Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-09 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN RE: ESTATE OF ORPHANS' COURT DIVISIQ!]~ ROBERT M. MUMMA ~ -~ Deceased N0.21-86-398 -~,' n~' ~ - j - -;~ rn -- -- ; MOTION TO QUASH ~~, ~ `" ` A SUPOENA "3 ~ ~ ' ' AND NOW, this /~ day of April, 2009, comes DEAN SCHWARTZ (Schwartz) by and through his undersigned counsel, BALL, MURREN & CONNELL, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 234.4 (b), and moves this Court to quash the subpoena served by or on behalf of Robert M. Mumma, II (Mumma) and in support thereof states as follows: 1. On April 10, 2009, Mumma caused to be served at the Malvern, Pennsylvania law offices of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP ("Stradley") a subpoena for Dean Schwartz ("Mr. Schwartz") to appear in Carlisle, Cumberland County, for a hearing in the above- captioned case during the period April 21, 2009 through Apri123, 2009. (A copy of the Subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 1). ~ 2 ' Counsel has attempted to contact Mr. Mumma to obtain his concurrence to the Motion as required by C.C.R.P. 208(d), but the telephone number listed on the subpoena (Exhibit 1) has been called numerous times, has not been answered, and appears not to have an answering machine in place. Counsel has, in addition, forwarded a letter to Mumma advising him of the plan to file the Motion (Exhibit 2). z The presiding judge is J. Wesley Oler, Jr. ~J u 2. It is surmised that the subpoena was intended for Dean Schwartz, an attorney with Stradley, although it was directed to "Dean Swartz" (sic). 3. The subpoena calls for Mr. Schwartz to attend a hearing on behalf of Mumma but Mumma had not, prior to service of the subpoena, discussed the matter with the undersigned whom Mumma knows to be Mr. Schwartz's counsel in other litigation in which Mumma is the party plaintiff. 4. The subpoena requested by Mumma is the latest in his long series of efforts to inconvenience and financially burden Mr. Schwartz and Stradley. 5. In a separate case, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, PLAINTIFF v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA BOTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY RONAN STEVENS & YOUNG (sic), docketed at No. 99-1546 Civil Term, Cumberland County, (sometimes referred to herein as the "CRH case") Mr. Schwartz, anon-party in that action, was noticed for a deposition (but not subpoenaed by Mumma) on or about May 25, 2006 (Exhibit 3 attached) with the proposed deposition in that matter to occur on June 28, 2006. 6. On or about June 14, 2006, the undersigned, for Mr. Schwartz, filed a Motion for Stay of Discovery and For A Rule to Show Cause Upon Plaintiff Concerning A Proposed Deposition (Exhibit 4 attached). 7. By Order of June 21, 2006, the Court in the CRH case stayed discovery pending an August 17, 2006 hearing (Exhibit 5). On August 17, 2006, a hearing was held before the Court (J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. presiding) which hearing was not attended by Mumma (copy of hearing transcript without exhibits is attached as Exhibit 6). 2 • 9. Following the August 17, 2006 hearing, the Court issued an order cancelling the deposition of Mr. Schwartz (Exhibit 7). 10. On or about October 6, 2006, Mumma in the CRH case provided a Notice of Deposition without subpoena for Mr. Schwartz with a proposed deposition date of November 14, 2006 (Exhibit 8). 11. On October 27, 2006, Mr. Schwartz, by the undersigned, filed a Motion for Stay of Discovery concerning the notice of deposition (Exhibit 9, without attachments). 12. On December 29, 2006, the Court conducted a hearing concerning the proposed deposition of Dean Schwartz and concerning other matters and issued an order which closed the record and took the matter under advisement (Exhibit 10). 13. By Order of January 2, 2007, the Court entered an order granting limitations upon the deposition of Mr. Schwartz, to wit, that the depositions would take place in Philadelphia at the offices of Stradley within sixty days of the order but failing agreement upon a specific date then the deposition to occur on March 29, 2007 (Exhibit 11). 14. By letter of January 15, 2007, Eric J. Wiener, then counsel for Mumma proposed dates for the Schwartz deposition in the CRH case (Exhibit 12). 15. The undersigned responded to Attorney Wiener on January 19, 2007 and proposed an alternative date of February 26, 2007, for the deposition of Mr. Schwartz (Exhibit 13). 16. Attorney Wiener forwarded to the undersigned a Notice of Deposition for Mr. Schwartz to take place on February 26, 2007 at the offices of Stradley at 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia (Exhibit 14). • I7. On February 22, 2007, Attorney Wiener forwarded two letters to the undersigned, with the first cancelling the Schwartz deposition and the second, revised letter postponing the Schwartz deposition (Exhibits 15 and 16). 18. By letter of March 13, 2007, the undersigned inquired of Attorney Wiener about the status of the Schwartz deposition (Exhibit 17). 19. By subsequent letter dated March 15, 2007, the undersigned advised Attorney Wiener that Mr. Schwartz would be available for deposition on April 25, 2007 (Exhibit 18). 20. A series of dates was explored by counsel and, at the request of Mumma's attorneys, the deposition of Mr. Schwartz was scheduled for May 10, 2007 (Exhibit 19); and a Notice of Deposition was delivered citing the May 10, 2007, date (Exhibit 20). 21. Subsequently, the undersigned was advised that counsel for one of the defendants in the case for which Mr. Schwartz was to be deposed was unavailable for the deposition on May 10, 2007 and, as a result, an alternative date, June 14, 2007, was proposed for consideration by Attorney Wiener and other counsel (Exhibit 21). 22. By Praecipe dated April 18, 1007, Attorney Wiener withdrew his appearance of representation for Mumma (Exhibit 22). 23. In April, 2007, attorneys Mark A. Fink, Elizabeth A. Ferrell and Katherine I. Funk and the firm Sonnenschein, Noth & Rosenthal, LLP were admitted as counsel for Mumma. 24. By letter of May 7, 2007, the undersigned inquired of Mumma's counsel about the deposition of Mr. Schwartz (Exhibit 23). 25. On or about May 25, 2007, the undersigned confirmed to other counsel that one of Mr. Mumma's attorneys, Ms. Funk, had advised that the deposition would not be conducted. (Exhibit 24). 4 • 26. The counsel for Mumma identified in Paragraph 21 above on or about October 17, 2007, filed a Petition to Withdraw (Exhibit 25) which Petition was granted by the Court on November 29, 2007 (Exhibit 26). 27. Mumma has not taken any action to further attempt to depose Mr. Schwartz in the CRH case though nearly two (2) years have passed since the deposition was last scheduled which, in effect, shows Mumma's lack of interest and failure to follow through on what at the time was a matter of apparent urgency to him. 28. Mumma now seeks to compel Mr. Schwartz by a subpoena served on April 10, 2007, to travel to Carlisle and spend three (3) full days while Mumma likely endeavors, in what appears to be nothing more than an account review related to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, to advance yet again his wholly unsuccessful and fully adjudicated theories which form the cornerstone of his CRH case and all the other litigation he has spawned over the years. 29. Mr. Mumma's attempt to force Mr. Schwartz to appear in the Orphans' Court proceeding is a further manifestation of his scattershot approach to the many, many litigations which he has filed or in which he participates and is, it appears, another in a long list of activities initiated in bad faith and to cause unreasonable annoyance to Mr. Schwartz and anyone else Mumma whimsically identifies from time to time and is not for any Legitimate purpose. 30. In prior or current actions conducted by or for him, Mumma has conducted depositions of David A. Landrey, now retired from Stradley, and Karl Sherman, at one time an associate of Stradley, and in another litigation, cross-examined Mr. Landrey and his effort now to subpoena Mr. Schwartz in a proceeding with which Mr. Schwartz had had no role cannot possibly elicit anything more that related by Mr. Landrey and many others over the years. • 31. The case scheduled before this Court for next week apparently has seen extensive discovery dating back years but has never included any effort by Mumma to depose Mr. Schwartz, thus this ploy by Mumma to call Mr. Schwartz as a witness appears to be a late, inept effort on his part to reopen discovery in the case with the clear result of unnecessarily burdening the Court and Mr. Schwartz as Mumma engages in a fishing expedition in what should otherwise be a precise and focused proceeding. 32. That Mr. Mumma has had no discussions with Mr. Schwartz -ever -confirms that he has no reasonable basis to assert that Mr. Schwartz has any relevant information related to the hearing and this recent maneuver is designed only to harass, burden and inflict needless expense Mr. Schwartz. 33. Mr. Schwartz has very recently had extensive ankle and foot surgery to include a tendon transplant, breaking and resetting of the heel and a bone graft in the first metatarsal bone in the front of the foot. His mobility is limited and compromised and travel is particularly difficult. An appearance as demanded by Mumma could produce complications in the healing process and would most certainly run the risk of jeopardizing recovery and complete healing. Mr. Schwartz's affidavit concerning the surgery, his limitations and the impossibility of attending the hearing are set forth in his statement attached as Exhibit 27. 34. The fact is that Mr. Schwartz `s involvement with any aspect of the Mumma businesses dates back nearly twenty years. 35. Mumma has given no indication that Mr. Schwartz has any information relevant in any manner to whatever theories or objections he seeks to advance in the captioned case. 36. It is submitted that the subpoena is little more than a fishing expedition in a situation in which Mumma has had more than adequate opportunity to investigate and develop evidence 6 • prior to simply throwing a witness on the stand to be subjected to Mumma's musings, meanderings, and uniformly ill conceived theories. 37. Sadly, this latest effort typifies Mr. Mumma's gamesmanship, lack of preparation and forethought and can only have as its goal an effort to further obfuscate the proceedings and the relevant issues for consideration by the Court. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted for the compelling reasons set forth that the subpoena of Dean Schwartz should be quashed with costs, fees and expenses imposed upon Mr. Mumma. Date: /~ ~a~ Respectfully submitted ~f ~~~ '~~ Richard E. Connell, Esq. ID #21542 Ball, Murren & Connell 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Dean Schwartz 7 i i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard E. Connell, Esq., herby certify that I have on the below date caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Quash a Subpoena to be served on the person and in in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PRE-PAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 DATE: ~~ v~~9 Richard E. Connell, Esq. 8 ~ i COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Docket No IN RE: Estate of Robert M. Mumma No. 21 - 86 - 398 SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY To: Dean Swartz l . You are ordered by the court to come to Second Floor Court Room, Old Cumberland County Courthouse (Specify Cowrtroom or other place at Carlisle ~ Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on April 21~- 23, 2009 at 8:00 o'clock, A M, to testify on behalf of Robert M. Mumma it in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. Requested by: Name: Address Telephone: Supreme Court ID: Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market St. -Suite 164, t_emoyne, PA 17043 717-612-9720 PRO SE fj BY THE COURT, /~~ Date: ~7 CUt _ 'ster of WillslClerk of bans' tart ~" Note: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuabl c tiin~ ; hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa R.C.P.No.234.1. If asubpoena for a production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. • LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 (717)232-8731 PHILIP J. MURREN FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL RICHARD E. CONNELL (1916-1999) TERESA R. MCCORMACK THOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1108 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1108 April 15, 2009 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 RE: Estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased Our Client: Dean Schwartz Dear Mr. Mumma: On April 16, 2009, I will be filing a Motion to Quash the subpoena of Dean Schwartz. Local rules of court require that I seek your concurrence. I have tried to reach you by phone at the number listed on the subpoena of Dean Swartz (sic). There is no answer at that number and there is no recording device, it seems. Accordingly, I am advising the Court that you do not concur. Ve - s ~.. ~ ~. _ '~ Richard E. Connell • • ~( ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND ~ ~"'~ Plaintiff, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -Law CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG, Defendants. No. 99-1546 Civil Term NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Robert Mann Mumma, II hereby gives notice of the deposition of the following: DEAN SWAR'>CZ CARE OF: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS The deposition of Dean Swartz will be taken on Wednesday, 3une 28, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. until finished or continued to another day in the conference room at the offices of Robert M. Mumma, II, 840 Market Street, Suite 164, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043, which will be continued until completion before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath. In accordance with Rules 234.1 and 4007.1(d)(2) et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition all items and/or documents of which he is aware, if any, which are listed on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference and which materials are likely to lead to discoverable information pertaining to the Complaint in this matter, any pending Motions in this cause and his defense or defenses if any to the averments made in this Complaint served upon his counsel herein. Dated: May 25, 2006 Robert M. Mumma, II `-` In Pro Se Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 2 • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 25th day of May, 2006, I, Daryl E. Hewitt, Paralegal to Robert M. Mumma, II hereby certify that I served the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew Haar, Esq. Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7'~' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 Attorneys for CRH, Inc. and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box Y i 08 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Thomas J. Williams, Esq. No V. Otto, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys or Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Allen C. Warshaw, Esq. Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling 17 North Second St., 15~' Fl. Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Linda Mumma Roth ~: ~~ Daryl E. Hewi 3 • ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff, v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG, Defendants. Civil Action -Law No. 99-1546 Civil Term ~~EXHIBIT A" TO DEPOSITION NOTICE OF DEAN SWARTZ BEING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG (SECOND SET) TO: DEAN SWARTZ And his attorney: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009.11, Robert M. Mumma, II requests that you produce the documents hereinafter described and permit Plaintiff to inspect them and to copy such of them as he may desire. Plaintiff requests that the documents be made available for this inspection at his office located at $40 Market Street, Suite 164, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof. s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff will be responsible for these documents so long as they are in his possession. Copying will be done at Plaintiff's expense and the documents will be properly returned after copying has been completed. • This Request is intended to cover all documents in the possession, custody, and control of Defendant, his agents, employees, and attorneys. I. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or constituting. B. "Document" means, without limitation, any written, printed, typed, photocopied, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation, including letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combinations thereof, transcripts, correspondence, memoranda, minutes, reports, financial reports, notes, records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, studies, analyses, contracts, agreements, projections, estimates, working papers, summaries, opinions, reports, drawings, appraisals, and all drafts thereof. If a document has been prepared and several copies which are not identical or if original identical copies are no longer identical by reason of subsequent notation or other modification of any kind whatsoever, including but not limited to notations on the backs of pages thereto, each individual copy is a separate document. C. "Defendant" as used within this individual document request means Stadley, Ronan, Stevens and Young. D. "You" and "Your" shall mean Dean Swartz including any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf for any purpose. E. As used herein, "Plaintiff' means Robert M. Mumma, II. • • II. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All documents reviewed by you in conjunction with the sale of the "Pennsy Supply businesses" or relating to Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company for any purpose from June 1986 until the present time. Please provide the name of the party that supplied the document. Dated: May 25, 2006 Robert M. ~ Mumma, II f In Pro Se BOX 58 Bowmansdaie, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS "~`~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Plaintiff v. . CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA CIVIL ACTION -LAW MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, NO. 99-1546 LEWIS AND BOCKiUS, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP Defendants PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2006, upon consideration of the Motion of Dean Schwartz, Esquire and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP for an order under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4012 and Pa.R.Civ.P. 4013, and after hearing thereon, it is ORDERED that: Plaintiff s attempt to depose Dean Schwartz on June 28, 2006 is stayed. BY TAE COURT, J. ~J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Plaintiff v. . CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2006, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion of Dean Schwartz, Esquire and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, Defendant, a Rule is granted upon Plaintiff to show. cause why the deposition of Dean Schwartz should not be barred. Rule returnable the day of , 2006 in Room of the Cumberland County Courthouse at All discovery stayed. BY THE COURT, o'clock. J. • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE UPON PLAINTIFF CONCERNING A PROPOSED DEPOSITION r" `v ~ •::~ ._._ ,~__ _ ~ t5 _ f - ~.....^ -1 ~ `_ .~ -. G; =-< AND NOW, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 206.5, Pa.R.Civ.P. 4012, Pa.R.Civ.P. 4013 and Cumberland County Rule of Procedure 206.4 (c) comes Dean Schwartz, Esquire, anon-parry, and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, a defendant in the captioned matter and a firm in which Mr. Schwartz is a parkner, and files this Petition for the following reasons: l . On or about May 25, 2006, Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II, caused to forward to the undersigned counsel for Stradley, Ronon a purported notice of deposition to Dean Swartz (sic) to schedule a deposition of Mr. Schwartz for June 28, 2006 in Lemoyne, PA (Exhibit "A"). 2. Mr. Schwartz while an attorney and partner at Stradley, Ronon, is not a party to the litigation and the notice of deposition did not include a subpoena. 3. The undersigned did not agree to accept service of any notice of deposition for Mr. Schwartz and, in fact, had received no inquiry from Plaintiff concerning possible discovery involving Mr. Schwartz. 4. Mr. Schwartz would be unavailable for a deposition on June 28, 2006 due to scheduling conflicts and the undersigned is also unavailable on that date as he serves as counsel to a statewide organization which has a regularly scheduled meeting on that date. 5. Plaintiff had not previously contacted the undersigned counsel to seek to determine availability of dates for any deposition nor, to the knowledge of the undersigned, did the Plaintiff seek to inquire of counsel for the other parties defendant as to their availability. 6. In this and other litigation involving Mr. Mumma, depositions conducted by or for him of David A. Landrey and Karl Sherman, both attorneys at Stradley, Ronon at the time of their depositions, were conducted at the Stradley offices in Philadelphia. 7. Until Plaintiff recently served Requests for Production of Documents upon each of the Defendants and the Notice of Deposition, this litigation has effectively been without any activity since June 2004 when 2 i \J David A. Landrey, an attorney with Stradley, Ronon was deposed in Philadelphia for two (2) days by Plaintiff. 8. This case was instituted over seven years ago. It is one of a number of cases involving the Plaintiff and relating to along-completed sale of so- called Mumma family businesses to defendant, CRH plc. Among those sued in this case are Mr. Mumma's mother, two of his sisters, the buyer - CRH plc, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP, a Philadelphia law firm, and Stradley, Ronon. 9. Over the many years since Mr. Mumma first disagreed with the notion that the family businesses -would be sold, he or his counsel in this and other cases have deposed, among others, his mother, the family's. prior counsel, William Boswell, Brady Green, Esquire of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, George Hadley an accountant who had been involved with the Mumma family businesses, David A. Landrey, Esquire on two occasions, Karl Sherman an attorney with Stradley, Ronon and have cross- examined or interrogated some of the parties in this case at trials or hearings involving the many litigations Mr. Mumma has commenced. 10. The attempted deposition of Mr. Schwartz involving matters dating back at least thirteen (13) years and perhaps as much as seventeen (17) years, are clearly designed to simply prolong a long, tortured and decidedly unsuccessful course of litigation all to the substantial inconvenience, burden and expense of the parties defendant and Mr. Schwartz. U 11. The results in Plaintiff's course of litigation so clearly establishes that he has no valid or pending action that he should not be permitted now to proceed with discovery of any sort. Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.1 (a). 