The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-09-08 (3)1N RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA c: ~ `:; Deceased • ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION - ~~ c '> i' NO.21-86-398 , - ' ' ~ _ ~ __ EMERGENCY RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA. II TO THE ~ ~ ~•'•' ;., EXECUTRICES' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who responds as follows to the Executrices' Emergency Motion for Protective Order, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted as stated. By way of further response, the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan was noticed on October 13, 2008 pursuant to Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 which specifically provided that the Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The Martson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts was to be decided under Pa.R.C.P. 206.7. By way of further response, Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 (a) is in writing and speaks for itself, (b) provides no limitations or restrictions with respect to which parties or witnesses may be deposed, and (c) specifically provides that Rule 206.7 is to govern. Consequently, Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(c) permits the taking of the deposition of this witness. By way of further response, Judge Oler's Order from March 2007 is inapplicable to the instant motion (a) for the foregoing reasons, and (b) in light of the past delays in these proceedings which were addressed at the August 18, 2008 hearing and the subsequent orders vacating the appointment of one auditor and appointing a replacement auditor. 4. See response above at Paragraph 3 which is incorporated herein. By way of further response, Judge Oler's Order from October 2007 is inapplicable to the instant motion (a) for the foregoing reasons, and (b) in light of the past delays in these proceedings which were addressed at the August 18, 2008 hearing and the subsequent orders vacating the appointment of one auditor and appointing a replacement auditor. 5. Admitted that Exhibit D is a copy of said notice. 6. Admitted that the Respondent was unable to attend the deposition on November 12, 2007. 7. See responses above at Paragraphs 3 and 4 which are incorporated herein. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted as stated. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that no response was filed pursuant to the Rule issued on May 12, 2008; by way of further response, said Rule expired on May 22, 2008 by its express terms which was one week subsequent to the putative deposition date of May 15, 2008, thereby rendering moot the issue of whether or not the deposition could proceed on May 15, 2008. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Respondent has previously deposed Mrs. Morgan. By way of further response, see responses above at Pazagraphs 3 and 4 which aze incorporated herein. 14. Denied as stated. By way of further response, see the responses above at Pazagraphs 3, 4, and 13 which aze incorporated herein. By way of further response, the hearing in January 1989 and any subsequent court opinion are inapplicable to the instant motion (a) for the foregoing reasons incorporated herein and (b) in light of the past delays in these proceedings which were addressed at the August 18, 2008 hearing and the subsequent orders vacating the appointment of one auditor and appointing a replacement auditor. The Respondent incorporates herein the Reply to New Matter filed on October 7, 2008. 15. Admitted. 16. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the "request" set forth in the email sent by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius on September 25, 2008 was drafted by said counsel and is now being asserted in Paragraph 16 of the instant motion by the Executrices' other counsel in a concerted and self-serving manner which purports to declaze that the witness has no "personal knowledge" and otherwise advocates that she should not be deposed due to matters being of "public record through filings, hearings, etc.". Therefore, said paragraph 16 is self-serving, azgumentative, and legally insufficient. By way of further response, the Respondent is not required to response to what the Executrices or their counsel can or cannot imagine vis-a-vis the relevance of testimony to be adduced at the deposition, and the Respondent is unaware of any rule which requires a party who has noticed a deposition of a witness to divulge beforehand the particulazs of questions to be posed during the deposition. See, Pa.R.C.P. 4007.1(c). By way of further response, counsel for the Estate is awaze that (a) Mr. Gault assists me in managing litigation, and (b} even though he is an attorney, he has not entered his appearance on my behalf in the above- captioned action. 17. No response required as the September 25 email sent by Morgan, Lewis &Bockius is in writing and speaks for itself. See also response above at Paragraph 16 which is incorporated herein. 18. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Respondent did not respond to, nor cause a response to be made, to the email of September 25. By way of further response, the email sent by Morgan, Lewis &Bockius on September 25 (a) concerned other matters separate and apart from the deposition of this witness, (b) was uncooperative and non-responsive to a prior email sent to counsel on September 24, and (c) was designed to cause further delays and unnecessarily complicate this matter. See also response above at Pazagraph 16 which is incorporated herein. 19. Denied. See responses above regazding the Respondent's compliance with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 and proceeding under Rule 206.7, thereby limiting the "specific matter or subject" to those encompassed by the Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis &Bockius and The Manson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the motion for a protective order and issue an Order which allows this witness to be deposed such that the parties may comply with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, or in the alternative, that an appropriate Order be issued which permits the deposition to go forward on a date during the weeks of October 20, 2008 or October 27, 2009 (see Respondent's Emergency Response to Emergency Motion of Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. for Protective Order filed this same date). Such an order would stay within the spirit of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 and would permit the matter to proceed to the Argument Court scheduled in this case for December 17, 2008. Respectfully submitted, `~c~~/.~~,~~tiunvi ---~~ Robert M"Mumma, II P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 PROSE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Emergency Response to Executrices' Emergency Motion for Protective Order was served this date as follows: By U S Mail first class postage preyaid addressed to: Brady Green, Esquire Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Court-Appointed Auditor 1701 Mazket Street 1237 Holly Pike Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Carlisle, PA 17013 Linda Mumma Roth Ralph Jacobs, Esquire PO Box 480 1515 Market Street -Suite 705 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Philadelphia, PA 19102 By hand-delivery to the following addresses: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 DATE: October 9, 2008 Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 717-612-9720 PROSE