Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-09 r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE ESTATE OF . ROBERT M. MUMMA Deceased ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION N0.21-86-398 r ~.~ n ~~ ~ ' ~ ~? q ~ !.c , ~ ~ ^~ w - ~ ~ - ;r- t~ ~ t~ -z`1 .:~- ~~ ~ ~c MOTION TO QUASH DEMAND UPON DEAN SCHWARTZ TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ~ 2 YR AND NOW, this ~~ day of May, 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 a subpoena to the extent that it demands that he bring documents to his deposition scheduled for May 21, 2009 at Philadelphia, PA and in support of the motion states as follows: 1. On May 6, 2009, James Gault, for Robert M. Mumma II served upon the undersigned for DEAN SCHWARTZ (a non-party to the Estate matter concerning Robert M. Mumma) a Subpoena to Attend and Testify (Exhibit «l,~ 2. The date and time for the deposition were agreed to by Mr. Mumma ' The presiding judge is J. Wesley Oler, Jr. z Counsel for Mr. Schwartz consistent with C.C.R.P. 208(d) has sought Mr. Mumma's concurrence to the relief sought in the Motion which concurrence has not been received. f ~ r and/or Mr. Gault acting for Mr. Mumma, Mr. Schwartz and the undersigned. The subpoena at Paragraph 2 requires Mr. Schwartz to "... bring with you the following: SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS." 3. The continuation of Paragraph 2 of the subpoena is attached as Exhibit " 2" hereto and requires Mr. Schwartz to: "See generally those records referenced in footnote #2 in Response to Quash a Subpoena filed April 21, 2009...". 4. The subpoena does not set forth the language from the said Response, however, reference to that unincorporated document reveals the following which the undersigned presumes is the relevant language to: During a conference call on Friday afternoon, April 17, 2009, that was initiated by the Auditor, the Respondent advised that the testimony intended to be presented with respect to Mr. Schwartz concerned said counsel's role in formulating a letter or memo which ultimately resulted in the disposition, conveyance, or transfer of certain assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. Moreover, said letter or memo specifically cautioned that the Executrices' position was not supported by his review of the applicable records and documents. Respondent further advised the Auditor that the witness should be allowed to testify under oath as to the facts underlying the letter or memo and the records upon which he relied in formulating same. In addition, it was represented that the witness should be examined under oath as to subsequent alteration of the records and documents. Moreover, the witness should be allowed to testify as to the circumstances surrounding his possession or his firm's possession of 999, Inc. stock certificates, and especially how same were inexplicably delivered to a meeting held in Washington, D.C. that ultimately determined the conveyance, sale, or transfer of certain assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. Given counsel's role in 2 r r ~ the disposition of the Mumma family businesses as admitted in his affidavit and given his relationship with Estate counsel and their collective activities regarding the eventual disposition, conveyance, sale, or transfer of assets, the testimony of Mr. Schwartz under oath would be relevant, material and probative with respect to the inventory and accounting in this Estate. 6. The "conference call" referred to in the quoted language in the preceding paragraph took place with the auditor, James Buckley, Esquire, Mr. Mumma and the undersigned concerning a subpoena dated April 7, 2009 which called for Mr. Schwartz to appear for an audit hearing in the captioned case (Subpoena attached as Exhibit " 3") which was to be held within days of the conference call. 7. The April 7, 2009 subpoena did not contain any reference to documents to be produced. 8. It is apparent from Mr. Mumma's recitation in his response to the April 7, 2009 subpoena of Mr. Schwartz that he was prepared to question Mr. Schwartz about records which Mr. Mumma already has, a not surprising fact, since Mr. Mumma has engaged in serial discovery in case after case in which he has been involved. 9. The demand for production of documents at the May 21, 2009 deposition is vague, burdensome and is designed by Mr. Mumma to inconvenience and burden Mr. Schwartz, who, in any event, is not the custodian of any such records. 3 t ~ r t 10. Unfortunately, the following history of Mr. Mumma's discovery activities is necessary to put the demand for production in perspective. The matters about which Mr. Mumma plans to question Mr. Schwartz date back to 1989 and the early nineties - in some cases over twenty (20) years ago. Stradley Ronon (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Stradley, Ronon" or "Stradley"), the firm in which Mr. Schwartz is now a partner, has itself provided thousands of pages of documents to Mr. Mumma. In 2000, Stradley provided 2390 pages of documents (Bates numbered SRSY0001 through SRSY 2390) to Mumma in Robert M. Mumma, II v. C.R.H., Inc. Pennsy Supply, Lisa Moran Barbara McKimmie Mumma Linda Mumma Roth, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius and Stradley Ronan sic), Stevens & Young, No. 99-1546 Civil (Common Pleas, Cumberland County). As a non-party in Robert M. Mumma, II v. GAT Distribution Corp., No. 423 Civil 1994 (C.P. Cumberland County), Stradley provided 2500 pages of documents (in the year 2000, following personal review by Mr. Mumma and his then counsel, James J. West, of boxes of materials made available at Stradley's Philadelphia office, and upon designation by Mr. Mumma, over 1500 pages of documents were copied and provided to Attorney West; and on a prior occasion in the same case, Stradley Ronon produced over one thousand pages of documents); and it had 4 1 ~ made records available for inspection by Mr. Mumma in a case captioned, Robert M. Mumma, II v. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, No. 4753 S 1993 (C.P. Dauphin County). In addition; David Landrey, a former partner of Stradley was deposed by Mr. Mumma or on his behalf in two cases (including a two day deposition in Robert M. Mumma, II v. CRH, Inc. et al, supra) and was cross-examined by Mr. Mumma at trial in Robert M. Mumma, II v. Pennsy Supply, Inc. No. 99-02765 (C.P. Cumberland). In addition to documents produced by Stradley Ronon as mentioned above, others, including the executrices of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma and the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, have produced hundreds - if not thousands of pages of documents to Mr. Mumma in litigations including, it is believed, Barbara McK. Mumma et al v Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No 66 Equity 1988 (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M. Mumma, II v. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc., et al No. 15 Equity 1990 (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M. Muimma II v. Barbara McK. Mumma, et al., No. 84 Equity (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M. Mumma II v. Pennsy Supply, Inc.; and Robert M. Mumma II, et al v. Oldcastle, Inc., No. 1:98- CV-0425 (M.D. PA). 