12. Given the Plaintiff s penchant for not accepting the futility of his theories relating to long settled matters, it is submitted that unless the deposed of Mr. Schwartz is barred, Mr. Mumma will next proceed to depose every attorney, law clerk, paralegal, secretary, copy clerk, file clerk or mailroom clerk who might ever, at any time, seen or touched any piece of paper which did nor might have related to the Mumma family businesses and of any due diligence review undertaken by Stradley, Ronon over thirteen (13) years ago. It is respectfully submitted that the periodic efforts by Mr. Mumma to breathe life into his disproved theories should be halted as it abuses the discovery system and ignores the finality of the decisions by various courts concerning Mr. Momma's vendetta. WHEREFORE, Dean Schwartz and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP request a protective Order staying the deposition and the issuance of a Rule to Show Cause upon the Plaintiff to prevent the deposition of Dean Schwartz. A proposed Protective Order and a proposed Rule are attached. 4 i ~ Date ~ /~ `~/~ 6 Respectfiilly Submitted Richard .Connell, Esquire I.D. # 21542 Ball, Murren & Connell 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 232-8731 Attorney for Defendant, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP Attorney for Dean Schwartz, Esquire 5 • ROBERT M. I~I1[JNIlVIA, II, : Plaintiff, v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUNIMA, LINDA MUNIMA : ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG, Defendants. i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -Law No. 99-1.546 Civil Term NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Robert Mann Mumma, II hereby gives notice of the deposition of the following: DEAN SWARTZ CARE OF: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.Q. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS The deposition of Dean Swartz will be taken on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. unti15:00 p.m. until finished or continued to another day in the conference room at the offices of Robert M. Mumma, II, 840 Market Street, Suite 164, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043, which will be continued until completion before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath. 1 In accordance with Rules 234.1 and 4007.1(d)(2) et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition all items and/or documents of which he is aware, if any, which are listed on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference and which materials are likely to lead to discoverable information pertaining to the Complaint in this matter, any pending Motions in this cause and his defense or defenses if any to the averments made in this Complaint served upon his counsel herein. Dated: May 25, 2006 Robert M. Mumma, II `' In Pro Se Box 58 ~owmarisdale, PA I7"008 (717) 612-9720 2 ~ ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 25th day of May, 2006, I, Daryl E. Hewitt, Paralegal to Robert M. Mumma, II hereby certify that I served the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew Haar, Esq. Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 Attorneys for CRH, Inc. and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murree & Connell J':O. Boy 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens c~ Young Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Thomas J. Williams, Esq. No V. Otto, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 1'7013 Attorneys or Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Allen C. Warshaw, Esq. Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling 17 North Second St., 15~' Fl. .Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Linda Mumrna Roth ~. Daryl E. Hewi 3 ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff, v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -Law CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUNIl~IA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG, Defendants. No. 99-1546 Civil Term "EXIIIBIT A" TO DEPOSITION NOTICE OF DEAN SWARTZ BEING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG (SECOND SET) TO: DEAN SWARTZ And his attorney: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Hamsburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009.11, Robert M. Mumma, II requests that you produce the documents hereinafter described and permit Plaintiff to inspect them and to copy such of them as he may desire. Plaintiff requests that the documents be made available for this inspection at his office located at 840 Market Street, Suite 164, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof. Plaintiff will be responsible for these documents so long as they are in his possession. Copying will be done at Plaintiffls expense and the documents will be properly returned after copying has been completed. This Request is intended to cover all documents in the possession, custody, and control of Defendant, his agents, employees, and attorneys. I. DEFIlVITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or constituting. B. "Document" means, without limitation, any written, printed, typed, photocopied, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation, including letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combinations thereof, transcripts, correspondence, memoranda, minutes, reports, financial reports, notes, records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, studies, analyses, contracts, agreements, projections, estimates, working papers, summaries, opinions, reports, drawings, appraisals, and all drafts thereof. If a document has been prepared and several copies which are not identical or if original identical copies are no longer identical by reason of subsequent notation or other modification of any kind whatsoever, including but not limited to notations on the backs of pages thereto, each individual copy is a separate document. C. "Defendant" as used within this individual document request means Stadley, Ronan, Stevens and Young. D. "You" and "Your" shall mean Dean Swartz including any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf for any purpose. E. As used herein, "Plaintiff' means Robert M. Mumma, II. • • II. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All documents reviewed by you in conjunction with the sale of the "Pennsy Supply businesses" or relating to Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company for any purpose from June 1986 until the present time. Please provide the name of the party that supplied the document. Dated: May 25, 2006 ~Roberf M:~Mumma; II In Pro Se Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard E. Connell, Esquire, hereby certify that I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid to the following: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snellbaker, Brenneman & Spare 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~' Floor Hamsburg, PA 17101 Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling, P.C. 17 North Second Street, 15`x' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Manson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II BOX 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 ;' ~, Date: June 14, 2006 Richard E. Connell, Esquire ~, /;if • • ,`~, -` ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff, v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, and STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS, & YOUNG, LLP: Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT ~~= r~ a _. AND NOW, this 21St day of June, 2006, upon consideration of Defendants Motion For Stay Of Discovery And For A Rule To Show Cause Upon Plaintiff Concerning A Proposed Deposition, a hearing is scheduled on Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pending the hearing, discovery is STAYED. BY THE COURT, ~ ~~ ~.~ Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Plaintiff Pro Se Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snellbaker, Brenneman & Spare 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis &Bockius Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis &Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis &Bockius Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for CRH, Inc. and Pennsy Supply Inc. Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling, P.C. 17 North Second Street, 15th Floor Harrisburg,. PA 17101 Attorney for Linda Mumma Roth Thomas J. Williams, Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Ri and E. Connell, Esquire 11, Murren & Connell .O Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young • '. • ~Palhsy l~e~rr ~.~ `~. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS N0. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY,: CIVIL ACTION - LAw INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS & BROCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS & YOUNG, Defendants: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN RE: HEARING ON DEFENSE MOTIONS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, JR., J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, August 17, 2006, in Courtroom Number 1. APPEARP_NCES: MATTHEW M. HAAR, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 For Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Keith 0. Brenneman, Esquire ~~~~ ~ ,.: ,,y,~~~~ 44 west Main street ~1Testjmony~s~~n--~ --...,..,~ ,gtmyt-~ Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ;~ ~ ~, `._: - _.. ~ ~ ~ For Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius t1iiQ / ,~,,, G.,,' i~~..'~ ~'__. - ~..... Richard E. Connell, Esquire Ball, Skelly, Murran & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 For Defendants Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young and Dean Schwartz, Esquire Nicole L. Borda, Esquire Buchan«n Ingersoll, P.C. 213 Market Street, P.O. Bc.~x 12023 Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 For Defendant Linda Mumma Roth • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TO WITNESS FOR CRH, INC., AND PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS Karen L. Blough, RMR 9 -- -- -- EXAMINATION Richard E. Connell, Esquire by the Court 8 Mattheu.~ M. Haar, Esquire b}~ the Court 15 3 _. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TO EXHIBITS FOR CRH, INC., AND PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. TDENTIFIED ADMITTED Ex. No. 1 - transcript 10 15 Ex. No. 2 - May 17, 2002, opinion by Judge Oler 12 15 Ex. No. 3 - July 29, 2002, opinion by Judge Oler 12 15 Ex. No. 4 - July 8, 2003, Superior Court decision 12 15 Ex. No. 5 - September 18, 2003, Superior Court order 12 15 Ex. No, 6 - April 18, 2005, opinion by Judge Pellegrini 13 15 Ex. No. 7 - November 23, 2005, order From PA Supreme Court 13 15 Ex. No. 8 - February 7, 2006, order by PA Supreme Court 13 15 Ex. No. 9 - March 15, 2005, opinion by Judge Hoover 14 15 Ex. No. 10 - January 12, 2006, Superior Court decision 14 15 Ex. No, 11 - July 25, 2006, Supreme Court order 14 15 Ex. No. 12 - notice of deposition 15 16 4 •... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thursday, August 17, 200 Carlisle, Pennsylvania (The following proceedings were held at 9:45 a.m.:) THE COURT: We will let the record indicate the Court is in session in the case of Mumma v. CRH, Inc., at No. 99-1546 Civil Term. The Court had scheduled a hearing on several matters this morning for 9:30 a.m. The Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II, has not appeared for the hearing; and it is now 9:45 a.m. Present on behalf of pefendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius is Keith 0. Brenneman, Esquire. Present on behalf of Linea Mumma Roth is Nicole L. Borda, Esquire. Present on behalf of Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc., is Matthew M. Haar, Esquire. And present on behalf of Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young LLP is Richard E. Conner (sic), Esquire. Will counsel place on the record what issues are presently before me in court? MR. HAAR: Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. Matthew Haar on behalf of CRH and Pennsy. The issue that we bring before Your Honor, there was a notice of deposition sent by Mr. Mumma for a Harry G. Lake. As we indicated in a motion for protective order and to quash the notice of deposition, we indicated that -- that we believe that's actually for Harry G. Lake, Jr. Harry G. Lake is deceased. 