Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-08 (5) ra r-_z ~:.~ _. --~ ,_~. , _ IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF -_., ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYI,~_ ANI Deceased ~' = c;• ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION - .= N0.21-86-398 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 o:f Lisa M. Morgan was noticed on October 13, 2008 pursuant to Judge Oler's Order of August 2.8, 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 fiarther 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 Mazch 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 Pazagraph 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 Paragraphs 3 and 4 which are incorporated herein. 14. Denied as stated. By way of further response, see the responses above at Paragraphs 3, 4, and 13 which are 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 a~unsel 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 declare 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, argumentative, 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; particulars 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 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. 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 Paragraph 16 which is incorporated herein. 19. Denied. See responses above regarding the Respondent's compliance with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 and proceeding under Rule 206.7, thereby limi~.ting the "specific matter or subject" to those encompassed by the Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis &Bockius and The Martson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the F;state and the Trusts. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 4 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 (a) the parties may comply with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, and/or (b) the parties be directed to reschedule the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan (such as this Court ordered in its Order dated October 8, 2008 that the deposition of Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. be rescheduled to a time more convenient, and in the event the parties are not able to agree, with the Court setting a date upon motion). 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 submo fitted, ~~~/ ~C~~rt~iv~j, ~ S Robert M. Mumma, II P.O. BOX S8 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 Response to the Executrices' Emergency Motion for Protective Order was served this date 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 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Court-Appointed Auditor 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 DATE: October 17, 2008 By; ~~~~'~ Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 717-61:Z-9720 PROSE