11. In 2006, Mr. Mumma sought to depose Mr. Schwartz in the case Robert S i ~ M. Mumma, II v. CRH, Inc., et al. supra. Attached to the deposition notice was ""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" (attached as Exhibit "4"). 12. That 2006 request for production sought documents reviewed by Mr. Schwartz (or so the wording suggests) concerning Pennsy Supply businesses and relating to Pennsy Supply Company and Kim Company which appear now to be referred to Mr. Mumma in the recently served demand for production to Mr. Schwartz concerning "certain assets" of the Decedent's estate. 13. Following objection by Stradley (attached as Exhibit "5") (attached are selected exhibits to the objection and which relate to a May 2006 demand upon Stradley by Mr. Mumma and Ms. Mumma did not challenge Stradley's responses and seek to compel production as the demand upon Mr. Schwartz now is effectively a part of what he earlier sought from Stradley, he should be deemed to have abandoned any additional production demands upon Schwartz, Stradley or any of its partners or employees. That relief would be consistent with Judge Oler's order referenced below), and a hearing, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. by Order of Court dated January 2, 2007 (copy attached as Exhibit "6") provided that "deponents shall not be required to produce any documents already provided to Plaintiff, or any documents the 6 1' y [ ~ production of which was previously objected to without further pursuit at the time by Plaintiff by way of a motion to compel discovery." 14. To the extent it is possible to understand exactly what Mr. Mumma demands in the production request which is the subject of this motion, all of such documents would fall within the order entered by Judge Oler and, in fact, no additional documents would have been made available at the earlier scheduled but never concluded deposition of Mr. Schwartz as they had at some time been made available to Mr. Mumma and/or his various counsel. 15. In 1999, Mr. Mumma through his then counsel, David Bradley served a "Request for Documents to a Party Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 4049.11" (attached as Exhibit "7") in the Mumma v. CRH, et al case seeking among other things: 1. All communications, correspondence or other documents relating to your firm's role as attorney for... [The Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I... "Mumma Family related businesses"... Barbara McKimmie Mumma; individually or as Co-Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I... Lisa Mumma, individually or as Co- Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I]. 2. All documents within your possession, custody or control, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, diaries or other 7 f ~ e documents relating to and of the Stradley clients [some of which are listed in 1 above as identified by definition used by Mr. Mumma in Exhibit "7"]. *******~ 6. All communication, correspondence or other files, records and documents relating to the [Estate ofJ... Robert M. Mumma, I. 7. All communication, correspondence, notes of conversations held with Barbra McKimmie ("Kim") Mumma, Lisa Morgan... 8. 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... Nine-Ninety Nine...; b. Records leading up to and Follow-up communications after the files and records of entities were turned over or delivered by your firm... . 16. Following objections by Stradley to Mr. Mumma's Request for Production in which Stradley cited attorney-client privilege and work product (Exhibit "8") and after a discovery conference, Judge Oler on April 12, 2000 limited Stradley's obligation as a party in that case to produce: 8 ~ ~ Minutes, stock ledger books, shareholders agreements, documents effecting the issuance of stock certificates and/or by-sell agreements pertaining to Nine Ninety Nine, Inc., ... [excluding items already provided in other cases]. (Exhibit "9" attached) 17. Mr. Mumma was provided records as required by that April 12, 2000 order. 18. Mr. Schwartz is not custodian of records of Stradley Ronon, but even if he would be, he would and does object to the production of any item set forth in the attachment to the subpoena (Exhibits "1" and " 2") and separately addresses the demand as follows: • any letters or memoranda regarding the disposition, conveyance or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate, specifically any such letters or memoranda forwarded to or reviewed by the Executrices along with any documents, records or things regarding the facts underlying any such letters or memoranda upon which he relied in formulating same... . OBJECTION: This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and the request expressly seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client e ~ 9 and/or other privileges and/or the work product doctrine. In Mr. Mumma's response to the Motion to Quash the subpoena of Mr. Schwartz for the April 20-22, 2009 hearing he simply sought testimony from Mr. Schwartz about "said counsel's role in formulating a letter or memo which ultimately resulted in the disposition, conveyance, or transfer of certain assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. Moreover, said letter or memo specifically cautioned that the Executrices' position was not supported..." Plainly, Mr. Mumma is referring to a document which he has or had in his possession. To now attempt to have Mr. Schwartz arrange with Stradley to look for a document simply because Mr. Mumma refers to it creates unnecessary burden and would involve reviewing boxes and boxes of documents to locate something which might or might not be among Stradley's records. 10 r ~ • any documents, records or things concerning any subsequent alteration of any such records or documents. OBJECTION: The request is nearly unintelligible. Mr. Mumma has rummaged through Stradley's records, has been provided thousands and thousands of pages of documents by Stradley and others. Suffice it to say that no sinister alteration of records occurred and the very suggestion simply assumes as fact Mr. Mumma's long unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions in other litigation that there was a conspiracy afoot. The request is burdensome, oppressive, is designed to harass and is related to matters which have no factual basis. • any documents, records or things concerning the circumstances surrounding his possession or his firms' possession of 999, Inc. stock certificates and the delivery of same to the meeting in Washington, D.C. that ultimately determined the conveyance, sale or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. 