5 • ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The matter on our behalf before Your Honor this morning is to quash the notice of deposition and to -- and we seek a protective order prohibiting any further deposition of Mr. Lake. THE COURT: Is it a notice of deposition or a subpoena? Nom. HAAR: It was a notice of deposition, Your Honor, which in itself is a problem because Mr. Lake personally is not a party to the litigation. He is employed by Pennsy Supply. THE COURT: All right. And are there any other motions before the Court? NHt. CONNELL: Your Honor, we had filed a motion for a stay of discovery and rule to show cause upon Plaintiff concerning the proposed deposition of Dean Schwartz. THE COURT: And for the stenographer, you area Richard E. Connor. Ngt. CONNELL: Connell. Yes. THE COURT: All right. ~, Ngt. CONNELL: And on behalf of Stradley, i Ronan. Dean Schwartz is an attorney with Stradley, Ronan. j A notice of deposition was sent to my office. There was no subpoena. Mr. Schwartz is not a party either. We have ' noted t~ze defect in that respect. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, other attorneys at Stradley have been deposed in the past. In addition, documents were requested as part of that notice of deposition which followFd a -- a request for production of documents that had been served upon Stradley by Mr. Mumma and to which objection was -- was served upon him. In the past, thousands and thousands of pages of documents have been provided to Mr. Mumma by Stradley, Ronan. Records have been expected at Stradley's office. And the purpose of our motion is ultimately to bar further discovery in connection with this matter as it relates to deposition of Dean Schwartz. THE COURT: All right. And now are the counsel who filed these motions able to verify the truthfulness of the contents to be known? Mr. Connell, do you want to -- are you willing to state under oath that the contents of your petition are true and correct? N42. CONNELL: I will indeed, Your Honor. An in fact.. yes, there is no question about it. THE COURT: All right. Would you raise your right hand, please? RICHARD E. CONNELL, ESQUIRE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 7 ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q And are the contents of the petition -- I should say the motion for stay of discovery and for a rule to show cause upon Plaintiff concerning a proposed deposition true and correct with respect to the document that yc u filed? A Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Rnd Mr. Haar, are you willing to do the same? MR. HAAR: Yes, Your Honor. There is just one correction to the motion that we filed. And also, I'm prepared to move forward with evidence this morning if Your Honor would prefer that. THE COURT: It will certainly be safer from your standpoint to do so. MR. HAAR: Okay. Are we ready to proceed then, Your Honor? THE COURT: We are. I think we waited now 20i minutes for Mr. Mumma to appear, and he has not called the i office to indicate he is caught in traffic or anything of ~i that sort. I~ NiR. HAAR: Your Honor, CRH and Pennsy call Karen Flouch as a witness. THE COURT: Miss Blouch, the witness stand is 8 ~._ ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ right there. KAREN L. SLOUCH, RMR, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. Q Ma'am, would you please state your name? A Karen Blouch. Q Are you currently employed? A I'm self-employed. Q By who are you -- by whom are you employed? A I'm self-employed. Q Right. Do you do work for Geiger & Loria court reporting? A Yes. Q Did you in your capacity as a court reporter take the deposition of Harry G. Lake, Jr., on March 20th, 2000? A Yes. Q And did you generate a transcript from that deposition? A I did. MR. HAAR: Your Honor, may I please approach the witness? I have a copy of this for Your Honor as well. THE COURT: That has to be marked by the 9 •~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stenographer as an exhibit. MR. HAAR: I've pre-marked all the exhibits. THE COURT: You will need to give it to the stenographer to get her initials on it. Int. HAAR: I have copies for counsel as well. THE COURT: How has this exhibit been marked? I~2. HAAR: This has been marked as Pennsy Exhibit 1. BY I~t . HAF Q Miss Blouch, does this appear to be a true and accurate copy of the transcript that you prepared of Mr. Lake's deposition? A Yes, it does. Q And if you would, please, turn to the second to last page before tab 1. A Yes. Q Is that your signature? A Yes. Q And did you certify this as a true and accurate copy of that deposition? A I did. Ngt. HAAR: Thank you, Your Honor. I have no more questions for this witness. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Connell, do you have any questions? 10 .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CONNELL: I do not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Brenneman? MR. BREIrfNEMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT; Miss Borda? MS. BORDA: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may step down. May this witness be excused? MR. HAAR: Yes, Your Honor. I was just going to ask that. Is sl THE MR. THE MR. THE MS. THE ie f nee to go? COURT: Mr. Connell? CONNELL: No objection. COURT: No objection, Mr. Brenneman? BRENNEMAN: No, Your Honor. COURT: Miss Borda? BORDA: No. COURT: You may stay or leave as you choose. Thank you. MR. HAAR: Your Honor, the next evidence that we would like to offer is a series of self-authenticating exhibits. We have certain certified copies of various court opinions and orders. And I have these organized as a packet Exhibits 2 through 11. THE COURT: All right. And for the record, let`s have the stenographer get her initials on; and then you can identify them. Do I understand that these exhibits 11 ,.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S are -- are Pennsy Supply, Inc., exhibits but not C -- I~2. HAAR: They're also CRH exhibits. Just to keep the verbiage down on the exhibit tabs, I simply labelled them Pennsy 2 through 11. THE COURT: We'll deem them exhibits for both Defendants that you represent. MR. HAP.R: And, Your Honor, just to walk you through these exhibits, Pennsy Exhibit 2 is a May 17th, 2002, opinion issued by Your Honor. The certification and raised seal on the original are on page 1. The key in this documer.~t is on page 10 where Your Honor found that the basic premisF~ of Mumma's argument that two Pennsy Supply Corporations differing only by a comma existed at one time is untenable. Pennsy Exhibit 3 is July 29, 2002, opinion from Your Honor. Certification and raised seal are on page 1 of the document. This was Your Honor issuing a final decree in response to Pennsy 2. Pennsy Exhibit 4 is a July 8th, 2403, Superior Court decision. The certification and raised seal is on page 4. This affirmed Your Honor's decision identified in Pennsy 2 and 3. Pennsy 5 is a September 18th, 2003, order from the Superior Court. The certification and raised seal are on page 1 of the original. This denied Mr. Mumma's 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _. ~,.~. request for re-argument on Superior Court's decision affirming your order. I would then also draw Your Honor's attention to the Supreme Court denied review of the Superior Court's decisicn, and that is a publicly recorded decision at 577 P.A. 7~3, 847 A.2d 1287. To follow up on that case, Pennsy 6 is an April 8th, 2005, opinion issued by Judge Pellegrini in the Commonwealth Court. This was a mandamus action by Mr. Mum wherein he sought to have the Secretary of the Commonwealth either reject or correct the Commonwealth records regarding the two corporate filings that were at issue in the earlier litigation for Your Honor. Copies of those corporate filings are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the deposition transcript that was earlier marked. But anyway, Pennsy 6 is Judge Pellegrini's decision disposing of that case on preliminary objections. Pennsy 7 is a November 23rd, 2005, order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The certification and raised seal on the original are on page 1. This affirms Judge Psllegrini's decision. Pennsy Exhibit 8 is a February 7th, 2006, order by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying Mr. Mumma's request for re-argument in that matter. The certification 13 ~_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and raised seal on that original is on page 1. Pennsy 9 is a March 15, 2005, opinion by Judge Hoover of Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. This -- the certification and raised seal on the original document is on 10. Significance of this matter, Your Honor, is once again Mr. Mumma tried to litigate the two Pennsy theory. This time, he named Harry G. Lake, Jr., as an actual party to the litigation. The opinion sustained preliminary objections raised by all Defendants including Mr. Lake and dismissed the case. Pennsy 10 is a January 12th, 2006, Superior Court decision. The certification and raised seal on the original are on page 4. This sustained Judge Hoover's decision. And final exhibit in this stack is a July 25th, 2006, order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying Mr. Mumma's request for review of the Superior Court's decision. Certification and raised seal on the original are on page 1 of that document. THE COURT: Okay. Are you moving for the admission of those items? Ngt. HAAR: I would move for the admission of Pennsy and CRH Exhibits 1 through 11. THE COURT: Mr. Connell, do you have any objection to their admission? Int. CONNELL: No objection, Your Honor. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE MR. THE MS. THE Inc . , F~xhibits 1, admitted. COURT: BRENNEN COURT; BORDA: COURT: ?, 3, 4, Mr. Brenneman? fAN: No objection, Your Honor. Miss Borda? No objection, Your Honor. Pennsy Supply, Inc., and CRH, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are MR. HA,AR: And finally, Your Honor, one additional piece of evidence T was going to have Mr. Mumma authenticate. I would be willing to authenticate it for the record. That is the notice of deposition that we received with regard to Mr. Lake. THE COURT: All right. Raise your right han please. MATTHEW HAAR, ESQUIRE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q And can you identify that item and have it marked please? A Yes, Your Honor. I will identify what we've marked as Pennsy Exhibit 12. We offer this on behalf of Pennsy and CRH. This is a notice of deposition issued by Robert M. Mumma under the caption of today's case. Notice 15 ~_ ~.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of deposition is dated May 25th, 2006. It contains on page 3 a certificate of service which I am one of the listed partie:~ who received this as counsel in the case. I did in fact rFCeive this deposition notice. THE COURT: All right. Have the other counsel have any questions of this witness? MR. CONNELL: No, Your Honor. MR. BRENNEMAN; No, Your Honor. M5. BORDA: No, Your Honor, THE COURT: Is there any objection to admission of Pennsy Supply, Inc., CRH, Inc., Exhibit 12? MS. BORDA; No objection, Your Honor. MR. CONNELL: No, Your Honor. MR. BRENNEMAN: No objection. THE COURT: All right. Everybody said no I think. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 is admitted. MR. HAAR: Your Honor, that's all the evidence that Pennsy and CHR intends to present. THE COURT: Do you want to verify the contents of your petition under oath? MR. HAAR: I will do that for Your Honor with 2 actual corrections. The first will be in paragraph 4. I indicated that Mr. Lake's deposition was taken in related litigation before this Court. I was referencing the litigation in exhibit -- in Pennsy Exhibits 2 and 3. 