully submitted,
~~2~~~ ~
/ ~~~.~-c
Robert M. umma, II
P.O. Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
(717) 612-9720
PRD SE
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the
Executrices' Motion to Compel was served on May 22, 2008 by U.S. Mail, first class, postage
prepaid, addressed to:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Cazlisle, PA 17013
Brady Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Mazket Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Ralph Jacobs, Esquire
1515 Mazket Street -Suite 705
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Linda Mumma Roth
PO Box 480
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Taylor Andrews, Esquire
Court-Appointed Auditor
78 West Pomfret Street
Cazlisle, PA 17013
~~.
DATE: May 22, 2008 BY: ~./~~~~~ ~ :-~
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
717-612-9720
PRD SE