11 OBJECTION: Mr. Mumma's Response to the Motion to Quash recently considered by Mr. Buckley notes that Mr. Schwartz should be allowed to testify as to the circumstances about 999 stock and how they "were inexplicably delivered to a meeting held in Washington, D.C. ". Short weeks ago, Mr. Mumma was prepared to question Mr. Schwartz. Now, he wants records so that he can question Mr. Schwartz. Any records relating to 999, Inc. have previously been produced by Stradley or others and therefore, to the extent they address the issue, are already in Mr. Mumma's possession. As Mr. Mumma seeks to advance his objections to the Estate administration, it is his responsibility to have his records organized, catalogued and ready. His attempt now to try and force Mr. Schwartz, anon-party (and to the extent he can, Stradley, another non-party) to cull through Stradley records yet again is simply burdensome, oppressive and is designed to harass the deponent 12 and/or his employer. • any other documents, records or things in his possession or control respecting the inventories or accountings filed by the Executrices. OBJECTION: Mr. Schwartz is not a party to the pending audit. He has no idea what inventories or accountings have been filed by the Executrices nor is it incumbent upon him to become informed. The request is burdensome, oppressive and is calculated to harass. Further, Mr. Schwartz does not have possession or control of any documents, records or things apparently covered by the demand for production. • any documents, records of things concerning his or his firm's role in the due diligence activities as same relate to the Executrices and the ultimate conveyance, sale or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. The request, to the extent it applies, would 13 involve information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and/or other privileges and/or the work product doctrine. By way of further answer, records or testimony have been produced to Mr. Mumma in other cases which provide information about the due diligence review undertaken by Stradley and this additional request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is designed to inconvenience Mr. Schwartz and/or Stradley. With respect to Mr. Mumma's entire demand, he is effectively precluded and he is stopped from seeking any further records as a result of Stradley's response to Mr. Mumma's 2006 document request in Mumma v. CRH, et al which Mr. Mumma did not challenge and which as a result of Judge Oler's January 2, 2007 order need not be produced. WHEREFORE, Dean Schwartz requests the following relief: That the Court enjoin and prohibit Mr. Mumma from requiring that any documents set forth under Paragraph 2 of the Subpoena to Attend and Testify be produced by Mr. Schwartz on May 21, 2009. 14 Respectfully submitted: Date ~~au l.~ , 0~0 D`T Richard E. Connell, Esqu e ID #21542 Ball, Murren & Connell 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 232-8731 Attorney for Dean Schwartz CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard E. Connell, Esquire, herby certify that I have on the below date caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Quash Demand Upon Dean Schwartz to Produce Documents to be served on the persons and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PRE-PAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Manson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ralph Jacobs, Esquire 1515 Market Street -Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Linda Mumma Roth P.O. Box 480 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Court-Appointed Auditor 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Date ~~ ~3. a~ ~9 ~- Richard E. Connell, Esquire 0 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CITMBERLAND ~ ~~ : ~ SATE o r o~P~+~~~5' ~v~T ~l.cisl ai.( ~fl ~~ 6Z~ ~ 1M v %'~~ ~ :Docket No : ~ (~ ~~ -3R~ SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY To: ~e~.nJ~~.wG,~'-~~j 1. You are ordered by the court to come to ~ S ~ ~~ i(-1 a ~ ~ ~"' SJ~r~:~- ~' .~ ~ `{~ 7 d5 P,~,;t~;O~~tlp~,i~t, PA I~IQZ (Specify Courtroom or other place) at ~' ~ County, Pennsylvania, on ('~1 riy , Z. ! , 7,0° `f at ~ ©~ Oo o'clock,,. M, to~t{estify on behalf of ~,obe~f c~'I - c~'tv~~ti ~~ ~~f~ f•~ ~eC-~ -b ~e~d~n~ A~d~+o,-`s (~~OC..e.ed~n~5. in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: Sr; E f-lt(Y+c `~-~ D 5 ~:~ ~ ~rz~ ~~ ~ow„v,EUrS osZ-n+~r~c-,S 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 linuted to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. Requested by: Name: Address: O dVl ~ ~-ko,-F S~I" - S ~ +-te- I tO P../v~ a ~ ? ~ 3 Telephone: '~ t~ - (sl 7 - ~!?av Supreme Court ID: f ~ a s E BY THE COURT, _ ~'~; ~ r Date: i~j~~" l _ Register of WillslClerk of Orphans' Court ~- Note: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including ~ ~.J 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. IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUNIMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION N0.21-86-398 CONT'D: PARAGRAPH #2 OF SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO PA.RC P 2341(a) The witness shall bring with him to the deposition the following documents or things: See generally those records referenced in footnote #2 in Response to Quash a Subpoena filed April 21, 2009, to wit: any letters or memoranda regazding the disposition, conveyance or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate, specifically any such letters or memoranda forwarded to or reviewed with or by the Executrices, along with any documents, records or things regarding the facts underlying any such letters or memoranda upon which he relied in formulating same (Id.); any documents, records or things concerning any subsequent alteration of any such records or documents (Id.); any documents, records or things concerning the circumstances surrounding his possession or his firm's possession of 999, Inc. stock certificates and the delivery of same to the meeting in Washington, D.C. that ultimately determined the conveyance, sale or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate (Id.); any other documents, records or things in his possession or control respecting the inventories or accountings filed by the Executrices (Id.); and, any documents, records or things concerning his or his firm's role in the due diligence activities as same relate to the Executrices and the ultimate conveyance, sale or transfer of assets into or out of the Decedent's Estate. 8 0 `.J COMMONWEALTH bF PENNSYLVAMA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Docket No IN RE: Estate of Robert M. Mumma No. 21 - 86 - 398 SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY To: Dean Swartz 1. You are ordered by the court to come to Second Floor Court Room, Old Cumberland County Courthouse (Specify Cotutroom or other place) at Carlisle ~ Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on Apnl 21~- 23, 2009 at 5:00 o'clock, A M, to testify on behalf of Robert M. Mumma I I 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: Robert M. Mumma, 11 Address: 840 Market St. -Suite 164, Lemoyne, PA 17043 Telephone: 717 - 612 - 9720 Supreme Court ID: PRO SE BY THE COURT, /~~ Date: f- L%1 'ster of Wills/Clerk of hans~ ilrt Note: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuabl c ding ; hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. incompliance with Pa R.C.P.No.234.1. If asubpoena for a production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. G 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 "EXHIBIT A" TO DEPOSITION NOTICE OF DEAN SWARTZ BEING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG TO: DEAN S WARTZ 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 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 Plaintiffs expense and the documents will be properly returned after copying has been completed. