Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-08 (4)IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plpr~~S OF =~ __ ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN~VANI~ ~. ' i ~~ ---i Deceased ``~ . ~_. , -; ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION - ~ `O __ -- ~ -~ ~~. N0.21-86-398 ~ =- ~ L~? _ rn EMERGENCY RESPONSE OF_ ROBERT M. MUMMA. II TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF JOSEPH A. O'CONNOR_ JR, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who responds as follows to the Emergency Motion of Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. for Protective Order, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Respondent served a subpoena and notice of deposition upon Mr. O'Connor as evidenced by the exhibits attached to the instant motion and as confirmed by counsel's acknowledgment thereof via emails and via the filing of the instant motion for a protective order in order to thwart the taking of the deposition. Consequently, by way of further response, the term "purported to serve" is vague and ambiguous and is therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted as stated. 4. Admitted in part; denied as stated. It is admitted that Mr. Gault sent an email on September 24, 2008 to "Brady, Ralph, George, and Linda" on my behalf which attempted to coordinate schedules for the taking of depositions of three individuals pursuant to Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008. By way of further response, said email was sent (a) in an effort to avoid repeating past episodes where the parties, counsel, or witnesses could not attend a deposition due to their alleged unavailability on a given date, (b) to comply fully with Judge Oler's order which imposed a 49 day time period for depositions, and (c) to obtain a date for the purposes of securing a stenographer. By way of further response, counsel for the Estate is aware 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. 5. Admitted as stated. By way of further response, the Respondent is unaware of any rule which requires a party who has noticed a deposition of a witness to divulge beforehand the particulars of questions to be posed during the deposition. See, Pa.R.C.P. 4007.1(c). 6. 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 concerned other matters separate and apart from the deposition of this witness; moreover, it was uncooperative and non-responsive to the email of September 24 sent by Mr. Gault for the purposes described above in the response to Paragraph 4. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. See response above to Paragraph 1. By way of further response, the subpoena was served indicating a deposition date of October 13, 2008 (a) in accordance with Mr. Gault's email of September 24 which provided that either October 13 or October 14 would be tentatively utilized, (b) given Morgan, Lewis & Bockius' uncooperative and non-responsive email of September 25 which was designed to cause further delays and unnecessarily complicate this matter, (c) to comply fully with Judge Oler's order which imposed a 49 day time period for depositions, and (d) to accommodate Attorney Ralph Jacobs who did forward a cooperative and responsive email designating October 13 as a suitable date. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is demand. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is demand. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is demand. 11. Denied as stated. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius' email of October 3 fails to mention any "prior out-of--state obligations". By way of further response, said email of October 3 suggests that the witness never received a subpoena; therefore said email is contradicted by the filing of the instant motion for a protective order and by the exhibits attached thereto. Moreover, the instant motion was filed by counsel situate in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania who attached a copy of the subpoena to the instant motion; as the subpoena was served by ordinary mail and by certified mail to Mr. O'Connor at his offices at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, it is believed and therefore averred that the most logical way that the subpoena or a copy thereof was provided to counsel in Mechanicsburg was via either the witness or counsel in Philadelphia. See response above at Pazagraph 1. See also response above at Pazagraph 7 regarding Morgan, Lewis & Bockius causing further delays and unnecessazy complications in this matter. 12. Admitted in part; denied as stated. It is admitted that the Respondent did not respond to, nor cause a response to be made, to the email of October 3 as of the date of the filing of the instant motion. By way of further response, the Respondent did cause to be made a response to said email on the afternoon of October 8, 2008 prior to receipt by mail of the instant motion. Said response attempted to select a date for this witness's deposition during the weeks of October 20 or October 27 as stated by counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. The Respondent admits that consent to this motion, if sought, would not have been forthcoming. By way of further response, see response above to Pazagraph 4 as to whether Mr. Gault is authorized to consent to this motion under Rule C.C.R.P. 208.2(d) inasmuch as he has not entered his appearance as counsel in this matter. 13. Admitted as stated. See responses above to Paragraphs 1 and 11 regarding the witness's receipt of the subpoena. By way of further response, the Respondent believes and therefore avers that a check for the amount of one day's attendance and round trip mileage was to be submitted upon demand of the witness. See, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5903(h). The witness and his counsel aze invited to supply a demand for said amounts and a check for same will be forwarded promptly. 14. 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 wherein it has been indicated by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius that the witness is available to be deposed. The latter 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, Robert M. Mumma, II P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 PRO SE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Emergency Response to Emergency Motion of Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. for Protective Order was served this date as follows: By U S Mail first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Brady Green, Esquire Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Court-Appointed Auditor 1701 Market 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 Bvhand-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 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 DATE: October 9, 2008 BY: ~c~~-~`t ~L.~~GGti~' S Ro ert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowrnansdale, PA 17008 717-612-9720 PROSE