Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-08 (2)1N RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMPvION PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNT', PENNSYLVANIA Deceased ORPHAN'S COURT DIVI;iION NO.21-86-398 RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO THE MOTION BY HARRY G. LAKE, JR. TO OUASH THE SUBPOENA ISSUED BY ROBERT M. MUMMA, II OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who responds as follows to the Motion by Harry G. Lake, Jr. to Quash the Subpoena Issued by Robert M. Mumma, II or in the alternative for a Protective Order, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or ~,-, information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averm`en~strict ~~_ ; -~ proof is demand. _ ..,,, ~,;; ~; ~ 3. Admitted. ~-:~ ~~-`~ ~':' ~ - - w c~ - 1 4. 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. Furthermore, counsel to Lake indicated in email dated October 7, 2008 (attached as Exhibit G to Lake's motion) that the entire "firm" represented Lake, not just Mr. Haar and Mr. Finio; the reply email dated October 8, 2008 referenced that any partner or associate at the firm could attend the deposition. By w,ay of further response, the term "numerous attempts to attack" is self-serving, argumentative, vague, ambiguous, and legally insufficient such that no response is required and is therefore denied. 5. 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. By way of further response, Pa.R.C.P. 4007.1(a.) provides for "reasonable notice" and the witness has admitted that the subpoena and deposition notice were mailed on September 30, 2008. By way of further response.. Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 provided in pertinent part (a) that depositions were to be taken within 49 days, and (b) that the matter was to be decided pursuant to Pa.R.C'.P. 206.7. Under Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(c), the undersigned was authorized to take depositions "if an answer is filed raising disputed issues of material fact". The Executrices /Trustees' answer was filed on September 18, 2008. Therefore, the subpoena and deposition notice scheduling a deposition for October 13, 2008 (on the same date as two other depositions were noticed, i.e., of Lisa M. Morgan and Joseph A. O'Conner, Jr.) provided "reasonable notice", were issued in good faith, and were in compliance with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Lake is not a~~arty; it is denied that his status as anon-party has any bearing upon whether or not he c;an be deposed as a witness inasmuch as the Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the taking of depositions of either a party or a person who is not a party. See Paragraph 14 of~ the instant motion filed by Lake's counsel citing a Rule which references "the deponent" or "a person. or party". 7. Denied as stated. The Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The Martson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts is in writing and speaks for itself. Therefore, no response is required to Paragraph #7 and therefore it is denied. By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to lie relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. 8. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. By way of further response, the undersigned is not required to response to what Lake or his counsel can or cannot discern as to what "would be remotely relevant to the matter now before the Court" vis-a-vi:s the relevance of testimony to be adduced at his deposition, and the undersigned is unaware of any rule which requires a party who has noticed a deposition of a witness Ito 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, Paragraph #8 is self-serving, argumentative, vague, ambiguous, and legally insufficient such that no response is required and is therefore denied. By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. 9. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. It is specifically denied that the subpoena was served for "improper purposes" or "to vex, annoy, and harass". By way of further response, the undersigned is not required to response to what Lake or his counsel can or cannot "believe" vis-a-vis the relevance of testimony to be adduced at his deposition and/or the service of the subpoena. Paragraph #9 is inappropriate inasmuch as it attempts to involve another entity nominated as "Pennsy" which is not a party to the :pending motion to disqualify the Estate counsel. By way of further response, Paragraph #9 is self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no response is required and is therefore denied. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibits B and C attach copies of the said court orders; it is denied that court orders issued in another action have any bearing upon whether or not this witness can be deposed in this matter at this time. By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. 11. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. It is denied that Pa.R.C.P. 4012 is applicable in the case-at-bar as framed by Lake's counsel. By way of further response, see the responses above at Paragraph 10 and below at Paragraphs 12-15 which are incorporated herein. 4 12. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. It is specifically denied that there were any dispositive "scheduling issues identified above". Paragragh # 12(a) is denied. Strict proof is demanded. By way of further response, Paragraph # 12(a) is inappropriate inasmuch as it attempts to invo ve another entity nominated as "Pennsy" which is not a parry to the pending motion to disqualify the Estate counsel. It is further denied that any other such litigation has any bearing upon whether or not this witness can be deposed in this matter at this time. By 'way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. The averments of Paragraph #12(a) contain a multiplicity of terms which are (i) vague, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous, (including, birt not limited to, "certain corporate filings", "Pennsy businesses", "likely intends", "convoluted saga") and (ii) are otherwise not supported by proper citation, authority, or foundation. Byway of further response, Paragraph #12(a) is self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no response is required and is therefore denied. Paragraph #12(b) is denied. Strict proof is demanded. By way of further response, see the responses above at Paragraph #12(a) which are incorporated Herein. It is specifically denied that said date in 2000 has any bearing upon whether or not: this witness can be deposed in this matter at this time. It is further specifically denieci that the instant matter constitutes "related litigation" as framed by