16 ~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If you look at the transcript of that, it's actually in a case involving Dauphin Deposit Bank in Dauphin County. It's a different caption. But if you read the content of that deposition, it's actually somewhat ironic. Counsel. for Dauphin Deposit Bank keeps objecting that the testimony relates to what we've called the common litigation, not his case. So there's that correction. And the second correction is that -- it's actually an update. In paragraph 20, we indicate that there was a petition for allowance of appeal pending before the Supreme Court in the -- the matter where Mr. Lake himself was a party. And as we identified with Pennsy Exhibit 11, that matter was actually decided subsequent to the filing of~ our motion. It was decided by the Supreme Court on July I'~ 25th, 2006. And that request for review was denied. With the exc:.eption -- with those 2 exceptions, I will verify everything in the motion as true and correct. THE COURT; All right. Does any counsel other than Mr. Haar have any questions for him on that testimony? MR. BRENNEMAN: No, Your Honor. MR. CONNELL: No, Your Honor. MS. BORDA; No questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything further 17 ~ f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now before the Court on these two motions? MR. CONNELL: Your Honor, we have no testimc:ny to present, But as I've already indicated, I will verify the statements made in the motion. In addition, we would adopt all of the exhibits that have been introduced by Mr. Haar on behalf of his clients. Further, in our motion attached to it as an exhibit was the notice of deposition for Mr. Schwartz. We would like that to be considered an exhibit as part of -- as part of our presentation today. That is a file document already part of the record. THE COURT: All right. Very good. Does any counse have any questions for Mr. Connell? MR. BRENNEMAN: No, Your Honor. MS. BORDA: No questions, Your Honor. MR. HAAR: No questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Brenneman, was there anything further you wanted to say? MR. BRENNEMAN: There is not, Your Honor. THE COURT; And Miss Borda? MS. BORDA: Nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: And Miss Borda, what is your client's position on these motions? MS. BORDA: My client is inclined to actually allow Mr. Mumma to proceed with the deposition. She's of 18 ,> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the opinion that it doesn't directly inconvenience her in any way. And so she feels that he should be allowed to proceed and take them. THE COURT: All right. Very goad. Thank you. And Mr. Brenneman? Ngt. BRENfNEMAN: My client takes no position with rF•spect to the motion. THE COURT: And Mr. Haar, what is your position on Mr. Connell's motion? Ngt. HAAR: Your Honor, my client's position would be that we agree with the motion that any further discovery is simply unnecessary, and this is merely j calculated by Mr. Mumma to the extend these proceedings for no good. reason. j THE COURT: And Mr. Connell, what is your ', I position on Mr. Haar's petition? I NgZ, CONNELL; We -- Stradley, Ronan, Stevens ', & Youna agrees with the requested relief and the motion filed by Mr. Haar. And we believe that there should be a bar to further discovery as -- as proposed in Mr. Mumma's notice. THE COURT: And are you representing Dean Schwartz, Esquire, also in this matter? • NIl2. CONNELL: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We will enter this order. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r~. •.f AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule to Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a ProposEd Deposition, said motion having been filed on behalf of Dear Schwartz, Esquire, and Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young LLP, and following a hearing in which the Plaintiff did not appear and at which evidence was received as to the merits of the motion, the motion is granted to the extent that the deposition of Dean Schwartz, Esquire, is canceled. And we'll enter this second order. AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Ir.c.'s Motion to Quash Plaintiff's subpoena to Harry G. Lake or in the Alternative for a Protective Order, and following a hearing held on this date at which the Plaintiff did not appear and at which evidence was received on the merits of the motion, the motion is granted to the extent that the deposition and any associated subpoena directed to Harry G. Lake and/or Harry G. Lake, Jr., are hereby canceled and vacates respectively. Thank you very much. And Court is adjourned. (The proceedings concluded.) 20 ~.~ ~J ~~ CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. ,; Mandy L. Co~e~, RPR ~~~-~ Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. ~u\ 2..~ ?O~b Date 21 ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff VS CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA. MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS & BROCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS & YOUNG, Defendants • ~~ a GS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule To Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a Proposed Deposition, said motion having been filed on behalf of Dean Schwartz, Esquire, and Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young, LLP, and following a hearing at which the Plaintiff did not appear and at which evidence was received as to the merits of the motion, the motion is granted to the extent that the deposition of Dean Schwartz, Esquire, is canceled. By the Court, ~ G J. esley Ole Jr., J. Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Pro se Plair.:tiff Matthew Haar, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1604 For Defendants CRH, Inc, and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Keith 0. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Defendant for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius P • Thomas J. Williams, Esquire No V. Otto, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East Hich Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Defendants Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Richard E. Connell, Esquire Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 For Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young and Dean Schwartz, Esquire Nicole L. Borda, Esquire Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C. 213 Market Street P.O. Box 12023 Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 For Defendant Linda Mumma Roth :mlc • ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff, v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN STEVEN AND YOUNG Defendants, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Civil Action -Law No. 99-1546 Civil Term PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Robert Mann Mumma, II hereby gives notice of the deposition of the following: DEAN SWARTZ CARE OF: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS The deposition of Dean Swartz will be taken on Tuesda,~November 14, 2006 at 9:00 a .m. until 5:00 p.m. until finished or continued to another day in the conference room at the offices of Robert M. Mumma; II 840 Market Street, Suite 164, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043, • ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • which will be continued until completion before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath. In accordance with Rules 234.1 and 4007.1(d)(2) et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition all items and/or documents of which he is aware, if any, which are listed on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference and which materials are likely to lead to discoverable information pertaining to the Complaint in this matter, and his defense or defenses if any to the averments made in this Complaint. Dated: October ~ 2006 ~- ~.~..-~~.s Robert M. Mumma, II In Pro Se Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUIVIlVIA, II Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIlVIlVIIE MiTMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP Defendants CIVII, ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE UPON PLAINTIFF CONCERNING A NOTICE OF DEPOSITION FOR DEAN SCHWARTZ AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 206.5, Pa.R.Civ.P. 4012, Pa.R.Civ.P. 4013 and Cumberland County Rule of Procedure 206.4 (c) come Dean Schwartz, Esquire, a non-party, and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP ("Stradley, Ronon"), a defendant in the captioned matter and a firm in which Mr. Schwartz is a partner, and file this Petition for the following reasons: 1. On or about October 6, 2006, Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II, caused to forward to the undersigned counsel for Stradley, Ronon a Notice of Deposition to Dean Swartz (sic) to schedule a deposition of Mr. Schwartz for November 14, 2006 in Lemoyne, PA (Exhibit "A"). s'Ii ~''~ Plaintiff cannot seem to understand flat he continues to misspell Mr. Schwartz's surname. 1 LJ 2. This Notice of Deposition is identical in form to a Notice of Deposition about which this Honorable Court conducted a hearing on August 17, 2006 which Plaintiff failed to attend and which resulted in an Order entered by the Court, a copy of which is attached, marked as Exhibit «B„ 3. The Motion for Stay filed in connection with the prior Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is made a part hereof. 4. Mr. Schwartz, while an attorney and partner at Stradley, Ronon, is not a party to the litigation and the notice of deposition did not include a subpoena and could therefore be ignored as being an improper notice under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. The undersigned did not agree to accept service of this October 6, 2006 notice of deposition for Mr. Schwartz and, in fact, had received no inquiry from Plaintiff concerning possible discovery involving Mr. Schwartz after the Court's August 17, 2006 Order. 6. As in the prior effort to depose Mr. Schwartz, Plaintiff did not contact the undersigned counsel to seek to determine availability of dates for any such deposition nor, to the knowledge of the undersigned, 'did the Plaintiff seek to inquire of counsel for the other parties defendant about their availability. 7. In this and other litigation involving Mr. Mumma, depositions 2 • conducted by or for him of David A. Landrey and Karl Sherman, both attorneys at Stradley, Ronon at the time of their depositions, were conducted at the Stradley offices and, in addition, early in this litigation, Plaintiff s counsel conducted, at Philadelphia, the deposition of Attorney Brady Green of the Morgan, Lewis firm. 8. Plaintiff attached to the Notice of Deposition what he captions as Exhibit "A" to Deposition Notice of Dean Swartz (sic) being Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents directed to Stradley, Ronan (sic}, Stevens and Young" (Exhibit "D" hereto) which is effectively a subset of a Request for Production of Documents served upon Stradley, Ronon on or about May 4, 2006 (Exhibit "E" attached) and to which Stradley, Ronon responded and objected on or about June 5, 2006 (a copy thereof attached hereto -marked as Exhibit "F" and made a part hereof) and that same response applying to the above identified Exhibit "D". 