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUNIlVIA, II Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McI~1VIlVIIE NJ[UlVIlVIA, LINDA MUMMA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCHIUS, 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"). iii ~''~ Plaintiff cannot seem to understand that he continues to misspell Mr. Schwartz's surname. 1 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 fn2~ not limited to... ~v Corporate entities wluch 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. your firm to any person not a member of your firm..." 8. 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). 5 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 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 EXKI$IT E computerized records or databases, telephonic voicemail, telegrams, memoranda, records, minutes of all types of meetings, contracts, subcontracts, agreements, intra and interoffice communications, purchase orders, requisitions, plans, studies, summaries, analysis, results of investigations, reviews, bulletins, proposals, estimates, appraisals, recommendations, critiques, trip reports, engineering calculations, bills of materials, drawings, sketches, blueprints, charts, indices, notices, diaries, books, desk calendars, appointment books, messages, instructions, work assignments, notes, notebooks, tape recordings, partial or complete reports of telephone conversations, photographs, slides, public statements, newspaper or other media releases, public and governmental filings, opinions, and any other writings, drawings or recordings. If any document was, but is no longer, in the possession of the party to whom this Request is addressed or subject to such party's control, identify the document and the party who has control of such document. B. When used herein, the term "person" shall mean any individual, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, corporation or business or any governmental or legal entity. C. "You" or "your" means the answering Defendant and any of its parents, subsidiaries, divisions, privies, departments, employees, agents or representatives. D. When used herein, the term "communication" shall mean any and all transmissions of information, the information transmitted, the process by which the information is transmitted and the term shall expressly be inclusive of all electronic, written and oral communications. E. When used herein, the term "relate to", "relating to" or "in relation to" shall mean constituting, reflecting, representing, supporting, contradicting, referring to, stating, describing recording, noting, embodying, containing, mentioning, studying, analyzing, discussing, evaluating, or relevant to. As indicated, the term necessarily includes information which is in 2 opposition to as well as in support of the position(s) and claim(s) of the party to whom the Request is addressed. II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A. Whenever a request for documents is framed in the conjunctive, it shall also be taken in the disjunctive, and vice versa. B. Whenever a request for documents is framed in the singular, it shall be taken in the plural, and vice versa. C. No one or more of the requests herein is to be deemed in any way to limit the scope of any other request herein. D. In producing the documents requested herein, indicate the title and location of the file from which each document was obtained and the identity of the custodian thereof. E. The subject matter of the document, and in the case of any document relating in any way to a meeting or oral communication, identification of such meeting or oral communication. F. All documents produced shall be segregated and identified by the paragraphs to which they are primarily responsive. Where required by a particular paragraph of this Request, documents produced shall be further segregated and identified as indicated in that paragraph. For any documents which are stored or maintained in files in the normal course of business, such documents shall be produced in such files, or in such a manner as to preserve and identify the file from which such documents were taken. G. If you object to the production of any document on the grounds that the attorney-client, attorney work-product or any other privilege is applicable thereto, you shall, with respect to that document: 1. State its date; 3 SPECIFIC REQUESTS Produce all documents generated, prepared, transmitted, delivered, stored, possessed and/or maintained by you or persons acting or purporting to act on your behalf, or any documents under your control referring and/or relating to the following matters: 1. All documents supplied to CRH, Inc., its subsidiaries or affiliates, agents and advisors during negotiations, due diligence or any other time for any purpose from June 1986 until the present time by any seller, agent or advisor of any seller, or company that in any way participated in or became part of the transaction, or had assets that became part of the transaction. Please provide the name of the party that supplied the document, and the party that reviewed the document. Dated: May 4, 2006 Robert M. Mumma, II In Pro Se Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 5 i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 4th 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 CRFI, Inc. and Pennsy Supply, Inc. Richard E. Connell, Esq. Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell P.O. Box 1108 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 c~ Bockius Thomas J. Williams, Esq. No V. Otto, Esq. 240 North Third Street, Suite 600 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1503 Attorneys or Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma Allen C. Warshaw, Esq. 240 North Third Street, Suite 600 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1503 Attorney for Linda Mumma Roth ~~~ Daryl E. Hewitt 6 EXHI$IT F IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAl~TIA ROBERT M. ivZUMMA, II Plaintiff v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKT1VaVIlE MUNIlVIA, LINDA 14I[TNIlKA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKI[JS, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 99-1546 RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP ("Stradley Ronon"} hereby responds to Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents served upon it by Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mumma"). PREFATORY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS Stradley Ronon objects to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents as it is