Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-08 (2)IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~-~ -~ c-~ ~~, o ~' -. IN RE: ESTATE OF ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISI - r-r-i N ROBERT M. MUMMA, n' , Deceased N0.21-86-398 - ~~ c~ --~ -~ o rn RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUIVIMA. II TO THE EXECUTRICES' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED MAY 6, 2008 AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, who hereby responds as follows to the Executrices' Motion for a Protective Order filed May 6, 2008: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted as stated. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, Judge 01er's Order dated March 26, 2007 was issued in response to a prior motion for a protective order filed by the Estate following the depositions of the Executrices taken on January 24, 2007 and January 25, 2007. At the conclusion of the January 25, 2007 deposition, a discussion on the record ensued as to adjourning the Executrices' depositions to another date and location for continuation of their testimony. Hence, the "certain time and location restrictions" language set forth in Judge Oler's Order dated March 26, 2007 was related to the continuation of said depositions. The "certain time and location restrictions" language of Judge Oler's Order 1 .~ dated March 26, 2007 must therefore be considered in the context of Judge Oler's subsequent Order dated October 3, 2007, especially in light of the fact that no further depositions were held between the dates of the aforesaid two (2) Orders. 4. Admitted in part; Denied in part. It is admitted that Judge Oler's Order dated October 3, 2007 stated, inter alia, that the depositions of the Executrices were to be completed before November 22, 2007; however, that specific language of the Order has been taken out of context as set forth in this Paragraph #4 of the Executrices' Emergency Motion for a Protective Order. By way of further response, Judge Oler's Order dated October 3, 2007 was stated on the record following a status conference held on that date in Courtroom Number 1 at which all parties and/or their counsel appeared and made known their positions to Judge Oler as to the status of discovery in general and as to the status of the continuation of the Executrices' depositions specifically. Counsel for the Estate proposed that the Executrices' depositions be scheduled prior to Thanksgiving 2007 with a time period thereafter for the filing of supplemental objections and expert reports on or about January 15, 2008; he further proposed an additional 90 day period after January 1 S, 2008 within which the Estate could take further discovery. (N.T. 10-03-07, pp. 6-8). Counsel for Barbara. Mann Mumma (an Objector), Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire, proposed the date of January 31, 2008 for the filing of additional objections and expert reports by the Objectors. (N.T. 10-03-07, p. 14). Mr. Jacobs further stated that the Objectors should be able to continue to take discovery and to take depositions during whatever period the Court finds reasonable for the Estate to take discovery. (N.T. 10-03-07, p. 15). The undersigned then stated that said proposed deposition schedule would be inadequate inasmuch as Barbara McK. Mumma had testified at her most recent deposition that Estate records were stored in various locations in Florida and Pennsylvania that were not yet produced. (N.T. 10-03-07, pp. 15-16). The following exchange occurred at this point in said status conference: MR. GREEN: "Your Honor, on the point that Mr. Jacobs raised about discovery by all parties after the objections and expert report deadline for the objectors, we would have no objection to that as long as that further discovery was constrained by the balance of the objections of the expert reports. [A]t a certain point, we think that point is virtually at end, we ought to be able to know what it is that we need to respond to, to the extent there is a deposition of a fact witness who might shed some light on some issue as framed by the objections, if it is not already completed before the objections are filed, we wouldn't object to that being completed in the period thereafter; but, again, as long as it is within the scope of the objections that are lodged and not an attempt to go out and just broaden the horizons yet again." THE COURT: "It is further discovery on any new objections that you want to consider?" MR. GREEN: "I am just saying to the extent that there is remaining fact discovery to be taken to the extent that the objectors wanted to participate or do discovery in that same 90-day-period between the f ling of the objections and due date for our papers, we would have no objection to that." THE COURT: "Any what, discovery limited to what issues?" MR. GREEN: "Whatever is framed in the objections, Your Honor." THE COURT: "In the supplemental objections?" MR. GREEN: "Yes." (N.T. 10-03-07, pp. 16-18). Judge Oler's Order dated October 3, 2007 specified that said supplemental objections were to be filed by the Objectors on or before January 31, 2008, with all parties to complete all additional discovery relating to the supplemental objections on or before May 31, 2008. Supplemental objections and expert reports were timely filed on or before January 31, 2008. 'Therefore, the undersigned's scheduling of the depositions on May 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008 was consonant with both the discussions at the October 3, 2007 status conference and Judge Oler's Order. The subjects to be addressed during said depositions would have been so constrained in accordance with the parameters outlined by Counsel for the Estate as stated on the record at said status conference. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. By way of further response, the election to attend or not to attend the depositions on November 12, 2007 and November 14, 2007 is immaterial in light of the fact that Counsel for the Estate stated on the record that there would be no objection to taking "remaining fact discovery" prior to the same deadline imposed upon the Estate (i.e., May 31, 2008) provided that same would be flamed by the supplemental objections (which were not even due until January 31, 2008). 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, the Executrices purport to seek a Court Order for protection whenever their Counsel previously appeared before the Court and agreed not to object to remaining fact discovery provided that it was taken prior to the Estate's own deadline (i.e., May 31, 2008) and provided that it was framed by the supplemental objections filed by the Objectors. 4 8. Denied. T'he allegations of this Paragraph #8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required, and therefore same are denied. By way of further response, see the averments of Paragraph 7 hereinabove which are hereby incorporated by reference. 9. Admitted that Judge Oler has ruled on previous issues in this case. 10. Admitted in part; Denied in part. It is admitted that concurrence of the undersigned was not sought. It is denied that a protective order is necessary in an expedited, emergency fashion. Byway of further response, see the averments of Pazagraph 7 hereinabove which are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, Robert M. Mumma, II respectfully requests that the Executrices' Emergency Motion for a Protective Order be DENIED inasmuch as the undersigned relied upon the representations of Counsel for the Estate to this Court that there would not be an objection to the taking of remaining fact discovery provided it was taken before May 31, 2008 and provided that it would be framed by the issues set forth in the supplemental objections filed before January 31, 2008. The final sentence of Your Honor's Order of May 12, 2008 which stayed this discovery should be rescinded, and another Order should be issued so that the remaining fact discovery as contemplated on the record at the status conference can be concluded. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~~~~~ Robert M. Mumma, II P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 PROSE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Executrices' Emergency Motion for a Protective Order 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 Carlisle, PA 17013 Brady Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Ralph Jacobs, Esquire 1515 Market 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 Carlisle, PA 17013 DATE: May 22, 2008 BY: ~~-~!~~~~1~ Robert M. Mumma, II --y `T Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 717-612-9720 PRD SE