9. In 1999, Plaintiff sought production of documents by Stradley, Ronon by subpoena (Exhibit "G") in this case. Among those documents were "[a]ll documents within your possession, custody or control, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, diaries or other documents, relating in any way to and [sic] of the ... corporate entities enumerated under "Stradley Clients" and related entities including but ~~ not limited to... s', Corporate entities which might be intended by Plaintiff in the Request for Production associated with the proposed deposition of Mr. Schwartz and which he lists as "Pennsy Supply businesses" but which he does not define are: G.A.T. Distribution Corp; Pemisylvania Supply Company, Inc.; Kim Company; Nine- Ninety-Nine, Inc; Ten-O-One, Inc., Kodie Acquisition Company and perhaps others all of which he listed in the 1999 Request for Production. • Due Diligence Reports Preparatory to or following Sale of Pennsy Supply, Inc... . Stock books, Share Records; Stock Ledger Books; Minutes of Directors' Meetings for any entity named in client list; Memoranda and Correspondence from Officers, Directors, Shareholders; Memoranda and Correspondence from and to attorneys representing the same or other clients related to the named parties to the above captioned proceeding; Shareholders Agreements; Buy -Sell Agreements Stock split Agreements Corporation By-laws and amendments thereto Any revocation Agreements which revoke, revise or speak to any of the above Plans of Merger" Also sought were: All documents within your possession, custody or control, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, diaries or other documents, relating in any way to: a. the negotiation of the Sale or transfer of Pennsy Supply, Inc., Nine-Ninety-Nine, Ten-O-One and/or any of their predecessors in which your firm or any member of it participated. b. Records leading up to and follow-up communications after the files and records of entities were turned over or delivered by 4 • your firm to any person not a member of your firm..." On or about July 26, 1999, Stradley, Ronon filed an Answer to Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents (Exhibit "H") Thereafter, on or about November 18, 1999 Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Compel Production of Documents" (Exhibit "I"). On February 15, 2000, this Honorable Court scheduled a discovery conference (See Order attached as Exhibit "T'). After conducting the discovery conference, the Court ordered Stradley, Ronon to furnish "copies of any minutes, stock ledger books, shareholders' agreements, documents reflecting the issuance of stock certificates, and/or buy-sell agreements pertaining to Nine Ninety Nine, Inc., Pennsy Supply, Inc., Pennsylvania Supply Company, Inc., of Harrisburg, Kim Company, and Pennsy Supply Inc., in its possession at this time." (Exhibit "K") 9. On May 30, 2000, the undersigned, on behalf of Stradley, Ronon, delivered to Attorney David S. Brady, then counsel for Plaintiff, documents in the Stradley files which were responsive to the Order and consisting of 2390 pages. Within that production of documents is all information Plaintiff now seeks to have reproduced. The "new" Request is part of Plaintiff's pattern which seeks to cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expenses to Stradley, Ronon and violates Pa.R.Civ.P. 4011 (b) and (e). 10. This litigation was instituted over seven (7) years ago. It is one of a number of cases involving the Plaintiff and relates to along-completed sale of so-called "Mumma family businesses" to defendant, CRH plc. Also sued in this case are Mr. Mumma's mother; two of his sisters; Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP, a Philadelphia law firm; and Stradley, Ronon. 11. Over the many years since Mr. Mumma first disagreed with the notion that the family businesses would be sold, he or his counsel in this and other cases have deposed, among others, his mother; the family's prior counsel, William Boswell, Brady Green, Esquire of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, George Hadley an accountant who had been involved with the Mumma family businesses, David A. Landrey, Esquire of Stradley, Ronon (on two occasions), Karl Sherman, an attorney with Stradley, Ronon, and have cross-examined or interrogated some of the parties in this case at trials or hearings involving the many litigations Mr. Mumma has commenced. 12. The attempted deposition of Mr. Schwartz involving matters dating back at least thirteen (13) years, and perhaps as much as seventeen (17) years, is clearly designed to prolong a long, tortured and decidedly unsuccessful course of litigation by Plaintiff -all to the substantial inconvenience, burden and expense of the parties defendant and Mr. Schwartz. 6 • 13. The results in Plaintiff's course of litigation so clearly establish that he has no valid or pending action that he should not be permitted now to proceed with discovery of any sort. Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.1 (a). 14. Given the Plaintiff s penchant for not accepting the futility of his theories relating to long settled matters, it is submitted that unless the deposition of Mr. Schwartz is barred, Mr. Mumma will proceed to depose every attorney, law clerk, paralegal, secretary, copy clerk, file clerk or mailroom clerk who might, at any time, have seen or touched any piece of paper which did or might have related to the Mumma family businesses and any due diligence review undertaken by Stradley, Ronon over thirteen (13) years ago. It is respectfully submitted that the periodic efforts by Mr. Mumma to breathe life into his disproved theories should be halted as they abuse the discovery system and ignore the finality of the decisions by various courts concerning Mr. Mumma's vendetta. The Court should, it is submitted, prohibit Plaintiff from deposing Mr. Schwartz. In the alternative, the Court should impose limitations upon the time, place and manner of the deposition, including, but not limited to: a. prohibiting Plaintiff from requiring that any documents be provided by Stradley, Ronon; b. requiring Plaintiff to coordinate with all counsel for the Defendants and Mr. Schwartz, through counsel, the date of a deposition; c. requiring that the deposition take place in Philadelphia at the offices of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young; LLP. 7 WI~REFORE, Dean Schwartz, Esquire and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP request the following relief: a. that this Honorable Court issue an order staying the deposition of Mr. Schwartz pending resolution of this Motion; and b. that this Court issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted; and c. that the Court bar the deposition of Mr. Schwartz by Plaintiff; and d. that the Court prohibit Plaintiff from requiring that any further documents be provided by Stradley, Ronon; or in the alternative to c. above, that the Court: 1. require Plaintiff to coordinate with all counsel for the Defendants, and Mr. Schwartz, through his counsel, the date of deposition; and 2. require that the deposition take place in Philadelphia at the offices of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens and Young, LLP; and f. impose attorneys fees against Plaintiff for pursuing this course of conduct, after his failure and/or refusal to attend the prior hearing concerning the first attempted deposition of Mr. Schwartz. Date: October 27, 2006 Respectfully Submitted Richard E. Connell, Esquire I.D. # 21542 Ball, Murren & Connell 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 232-8731 Attorney for Defendant, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP Attorney for Dean Schwartz, Esquire 8 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard E. Connell, Esquire, hereby certify that I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid to the following: Nicole L. Borda, Esquire (PA #89214) Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC 213 Market Street Third Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 No V. Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Date: October 27, 2006 Richard E. Connell, Esquire • ~ ;~ ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, ROMAN, STEVENS and YOUNG, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW N0. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2006, upon consideration of the Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule To Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a Notice of Deposition for Dean Schwartz and Request for Production of Documents, upon consideration of the Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule To Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a Notice of Deposition for Alan Gedrich and Request for Production of Documents, and upon consideration of Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc.'s Motion To Quash Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition of Harry G. Lake, To Issue a Protective Order and To Imposition Sanctions, and following a hearing held on this date, the record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under advisement. By the Court, Eric J. Wiener, Esquire 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 For Plaintiff Matthew M. Haar, Esq. Two North Second Street 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 For Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Seth T. Mosebey, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlilse, PA 17013 For Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Richard E. Connell, Esq. P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 For Stradley, Ronan Stevens & Young, LLP Keith 0. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Linda Mumma, Defendant Pro Se 512 Creekview Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. Jayson R. Wolfgang, Esq. 213 Market Street 2nd Floor, P.O. Box 12023 Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 (Courtesy copy) ~~ L Pcb 1 ~,~ ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS and YOUNG, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2"d day of January, 2007, upon consideration of (a) Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc.'s Motion To -Quash Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition of Harry G. Lake or in the Alternative for a Protective Order, (b) the Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule To Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a Notice of Deposition for Dean Schwartz and Request for Production of Documents, and (c) the Motion for Stay of Discovery and for a Rule To Show Cause upon Plaintiff Concerning a Notice of Deposition for Alan Gedrich and Request for Production of Documents, and following a hearing held on December 29, 2006, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The motion regarding the deposition of Harry G. Lake, Jr., which was the subject of an earlier hearing and order, is granted and the deposition is cancelled; 2. The motions regarding the depositions of Dean Schwartz and Alan Gedrich are granted to the extent, but only to the extent, that: a. The depositions shall be conducted at the offices of the deponents within 60 days of the date of this order, at a time convenient for all counsel and the deponents; to the extent that such a time can not be agreed upon, the depositions shall be held on Thursday, March 29, 2007, commencing at 10:30 a.m. b. A private area shall be made available to Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II, and his counsel for their use during the course of the depositions, including recesses; c. The deponents shall not be required to produce any documents already provided to Plaintiff, or any documents the production of which was previously objected to without further pursuit at the time by Plaintiff by way of a motion to compel discovery; and d. Plaintiff shall bear the reasonable expense of production of any document requested by Plaintiff to be produced by a deponent, and the tender of such sum, as demanded, shall be a prerequisite to the requirement for production. Eric J. Wiener, Esq. 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9303 Attorney for Plaintiff Matthew M. Haar, Esq. 2 North Second Street 7t'' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. J BY THE COURT, Richar E. Connell, Esq. P.O ox 1108 rrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Boclcius Seth T. Mosebey, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Linda Mumma Roth 512 Creekview Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant, pro Se rc . ~ ~ a :~_ 1.AW OFFICES .OF • ~RIC J ~TIENER 2407'Park Drive . ~ , k=larrisburg, PA 1.7.1.10 ?17.657.'77bi 717.657.5837 Fax ewienerlaw(c~cornca5t.ner January 15, 2007. Matthew M. Haar, Esquire :. Via Facsimile. Transfer 2 N. Second St.; 7`~ Fl.r. ' , Z57 7581 ' Harrisburg, PA .171'01 . Richard E. Connell, Esquire i~ia Facsimile Transfer 1'.O. Box. 1 l08 • ~ r32-?14Z . Hazr`isbuig, PA 17l 08=T 108 .Keith O. Bzenneman, Esquire ~ Via Facsimile, Transfer 44 W.. Main Street 697-7681 Iy>;ec}rarri csburg, PA ." 