Lake's counsel. By way of further response, 5 Paragraph #12(b) is self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no respon:~e is required and is therefore denied. Paragraph #12(c) is denied. Strict proof is demanded. By way of further response, see the responses above at Paragraph #12(a) which are incorporated herein. By way of further response, the term "inappropriate effort to retaliate against Lake based on losing earlier litigation" is self-serving, argumentative, vague, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no respon:>e is required and Paragraph #12(c) is therefore denied. Paragraph #12(d) is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Lake is the father of Randy Lake; all other averments of Paragraph #12(c) are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further response, see the responses above at Paragraph #12(a) which are incorporated herein. Paragraph #12(d) is inappropriate inasmuch as it attempts to involve another person identified as "Randy Lake" who was not a person noticed to appear as a witness at a deposition on October 13, 2008. It is specifically denied that the proposed deposition constitutes a "personal attack". By way of fi.irther response, Paragraph #12(d) is self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no response is required and is therefore denied. 6 13. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. It is specifically denied that tYie subpoena was served in "bad faith" and/or "intended to annoy, oppress, harass, burden, and inflict needless expense". By way of further response, see the responses above apt Paragraph # 12 which are incorporated herein. By way of further response, Paragraph ~ 13 is self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, legally insufficient, vague, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no response is required and is therefore denied. 14. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Pa.R.C.P. 401.1 contains such language; it is denied that said rule is applicable in the case-at-bar as framed by Lake's counsel. It is specifically denied that the instant subpoena and deposition notice were sought "in bad faith" andlor "would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or to a person or party." By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. 15. Denied. Strict proof is demanded. It is specifically denied (i) that sanctions are appropriate, (ii) that there is evidence of record of "dilatory, obdurate and vexatious conduct", and (iii) that attorneys fees should be awarded as discovery sanctions in this matter. By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. By way of further response, Paragraph #15 i:s self-serving, argumentative, ambiguous, legally insufficient, and constitutes impermissible conclusions of law such that no response is required and is therefore denied. 16. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that pursuant to the local rules it is Judge Oler whom should be identified as the judge who has ruled on prior motions in this matter. It is denied that any other such litigation referenced as E~:hibits B and C has any bearing upon whether or not this witness can be deposed in this matter at this time. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit G is a. copy of said emails, and that same were exchanged between Mr. Haar and Mr. Gault. It is denied as stated that Lake's counsel contacted the undersigned directly with respect to this matter. It is specifically denied that Lake's counsel "attempted in good faith to resolve these issues" to the extent that "these issues" would encompass any of the matters referenced throughout Pazagraphs #9 - #16 of the motion filed by Lake's counsel dealing with any prior litigation, with Randy Lake, with "the Pennsy businesses", ~~vith corporate filings in 1982, with seeking a `second bite at the apple', with a personal lawsuit in Dauphin County, with nine judges over seven years, etc., as the emails cleazly contain no discussion whatsoever regarding such matters. By way of further response, the deposition of Lake is sought in this matter at this time for testimony which is reasonably believed to be relevant, probative, and material to the pending motion. By way of further response, the emails are in writing and speak for themselves. 8 WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that. this Honorable Court issue an Order which directs the parties to schedule the deposition of this witness at a convenient time and date, and on a date that is reasonably prior to the December 17, 2008 Argument Court date as is currently scheduled with respect to the underlying motion (i.e., The Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The Mairtson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts). Furthermore, the undersigned respectfully requests that such Order deny the relief requested in the various subparts of the "Wherefore" clause of thE; instant motion which relate to sanctions, quashing the subpoena, prohibitions against airy further discovery, andlor limitations on the scope, nature, and location of the deposition). DATE: October 23, 2008 Respectfully submitted, - I/1 r Robert M. Mumma, II Box F Grantham, P.A 17027 (717) 612-97'20 pro se 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Motion by Harry G. Lake, Jr. to Quash the Subpoena or in the Alternative for a Protective Order was served this date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Michael A. Finio, Esquire Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second St. - 7~' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 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 23, 2008 ~/J Robert I~7. Mumma, II Box F GranthaYn, PA 1702 7 717-612-9720 PROSE ROBERT M. MOMMA, II Box F Grantham, PA 17027 (717) 612-9720 October 23, 2008 Michael A. Finio, Esquire Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second St. - 7~' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: Estate of Robert M. Mumma No. 21-86-398 Orphans' Court -Cumberland County Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy of the Response to the Motion by Harry G. Lake, Jr. to Quash the Subpoena or in the Alternative for a Protective Order rrohich was filed this date with the Clerk of the Orphans' Court. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, ,~F 7""- Robert M. Mumma, II PRO SE RMM-sgt ENC. CC: Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. E~w,~e~e~e:) Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire -Auditor George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Brady Green, Esquire Ralph Jacobs, Esquire Linda Mumma Roth DUE TO THE REORGANIZATION OF LOCAL POST OFFICES, PLEASE NOTE MY NEW MAILING ADDRESS AS REFLECTED IN THE LETTERHEAD ABOVE.