broad and burdensome and is of a type which would cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expense to Stradley Ronon in violation of Pa.R.Civ. P. 4011 (a) and (b). The definitions and instructions contained in the Document Request seek to impose obligations 1 inconsistent with or in addition to those required by the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mumma's Request covers a period of twenty (20) years during which numerous litigations were filed and significant discovery has occurred. Stradley Ronon itself has provided thousands of pages of documents. In the year 2000, it provided 2390 pages of documents (Bates numbered SRSY 0001 through SRSY 2390) to Mr. Mumma in this case; as anon-parry in Robert M. Mumma, II v. GAT Distribution Corp., No. 423 Civil 1994 (C.P. Cumberland) it provided 2451 pages of documents (on one occasion, in the year 2000, following personal review by Mr. Mumma and his then counsel, James J. West, of boxes of materials made available by Stradley Ronon at its Philadelphia office, and upon designation by Mr. Mumma,1605 pages of documents were copied (Bates numbered STRD 0001 through STRD 1065) and provided to Mr. West; and on a prior occasion in 1997 in the same case, Stradley Ronon produced 1001 pages of documents); and it has made records available for inspection by Mr. Mumma in a case captioned Robert M. Mumma, II v. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Comparry, No. 4753 S 1993 (C.P. Dauphin County). In addition, David Landrey, a former partner of Stradley Ronon, has been deposed by Mr. Mumma or on his behalf, in two cases (including a two (2) day deposition in this case in June 2004} and was cross-examined by Mr. Mumma at the trial in Rabert M. Mumma, II v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., No. 99-02765 (C.P. Cumberland). In addition to documents produced by Stradley Ronon in the cited litigations, others, including the executrices of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, II and the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, have produced pages and pages of documents to Mr. Mumma and/or his various counsel in litigations including matters above cited and, it is believed, in others such as Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988 (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M Mumma, II v. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc., et al., No. 15 Equity 1990 (C.P. Cumberland); and Robert M. Mumma, II v. 2 Barbara McK. Mumma, et al., No. 84 Equity (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M. Mumma, II v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., No. 99-02765 (C.P. Cumberland); and Robert M. Mumma, II et al. v. Oldcastle, Inc., No. 1:98-CV-0425 (M.D.PA). Also, in connection with a deposition in the year 2003 of George W. Hadley, Jr., an accountant for the Mumma family businesses and the decedent, Robert M. Mumma, Mr. Hadley produced thousands and thousands of pages of information some of which might have been made available to CRH plc, its subsidiaries, affiliates or its agents and advisors. SPECIFIC RESPONSES 1. All documents supplied to CRH, Inc. (sic), its subsidiaries or affiliates, agents and advisors during negotiations, due diligence or any other time for any purpose from Sune 1986 until the present time by any seller, agent or advisor of any seller, or company that in any way participated in or became part of the transaction, or had assets that became part of the transaction.- Please provide the name of the parry that supplied the document and the parry that reviewed the document. RESPONSE: Stradley Ronon incorporates by reference herein its Prefatory Statement and General Objections. The request is overbroad, vague and ambiguous as it seeks from Stradley Ronon for a twenty (20) year period documents which were "supplied to CRH" 3 by the seller, any of its agents, any of its advisors or any "company" that in any way participated in or became part of the transaction, or had assets that became part of the transaction. Stradley Ronon cannot possibly determine what documents may have been supplied by other individuals or entities to CRH. Insofar as Stradley Ronon may have supplied documents to CRH plc, its subsidiaries, or affiliates, agents or advisors, any and all of those documents would be among those previously supplied to Mr. Mumma in other discovery production by Stradley Ronon and the other parties to this litigation or in the many other litigations which Mr. Mumma has pursued. Materials already provided to Mr. Mumma by Stradley Ronon in prior discovery indicates that Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm, was conducting its own due diligence for its client, CRH plc, and had its own due diligence approach which it pursued, it appears, by trips to the business offices of Pennsy Supply. Materials attached hereto concerning that due diligence effort were amang other documents delivered tv Mr. Momma's attorney, James J. West, on July 14, 2000. Those materials were copied at the request of Mr. Mumma and Mr. West during Mr. Momma's personal review of Stradley Ronon records made available for inspection at the Stradley Ronan offices in Philadelphia on June 29, 2000. Included among the 1605 pages produced were STRD 00407 - STRD 00408 being a January 6, 1989 from David R. Landrey of Stradley Ronon to Valerie A. Lambiase, Attorney, Gibson with Dunn &Crutcher which referred to a December 4 26, 1998 memorandum of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a December 31, 1985 chart showing corporate structures and a list, as of December 27, 1988, of shareholders of Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. (Attachment "A"); one page marked STRD 00396 being a January 13, 1989 letter of David R. Landrey of Stradley Ronon to Valerie A. Lambiase of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Attachment"B"); STRD 00397 - STRD 00401 being a summary listing of Mumma Entities (Attachment "C"); STRD 00356 - STRD 00367 being an April 30, 19891etter from David R. Landrey to Charles R. Collins, Esquire and Valerie A. Lambiase (Attachment "D"); and STRD 00440 - STRD 00449 being a July 21, 1993 letter from Attorney Landrey of Stradley Ronon to CRH plc (Attachment "E"). Other documents relating to various Mumma-owned entities and the sale to CRH plc which were produced to Mr. Mumma or his counsel were listed in a document admitted into evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 9 at a May 11, 1992 evidentiary hearing before President Judge Sheely in In re Estate of Mumma, No. 21-86-398 (O.C. Cumberland) (Attachment "F"). Among those were materials which originated from Stradley Ronon and which were or may have been supplied to CRH plc, its agents or advisors by Stradley or others -are numbers 1-22, 24, 53, 56-58, 61-63, 66-70, ?5, 77, 81-83, 85-86, 90, 99 and 102. In addition, Mr. Mumma has received thousands and thousands of other documents or materials among which would be any record he now seeks. Mr. Mumma's efforts in this Request are improper in light of the thousands of documents he has been provided. 