17055.: "Seth T. Mosebey; Esquire . Yia Facsimile Transfer ' Ten East Hight Street 243-,1850 • Car-lislc; PA 17013 Re: J(toberti 1V1(..: Mumma Il vs. CRH, et al No. 99-1546 , Gentlemen: . Pursuant do Judge Oler's Order of ,ianuary "2"", 2907,1 pzopose the foalowing dates to depose Deari Schwartz and Alan Gedrich: I azn available February 5 and G, as well as Febnaary 12 - 15. I would ~appzeeiate your advising tY-e immediately of suitable dates and I will thereafter sEnd out a notice. ~ I am requesting also that Mr.: Connell advise me of the ;address and location, and what arrangements will be made for use during the deposition recesses, etc. Please also note that we will be renewing the request for pzoduction of documents and a request that original. documents be rrtade available for inspection of that time; as originally noticed in pievious deposition notices for Dean Schwartz. I believe we axe entitled to review original documents, and the coricertcd effort fo avoid making thoac available is a:violafion ufMr~. Muuriua's rights as a iuitiurity shazeholder of these various corporations. if we cannot have access to the original LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 (717)232-8731 PHILIP J. MURREN FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 RICHARD E. CONNELL TERESA R. McCORMACK THOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1108 HAxR.ISBURG, PENNSYI.vANIA 17108-1108 VIA FAX January 19, 2007 Eric J. Wiener, Esquire Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener LLC 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dear Mr. Wiener: WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL (1916-1999) The dates you proposed were not available but Mr. Schwartz will be available on February 26 and Mr. Gedrich will be available on February 27. A conference room will be available from which you and Mr. Mumma can operate during those days. urs, Richard E. Connell REC/hmp cc: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire (via fax) Matthew M. Haar, Esquire (via fax) Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire (via fax) Mrs. Linda Mumma Roth (via First Class Mail) From:JFC TEMPS CARLISLE ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Plaintiff, v, 717 243 4974 02/C~"`'7 16:40 X007 P.006 CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLBY, RONAN STEVENS AND YOUNG Defendants, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION No. 99-1546 Civil Term PLEASE TAKE NOTICE tixat pursuant to Rule 4007,1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Robert Mann Mumma, II hereby gives notice of the deposition of the following: DEAN SWA,RTZ CARE OF: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Marren & Connell P.O. Box l 108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys far Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS The deposition of Dean Swartz will be taken on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. until 5;00 p.m. until finished or continued to another day in the conference room at the offices of Stradley, Ronan, Stevens and Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA., which will be continued until completion before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath. ]N THE COURT OP' COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -- Law From:JFC TEMPS CARLISLE 717 243 4974 02/C~^~7 16:40 #007 P.007 In accordance with Rules 234.1 and 4007.1(d)(2) et seq, of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition all items and/oi• documents of which tae is aware, if any, which are listed on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference and which materials are likely to lead to discoverable information pertaining to the Complaint in this matter, and his defense or defenses if any to the averments made in this Complaint. Dated; February ~% , 2007 ~~ _.~ ERIC J. NER ESQUIRE SUPRE E COURT # 18046 2407 PARK DRIVE HARRISBURG HARRISBURG, PA 17110 717 657-7701 • • ERIC JS UP • ~7~IIENERLLC 2407 P~1tk Drive Harri,tburg, PA 1711,0 717.657.7701 717.657.2556 Far ejw(ivaJ w• law.ctii~i February 22, 2007 VIA FACSIM>(LE AND FIRST CLASS MARL Richard E. Connell, Esquire gall, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc,, et a!. Your File No. 2403 Dear Mr. Connell: Please be advised that the depositions of Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Gedrich, scheduled for February 26th and February 27'" have been CANCELLED. When a new date and time have been set, you will be notified of the same, Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact ma at your convenience. Thank you, Very~ruly~urs, ./ Eric J. W ever, Esquire cc: Robert MummQ, II Katherine I. Funk, Esquire (VIA E-MAIL) . Robert W. Barton (VIA E-MAIL) S001Z00'd Ztr0# Ztr:ii LOOZ/ZZ1Z0 trL6tr StrZ LLL 3~S[~~'d0 SdW31 0~(':u,oa~ From:JFC TEMPS CARLISL~ ERIC1 ~s ~~ WIENERLL~ 2801 Park Drive Harri~btirl;, PA 171 10 717.657.7701 717.657.2556 Fox e~w(ct?raw-gyp W~CI)11) 717 243 4974 02/~~"~ 17:18 #048 P.002/002 February 22, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Richard E. Connell, Esquire Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1148 I2E: Mumma v. CRH, Inc„ et al. Your File No, 2405 Dear Mr. Connell; Please be advised that the depositions of Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Gedrich, scheduled for February 26`x' and February 27`h have been ~( STPONED. A new date and time have been set, you will be notified of the same. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience, Thank you. f~ .-•~ ~'bery truly y ~rs, ric J. iener, Esquire cc; Robert Mumma, II (VIA E-MAIL) Katherine I. Funk, Esquire (VIA E-MAIL) Robert W. Barton (VIA E-MAIL) Matthew M. Haar, Esquire (VIA FAX) Keith p. Brenneman, Esquire (VIA' )?AX) Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire (VIA FAX) i i ... _ ~.... _. ,...... j .. r ~ LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 (717) 232-8731 HIUP J. MURREN (CHARD E. CONNEU_ FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 ERESA R. MCCORMACK HOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1108 HAxxISBUR.G, PENNSYI.vANIA 17108-1108 VIA FAX March 13, 2007 Eric J. Wiener, Esquire Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener LLC 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc., et al. Our File No. 2405 Dear Mr. Wiener: WIWAM BENTLEY BALL (1916-1999) . I have been awaiting afollow-up to your original and corrected faxes of February 22, 2007. Ver y yours, Richard E. Connell REC/hmp • LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PErrIVSYI.vANIA 17011 (71 7) 232-8731 'HILIP J. MURREN FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL tICHARD E. CONNELL ~ 1916 1999) -ERESA R. McCORMACK -HOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1108 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1108 VIA FAX March 15, 2007 Eric J. Wiener, Esquire Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener LLC 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc., et al. Our File No. 2405 Dear Mr. Wiener: My first efforts at getting dates discussed yesterday was unsuccessful. That is not surprising as only my calendar was considered. I now have firm dates of Apri124 for Mr. Gedrich and Apri125 for Mr. Schwartz. Will those dates work for your client and counsel? Ve y yo Richard E. Connell REC/hmp • • LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 (717)232-8731 FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 1108, Harrisburg, PA 17108 FAX TRANSMISSION PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Eric J. Weiner, Esq. Lee Rosengard, Esq. FAX NUMBER: (717) 657-2556 (215) 564-8120 FROM: Richard E. Connell, Esq. DATE: March 19, 2007 RE: Deposition Dates NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 MESSAGE: I have received confirmation that Mr. Schwartz will be available May 10th and Mr. Gedrich on May 11th. I am holding those dates and have instructed them to do so as well. Taxpayer I.D. #23-1699659 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE LEGIBLE COPIES OF THE DESIGNATED NUMBER OF PAGES, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AT (717) 232-8731. The information contained in this facsimile transmission contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the designated recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmission to us at the above address via the U. S. Postal Service. Thank you. • • \, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Civil Action -Law Plaintiff v. CRH, INC. PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVEN & YOUNG No. 99-1546 Civil Term Defendant NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Robert Mann Mumma, II hereby gives notice of the deposition of the following: DEAN SWARTZ CARE OF: Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1108 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS The deposition of Dean Swartz will be taken Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. until finished or continued to another day in the conference room at the offices of Stradley, Stevens and Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, 1~.J • PA., which will be continued until completion before a Court Reporter duly authorized to administer the oath. In accordance with Rules 234.1 and 4007.1(d)(2) et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Deponent is requested to bring with him to the deposition all items and/or documents of which he is aware, if any, which are listed on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference and which materials are likely to lead to discoverable information pertaining to the Complaint in this matter, and his defense or defenses if any to the averments made in this Complaint. Dated: March~2007 By: Eric J. Wiener Attorney I.D. No. 18046 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7701 (717) 657-2556 Fax Attorney for Plaintiff • LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP Hn.,I., PENNSYLVANIA 17011 (717)232-8731 PHIUP J. MURREN FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 WIWAM BENTLEY BALL RICHARD E. CONNELL TERESA R. McCORMACK (191 6 1999) " THOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1106 HAxxISBiIRG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1108 VIA FAX April 11, 2007 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman Saui Ewing LLP 44 West Main Street 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Harrisburg, PA 17101 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc., et al. Our File No. 2405 Gentlemen: Eric J. Wiener, Esquire Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener LLC 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Depositions could occur June 13 and 14 or June 14 and 15. Mr. Gedrich is not available on June 14. 