5 The request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Stradley Ronon objects to the request as Mr. Mumma seeks to require it to produce documents which Mr. Mumma has akeady received. Further, to the extent that Mr. Manama's Request asks the name of the "parry" that supplied any document and the "party" that reviewed the document, such inquiry seeks creation of records of documents, a step which is not properly part of a Request. BALL, MURREN & CONNELL BY Richard E. Connell, Esquire I.D. # 21542 2303 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (7I7) 232-8731 Attorneys for Defendant, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP Date: June 5.2006 6 ~J 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 N0.99-1546 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. Lalce, 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 an 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. J Eric J. Wiener, Esq. 2407 Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9303 Attorney for Plaintiff Matthew M. Haar, Esq. 2 North Second Street 7`'' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants CRH, Inc., and Pennsy Supply, Inc. BY THE COURT, a r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Plaintiff v. Civil Action -Law No. 1546-S-Civil Term of 1999 CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC LISA MORGAN, BARBARA McKIIVIMIE MUMMA, LINDA MUMMA ROTA, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS AND YOUNG Defendants REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS TO A PARTY PURSUANT TO PA. R.CIV.P. 4009.11 TO: STR.ADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS & YOUNG CARE OF: LEE A. ROSENGARD 2600 ONE COMMERCE SQUARE PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 NOTICE: Your firm is requested to produce all documents listed herein and records related thereto and to make all of them available to Plaintiff and his attorneys for inspection and copying pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P. 4009.11: EXHIBIT "A" These instructions and the accompanying Iist of documents are incorporated by reference in those certain Subpoenas being issued in the captioned matter through the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas for production of documents referred to in this Exhibit A for inspection by Plaintiff and his attorneys on August 3, 1999 from and after 10 a.m. at your offices in Philadelphia. I. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. Definitions 1. The word "document" or "documents" refers to any printed, written, taped, recorded, graphic, computerized printout, or other tangible matter, from whatever source, however produced or reproduced, whether sent or received, or neither, including but not limited to ,the original, a copy (if the original is not available), and all nonidentical copies (whether different from the original because of notes made on or attached to such copy otherwise) of any and all writings, files, records, account statements, bills, invoices, receipts, correspondence, letters, telegrams, cables, telexes, routing slips, contracts, proposals, agreements, minutes, acknowledgments, notes, mazginalia, notation, memoranda, infra and interoffice communication, infra and interdepartmental communication, electronic mail, analyses, projections, work papers, books, papers, records, reports, diaries, journals, notes or recordings of telephone or other conversations, statements, questionnaires, schedules, computer programs or data, books of account, calendars, graphs, chart, transcripts, tapes or recordings, photographs, pictures or film, ledgers, registers, work sheets, summaries, digests, financial statements, and all other information whether data, records or compilations, including all underlying, supporting or preparatory material now in you possession, custody or control or available to you, your employees, agents, representatives or associates. "Document" or "documents" specif cally includes documents kept by individuals in their desks, at home or elsewhere. 2. "Copy" when used in reference to a document means any color, or black or white facsimile reproduction of a document, regardless of whether the facsimile reproduction is made by means of carbon papers, pressure sensitive paper, xerography or other means or process. 3. "Communication" means any correspondence, writing, oral conversation, or electronic transmission including but not limited to telephone conversations, meetings, letters, telegraphic and telex communications, electronic communication and includes all information relating to all oral communications and "documents" (as defined herein, above), whether or not any such document, or other information contained therein was transmitted by its author to any other person. 4. "Person" means any natural person, any business entity (whether a corporation, partnership, or other business association), and government or political subdivision thereof, or governmental body, commission, board, agency, bureau, or department. 5. "RMMII, et. al." means Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II. - 6. The word "Stradley" means the firm of 5tradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young, and said firm's predecessors, if applicable, and David R. Landry, Lee A. Rosengazd and the present and former officers, directors, trustees, agents or employees of either the firm or the individual attorneys' named; its assignors, merged, consolidated or acquired predecessors or successors; and its divisions, units and subsidiaries, whether or not wholly owned. 7. "Pennsy" means Pennsy Supply, Inc., now a subsidiary of Oldcastle, Inc., and includes its present or former attorneys and taw firms; its present and former stockholders, members, attorneys, partners, officers, directors, trustees, agents or employees; its assignors, merged, consolidated or acquired predecessors or successors; and its divisions, units and subsidiaries, whether or not wholly owned. 8. Where applicable "Stradley client" shall mean the following persons served by Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & IToung, and said firm's predecessors, if applicable, and David R. Landry, Lee A. Rosengard individually and the present and former officers, directors, trustees, agents or employees of either the fuYn or the individual attorneys' named or other member of said fum or employee of said firm or person, including the following persons, companies or Estates any one or more of which may have been clients of your firm: [Note: When a company name appears in this list of clients, it shall include its officers, directors, shareholders and employees as possible persons who may have consulted with your firm concerning discoverable matters.] a. Robert M. Mumma, II; b. Robert M. Mumma, I; c. Morgan, Lewis 8c Bockius or individual with the firm d. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher or individual with the firm e. The Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I f. The Estate of Walter Mumma g. Jerry T. Simpson or Joseph Simpson h. "Mumma Family related businesses" i. Barbara McKimmie Mumma; individually or as Co-Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I; j. Lisa Mumma, individually ~or as Co-Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I; k. Linda Roth Mumma 1. CRH, plc m. Kodie Acquisition Company n. G.A.T., Distribution Corp. o. Pennsylvania Supply Company Inc p. Kim Company q. Nine-Ninety-Nine Inc r. Ten-O-One Inc s. Mumma Realty Associates [MRA1 and MRA2] t. Dauphin Deposit Bank & Trust u. Gemini Equipment Business Trust; v. Kimbob, Inc.; w. McDermitt, Inc.; x. Robert M. Mumma, II Grantor Retained Annuity Trust; y. Pennsy Supply, Inc f/k/a Pennsy Supply Inc (no comma), Fiala Crushed Stone Company, Pennsylvania C (including Hummelstown Quarry, Inc. and Elco Concrete Products). z. The Estate of Walter Mumma and its Executors Robert M. Mumma, I and Dauphin Deposit Bank; 9. "You," "your" or "Stradley" means David R Landrey, Esquire, Lee A. Rosengard or any member of the firm who assumed or performed any role he, she or they may have or may have had as attorney for the listed Stradley clients or any of them enumerated above. 10. "Relating to," relate to," or "with regard to" shall mean mentioning, discussing or commenting upon the specified subject. 11. "Identify" when used in reference to: a. An individual, shall mean to state his or her full name and rresent or last known address (including zip code), phone number, and prescitt or last known position or business affiliation (designating which), and the job description. b. A firm, partnership, corporation, proprietorship, or association, shall mean to state its full name, it present or last known address (designating which), its state of organization or incorporation, the address of its principal place of business, the address(es) of any office(s) relevant to this lawsuit, and to state the name and address of each person within the entity likely to have knowledge of the relationship between you and that entity. .. . c. A document shall mean to state the date, author, sender, recipient, type of document or some other means of identifying it, a description of the subject matter of the document, and its present location and custodian. In the case of a document within your possession, custody or control, please state whether you will make it available to RMMII, et. al.'s attorney for inspection and/or copying; and in the case of a document that was, but is no longer in you possession, custody or control, please state what disposition was made of it. 12. Use of the plural form of any word shall be deemed to include the singular form and use of the singular form shall be deemed to include the plural form. 13. The words "and" and "or" mean "and/or." B. Instructions 1. In producing documents you are requested to furnish all documents or things in your possession, custody or control, or known or available to you, regardless of whether such documents or things aze possessed directly by you or by your agents, employees, representatives of investigators. 2. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific document request, the relevant time period for these document requests is 1986 through the present. 3. If any requested document is not or cannot be produced in full, produce it to tl}e extent possible, indicating what document or portion of any such documents is not or cannot be produced and the reason therefor. 4. In producing documents, you are requested to produce the original of each document request together with all non-identical copies and drafts of that document. 5. All documents should be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by you. 6. All .documents should be produced in the file, folder, envelope or other container in which the documents are kept or maintained by you. If for any reason tt~c coiltaii~cr cannot be produced, please produce copies of all labels or other identifying markings. 7. Documents attached to each other should not be separated. 8. Documents not otherwise responsive to this request shall be produced if such documents refer to, relate to, or explain the documents called for by this request or if such documents are attached to documents called for by this request and constitute routing slips, transmittal memoranda or letters, comments, evaluations, or similar documents. 9. To the extent that you consider any of the following document ralucsts objcctioaiib(c, respond to so much of each document request and part thereof, as is not objectionable in your view and separately state that part of each document request as lc~ wliicli you raise objections and each ground for such objection. 10. If you object to the production of any document on the claim of attorney/ client privilege, work product privilege, or any other privilege, identify the privilege claimed as well as each document for which such privilege is claimed, together with the information necessary to support your claim of privilege; including the following information with respect to each document: a. Date; b. Sender; c. Addressee; d. Subject; e. The basis on which the privilege is claimed; and f. The names of persons to whom copies of any part of the document was furnished, together with an identification of their employer and their job titles. 11. To the extent any of the documents requested by the following document requests were at one time in your possession, custody or control, but are no longer within your possession, custody or control, why it is no longer within your possession, custody or control and identify any individual, firm, partnership, or corporation that may be in possession, custody or control of the document. II. DOCUMENT REQUESTS All communications, correspondence or other documents relating to your firm's role as attorney for Robert M. Mumma, II and or any of the enumerated Stradley clients with emphasis upon the persons, companies, law firms and entities who negotiated a sale of Pennsy Supply, Inc and so- called "Mumma Family businesses" to CRH, plc, Oldcastle, Inc, Kodie Acquisition Company, G.A.T.; 2. Billing and time records of David R. Landrey and Lee A. Rosengard or other firm member who worked on any matter relating to any one or more of persons or entities on the "client" list. 3. 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 and of the Stradley clients and corporate entities enumerated under "Stradley Clients" and related entities including but not limited to All: Due Diligence Reports Freparatory to or following Sale of Pennsy Supply, Inc Due Diligence Reports Preparatory to or following Sale ofNine-Ninety Nine, 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 acid 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 Marital Trusts Corporate By-laws and amendments thereto Any revocation Agreements which revoke, revise or speak to any of the above. Plans of Mergers . 4. All communication, correspondence or other documents relating to the corporate meetings of Pennsy Supply, Inc its predecessors and/or successors including but not limited to minutes, stock issuance, preparation of documents filed or intended to be filed with the Pennsylvania bepartment of State for any of the enumerated clients and the following entities: The Estate of Robert M. Mumma, I and its Executrices Lisa Mumma Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma; nti #' Name Date of Incorp. Corp. Box No. #272024 Pennsy Supply, Inc. #120660 Fiala Crushed Stone Corporation #120660 Pennsy Supply Inc. (Note: no comma) 3/20/S8 11/S/S8 S/3/61 (merger) #120660 Nine Ninety-nine, Inc. 1/4/82 (name change) #74066b Ten-O-One, Inc. 1019/81 #189260 Kim Company 8/2S/47 #272639 Pennsylvania Concrete Company 1922 #2533696 D-E Distribution Company 7/21 /93 #(unknown) Pennsylvania Supply Company (unknown) 5. All communication, correspondence or other documents relating to the preparation of corporate name changes, mergers, Plans of Division, stock issuance, cancellation of stock, minutes of corporate meetings, by-laws, by- law changes or amendments, tax returns of any of said entities for any year during which the Stradley firm its predecessors or successors served such clients; assets, stock, shazes and company estate transfers to or from the --- a ove entities; including buf nod limited to t1~e ~}ZH, plc, Pennsy Supply, Inc, Nine Ninety-Nine, Kodie Acquisition Corporation. 6. All communication, correspondence or other riles, records and documents relating to the Estates of Walter Mumma, and Robert M. Mumma, 1. 7. All communication, correspondence, notes of conversations I~cld with Barbara McKimmie ("Kim") Mumma, Lisa Morgan, their ~igcnls cir~ attorneys rclatinb to llle clients lislcd; 8. All documents within your possession, custody or control, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, diazies 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 or successors 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 aver or delivered by your firm to any other person not a member of your firm; 9. All communications or other documents relating to any instructions you received from RMMI, et. al. andlor any other person relating to the following: a. Corporate structure of any of the entities enumcralcd as "Stradlcy Clients", including discussion of stock, shares and interests of shareholders, disposition of share interests of any person or entity, plans of division, the negotiation of the Sale of Pennsy Supply, Inc; b. the preparation for the closing of any stock sales, divisions, corporate reorganizations of any of the listed "Stradlcy C'liaits"; 10. Please Identify all persons served as clients during the period from and after January of 1986 to the present, who are related in any way to "Mumma related family businesses" listed "Stradlcy Clients" and in the Instructions under individual questions and the list above at Item Number Eight of the Definitions and Instructions. David S. Brady,l~ttorne~ Attorney for Plaintiff Robert a, Pa. Atty ID #35928 4 Central Blvd Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 303-2080 Fax: (717) 303-2082 July 1, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROBERT M. MIJIVIlVIA, II v. CRH, INC., PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. LISA MORGAN, BARBARA MCKIl~IlVIIE MUMIVIA, LINDA 11~UNIlVLA ROTH, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKILJS, STR.ADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG ~-, ~ c~ ~7 No. 99-1546 ~= "' ~ri ~. {~ _.~ ' ~'- .. ~ -fl ._ 1 ~ "1' I _ _ _ .? ~, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, TO PLAjNTIFF'S REOL~'~'1' FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCLTMF ~ Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009.12, defendant Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP ("SRS&Y") responds to plaintifFs Request for Production of Documents ("Plaintiff s Document Request") as follows: 1. SRS&Y objects to Plaintiff s Document Request in its entirety, on the ground that until such time as plaintiff files a Complaint in this matter, it is impossible to determine whether any of the documents requested aze relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.1(a). Once plaintiff files his Complaint, SRS&Y will consider whether it has a continuing objection under that Rule. 2. SRS&Y objects to Plaintiff's Document Request in its entirety, on the ground that from approximately 1988 through 1994, SRS&Y represented, among others, Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, Hummelstown Quarries, Inc., Barbara McKimmie Mumma, Lisa Mumma Morgan, Linda Mumma Roth and other individuals and related entities in connection with the so-called Mumma family related businesses, that SRS&Y ~J r 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, . Defendant . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 99-1546 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NQW, this 12th day of April, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production of Documents by Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens .& Young, and following a discovery conference held on this date in the chambers of the undersigned judge in which Plaintiff was represented by David S. Brady, Esquire,- Defendant Pennsy Supply, Inc., was represented by Michael A. Finio, Esquire, Defendants Lisa Morgan and Barbara McKimmie Mumma were represented by Mark A. Denlinger, Esquire, Defendant Linda Mumma Roth was represented by Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire, Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, was represented by Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, and Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young was represented by Richard E. Connell, Esquire, it is ordered and directed that, within 45 days of today's date, Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young shall furnish to Plaintiff's counsel (and to any counsel for a Defendant requesting the same) copies of any minutes, stock ledger books, shareholders' agreements, documents effecting 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, excluding any such items which have been furnished to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's attorney at No. 423-94 CIVIL TERM (Cumberland County), No. 4753-5 1993 (Dauphin County) or in the case of e~ RSE, Inc., v. Hempt Brothers (Federal action). Nothing herein is intended to adjudicate the issue of responsibility for the expense involved in production of these documents, nor to prevent the producer of said documents from filing a motion at a later date requesting reimbursement of those expenses from Plaintiff. By the Court, David S. Brady, Esquire For the Plaintiff Michael A. Finio, Esquire For Defendant Pennsy Supply, Inc. Mark A. Denlinger, Esquire For Defendants Morgan and Mumma Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire For Defendant Roth ~~l~E C®PY FR~NI REC~R® In Testimony whereof, I here unto sefi my hard, end a seal of sai Court at arlisle Pa. T .....~.~.. y - ~ - ... .. ot~aonotary r r ~ Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire For Defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Richard E. Connell, Esquire For Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young CRH, Inc. 3333 K Street, N.W. Suite ~ 405 Washington, DC 20007 Defendant, Pro Se wcy