'Therefore the possibilities are: Mr. Gedrich June 13 Mr. Schwartz June 14 OR Mr. Schwartz June 14 Mr. Gedrich June 15 Please advise about your availability. Mr. Wiener, I ask that you coordinate with your co-counsel. Ve s, y Richard E. Connell REC/hmp • i ,~~~, Eric J. Wiener, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER LLC I.D. No. 18046 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 657-7701 Attorne for Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma II ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO.99-1546 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please withdraw the appearance of Eric J. Wien ' e, on behalf of Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II in the above matter. L W FF QF ERIC J. WIENER LLC By Eric J. Wiener, Esquire I.D. Number 18046 2407 Park Drive Dated: April 18, 2007 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)657-7701 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II Law OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENIVSYL~TANIA 17011 (717) 232-8731 PHILIP J. MURREN FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 RICHARD E. CONNELL TERESA R. McCORMACK THOMAS A. CAPPER MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX )108 HaxR.ISBUItG, PErnvsYlvaNla 17108-1108 May 7, 2007 Mark A. Fink, Esquire Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1089 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc., et al. Our File No. 2405 Dear Mr. Fink: . WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL (1916-1999) Since Mr. Wiener is no longer involved in the referenced case, I am writing to you to inquire about your plan to depose Messrs. Gedrich and Schwartz. I had been in touch with Mr. Wiener before his withdrawal as counsel and advised him that Mr. Gedrich and Mr. Schwartz would be available on June 13 and 14 at the offices of Stradley, Ronon in Philadelphia. I have heard nothing about whether those dates are acceptable. Please advise as if those dates are not possible, I will need again to coordinate with the proposed deponents and others to identify available dates. Ver -, Richard E. Connell REC/hmp cc: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire (via First Class Mail) George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire (via First Class Mail) Matthew M. Haar, Esquire (via First Class Mail) Lee A. Rosengard, Esquire (via E-Mail) Ms. Linda Mumma Roth (via First Class Mail) • ~. PHILIP J. MURREN RICHARD E. CONNELL TERESA R. McCORMACK THOMAS A. CAPPER LAW OFFICES BALL, MURREN & CONNELL 2303 MARKET STREET CAi~ HILL, PE)vrrsyl.vArrlA 17011 (717) 232-8731 FACSIMILE (717) 232-2142 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1108 HAxRI5BUxG, PErrrrs'YLVAIVIA 17108-1108 May 25, 2007 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Manson Deardorff Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Mumma v. CRH, Inc., et al. Our File No. 2405 Gentlemen: WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL (1916-1999) Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~` Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 This is to confirm my phone conversation with each of you on May 22 which reported that I had received a call from Attorney Katie Funk concerning the proposed depositions of Dean Schwartz and Alan Gedrich in Philadelphia for which we had all reserved June 13 and 14. Ms. Funk apologized for the delay in contacting me. She advised that her firm is reviewing the Mumma case materials and is considering what course to follow in connection with the litigation, and more specifically, discovery. She advised that at this point depositions of Mr. Gedrich and Mr. Schwartz will not be conducted, although, she told me that it may be decided to depose them at some point in the future. I advised Ms. Funk that I would communicate this information to all counsel who had reserved time on their calendazs as a result of early discussions and correspondence with Attorney Wiener who no longer represents Mr. Mumma. Veryfruly yours, t. Richard E. Connell REC/hmp cc: Katherine I. Funk, Esquire Ms. Linda Mumma Roth ROBERT M. MIJNIlvIA II Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, and STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG, Defendants NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1) AND NOW, the law firm of Sonnenschein Nath &Rosenthal LLP and Mark A. Fink, Elizabeth A. Ferrell, and Katherine I. Funk, attorneys with Sonnenschein Nath &Rosenthal LLP, (hereinafter collectively "Sonnenschein") hereby petition this Court pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1) for leave to withdraw as counsel for Robert M. Mumma II, in the above-captioned action, and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. In mid-March 2007, Robert M. Mumma II ("Mr. Mumma") retained Sonnenschein to serve as legal counsel in this action. 2. Mr. Mumma maintains residences at: Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008, and 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 3. Mr. Mumma's business address is: 840 Market Street Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 • 4. Recent differences between Mr. Mumma and Sonnenschein have placed Sonnenschein in conflict with Mr. Mumma and have made it impossible for Sonnenschein to continue as counsel for Mr. Mumma. As such, professional considerations require termination of the representation. 5. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(1), a lawyer is required to withdraw if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 6. Pursuant to Cumberland County Rules of Civil Procedure 208.3(a) Sonnenschein certifies that the full text of the Petition To Withdraw As Counsel Pursuant To Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1) and the Proposed Order has been disclosed to Mr. Mumma, and counsels for Defendants CRH, Inc., et al., by electronic communication and federal express priority overnight. Counsel for CRH, Inc. and Pennsy Supply, Inc. object to the Petition. Counsel for Stradley Ronan Stevens & Young concur with the Petition. Counsel for Morgan Lewis & Bockius has not responded to the Petition. Counsel for Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma concur with the Petition. Linda Mumma Roth has not responded to the Petition. Mr. Mumma concurs with the Petition. 10. The Honorable Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. has ruled on all previous matters in No. 99-1546. WHEREFORE, Sonnenschein respectfully requests that this Court grant leave to withdraw from the representation of Mr. Mumma in this matter. DATED: October ~ , 2007 -2- • Respectfully submitted, SONNEN IN A & ROSENTHAL LLP By: Mark A. Fink (Pa. 8'0'898} 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1089 (212) ?68-6700 (212) 768-6800 (facsimile} Elizabeth A. Ferrell Katherine I. Funk 1301 K Street, NW Suite 600, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-6400 (202) 408-6399 (facsimile) -3- • VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. S B LLP -4- Date: ~ ~ ~~© • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Fink, do hereby certify that on October /o~, 2007, the foregoing Petition to Withdraw As Counsel and Proposed Order were filed with the Cumberland County Court and served by United States mail, postage pre-paid, on the following: Matthew M. Haar, Esq. Saul Ewing LLP 2 North Second Street, 7th floor Harrison, PA 17101 Attorney'for Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Murren & Connell 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Stradley Ronan Stevens & Young Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan Lewis & Bockius George Faller, Esq. Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Seth T. Mosebey, Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Linda Mumma Roth 512 Creekview Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant, pro Se Robert M. Monona II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 -5- Robert M. Mumma II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 Robert M. Mumma II 840 Market Street Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 r~ -6- ROBERT M.1~IlUMMA II Plaintiff v. • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE 1\~UMIvIA, LINI?A ~~ ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, and STRADLEY, RONAN, 5TEVENS AND YOUNG, . Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2007, upon consideration of SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP's Petition to Withdraw As Counsel Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1), and for good cause shown, said petition is hereby granted. BY THE COURT: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. C, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Plaintiff v. CRH,-INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS and YOUNG, Defendants :r i ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29`'' day of November, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition To Withdraw as Counsel Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1), and of Defendants CRH, Inc. and Pennsy Supply, Inc.'s Answer in Opposition to the Petition To Withdraw as Counsel, and in the absence of other responses, the Rule issued on October 24, 2007, is made absolute, the petition of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, and Mark A. Fink, Esq., Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., and Katherine I. Funk, Esq., to withdraw as counsel for Robert M. Mumma, II, is granted, and Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, and Mark A. Finlc, Esq., Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., and Katherine I. Funlc, Esq., are excused from further responsibility on behalf of Plaintiff in this case. i~ BY THE COURT, Mark A. Fink, Esq. 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1089 Attorney for Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq. Katherine I. Funk, Esq. 1301 K Street, NW Suite 600, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Attorneys for Plaintiff Matthew M. Haar, Esq. 2 North Second Street 7`" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Ri and E. Connell, Esq. 03 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Seth T. Mosebey, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Linda Mumma Roth 512 Creekview Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant, pro Se • • Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Robert M. Mumma, II 6880 S.W. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 rc C~ `1. ~ i AFFIDAVIT I, Dean Schwartz, swear and affirm as follows: 1. I have not had any professional dealings or personal involvement concerning the Estate of Robert M. Mumma or, to my knowledge, any matter which may be subject of the hearing for which I have been subpoenaed on April 10, 2009 by Robert M. Mumma, II. 2. While I had professional involvement in assisting David Landrey, Esq., of the firm Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, in late 1989 and the very early 1990s concerning an opinion letter of the fum relating to a sale of what might be called the Mumma family businesses, I have never had a role involving the administration of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma. 3. At no time, to my recollection, have I ever spoken with, corresponded with or otherwise had contact with Robert M. Mumma II concerning the Estate of Robert M. Mumma or any other matter. 4. My attorney accurately recounts in the Motion to Quash an effort by Robert M. Mumma, II to depose me over a period of time beginning in 2006 and ending in 2007. Since then, no efforts have been made by Mr. Mumma or anyone representing him to depose me in any litigation and most certainly not in connection with this case for which I have been subpoenaed. 5. I have reviewed the Motion to Quash to which this affidavit will be appended and believe the statements made therein to be true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 6. On April 1, 2009, I had major surgery and, as of this date, I have not returned to work. As a result of the surgery, I am unable to drive and must, for extended periods, have my foot propped to minimize the swelling and the throbbing which occurs at the surgery site. To supplement the statements in the Motion about my surgery, I have an incision on the inside of my foot that is eight to nine inches long and a second incision where my heel was broken which incision is four inches long. What little ambulation I can manage is on crutches with no weight bearing. Under the present prognosis, I cannot begin driving until the end of July. To date, physical therapy has not commenced because the surgery site is still healing. It is not simply inconvenient forme to travel and attend a hearing; it is, as a practical matter, impossible. ,~~~ ~~ a~ DA E C~ J Ilan Schwartz