Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-7232 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a writ of summons against the above-referenced Administrators. Such individuals may be served at: DATED: 1'l-/Z),{Jf I Keith I. Schorr 209 Summer Lane Enola. PA 17025 Susan Schorr 1419 Miller Road Dauphin, PA 17018 Respectfully submitted, FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. I John R Fenstermacher I Supreme Court I.D. #29940 . Mark K. Emery Supreme Court I.D, #72787 5115 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 691-5400 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~ e 0 0 -n ~ '<;>. 3':: 0 ...-t ~ j!; ~ "'Oro rr1 ;tl:D ~ ~g; .. "F.; In N ..?iO 9 ZS;; CD J" I en .; :~<.~ & . ~C5 - 8 ".,". -r, (> ~ -0 .:~~) ~.~ - () ~8 :::J: :-"~rn RJ ~ I :i>c: ~ S 0 J , ~ N ~ .......... -.l ""'- ~. ..0 ...... . . Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Gary w. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. VS. Keith 1. Schorr and, Susan Schorr, as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr Keith 1. Schorr 209 Surrmer Lane Enola, PA 17025 Susan Schorr 1419 Miller Road Dauphin, PA 17018 Court of Common Pleas No. 01-7232 Civil Term 19____ Civil Action - Law In _____________________________________________ To _!<~_:tt;tLI_!._~J1Q~;r__i!I}g.J__~!?5ID_~hqITJ__9S Administrators of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr You are hereby notified that ._---~~-~-~-~~~~!~~-~~~-~~--~~-~-~.~-~~~------------------------------------------ the Plaintiff has commenced an action in ________.__~.iyg_A~tj.PA_~__~~________________________ against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) ..~-----~!~--~~-~~9------------------------- Prothonotary Date December 28, 2001 19____ ~_e~_ ___ Deputy , - , ~ H...:J~Ul~ , g,~~ jE I . I-' I-' I I t:l...:Jnl-' I m f-'. , . J-WUl'" I rT~rT , '() g ::r . *\0 O?:>:: 'I-" :e: 10 ""'""" 1-'. . 1< trjW~ en. '1-' N' n m ,f-" . '1 \OUlmrT~ 'I-' r ~gen ~~ '...:J \O~N I (j3 IN ~O >,3 ':I>' 01 ~ n ,(.oJ J o 0 Ii.~ 'n ft. g IN lc-t . ~. ,f-" Ii . m J() o.trj 18 g,fllli H1 II-'- Ii ~~ .< ;g!Dm , If-'. .0 :. ~f. II-' ~~. I 5' 01 '>,3 ~o. ii a '(1) l~ 0 I ~!il' , I I , W~ - I co I I I ::r0l . I o rT I I ~ ~ I SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-07232 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BERRESFORD GARY W ET AL VS SCHORR KEITH L , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being R. Thomas Kline says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for named DEFENDANT , to wit: SCHORR SUSAN AS ESTATE OF RYAN K SCHORR but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the she iff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within RIT OF SUMMONS On January 29th, 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return f om DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Dauphin Co 6.00 9.00 10.00 30.50 .00 55.50 29/2002 STERMACHER so~answer s: . .~j ~>---- ..-= 2 .' -::;::C.,- .- ~. . /.~~~:::::::--::: . .- ~;.;.- R. homas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County 01 FE & ASSOC Sworn and subscri ed to before me this 'I~ day 0 :1.-1",,,.,1' .;lcv.:L A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ~ASE'NO: 2001-07232 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BERRES FORD GARY W ET AL VS SCHORR KEITH I ET AL GERALD WORTHINGTON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County. Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon SCHORR KEITH I AS ADMIN OF ESTATE OF RYAN K SCHORR the DEFENDANT , at 1310:00 HOURS, on the 8th day of January ,2002 at 209 SUMMER LANE ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to KEITH I. SCHORR a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 9,75 .00 10.00 .00 37.75 r~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/29/2002 FENSTERMACHER & ASSOC Sworn and Subscribed to before By: :A,...I1. tJ~ Deputy Sh iff "'- me this 'I ~ day of 1....8".. . " ;JtJP.2 A. D. /--1 ( L. (), ~ "t'Prct:honotary ,<fUi ~ECEIVED SEP 20 Z005 <\ WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY BY: Gerald J. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 36418 One Penn Center At Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 w (215) 557-0099 Attorneys for Defendants GARRY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of : the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. ORDER This cause on or before the Court on behalf of plaintiff for pro hac vice motion for special admission of William D. Breit, an out of state attorney as co-counseL William D. Breit is licensed to practice in the State of Virginia. He is a member in good standing with the State Bar of Virginia, and is able to practice in Virginia courts. He is a partner with the law firm of Breit Law. P.C, with his principal place of business located at P.o. Box 822, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451. Gerald 1. Williams, Esquire of Williams Cuker Berezofsky in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has respectfully requested this Court admit Mr. Breit, pro hac vice. Becallse William D. Breit, Esquire is an attorney practicing extensively in the area of defense litigation, who regularly represents defendants in such matters, this Court has no objection to his participating actively in the trial of this eause and all pre-trial proceedings. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that William D. Breit, Esquire be and is hereby specially admitted to .l~J.,1 '.""..J ''''I"r'" Q1n'ONI''''4'.1 !\l.r: ,',I \ '_\;;\;...t\rJ,n'!J::w'~f't~ 1 "Nr'o'"," ,"," ,"\lc.','K\:) t\J...l'I'" S I : IIIW t:Z d3s~nnzc> "nnz S \ : \ \ Wi C"Z eEl'" ~uu 'U\lito' "" ".." '~'ll '0 AQYJ.: 11\J"dr'U..Uca jr :l 3Wtt~ll:!)';:)d 3\-11 :\0 3Q1:]130-C\::lIl:J the State Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so that he may act as co-counsel representing plaintiff in this proceeding. ~,.. /.%, Lelor" ~,i}- o BY THE COURT: .AJ J. @ttitt of t1r~ ~4~riff William T. Tully Solicitor J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania BERRES FORD GARY vs County of Dauphin SCHORR SUSAN AS ADMIN OF ESTATE OF Sheriff's Return No. 0062 -T - -2002 OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-7232 AND NOW:January 23, 2002 at 4: 42PM served the within SUMMONS upon SCHORR SUSAN AS ADMIN OF ESTATE OF by personally handing RYAN K SCHORR to HER 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 1419 MILLER RD DAUPHIN, PA 00000-0000 ( ~ 1,\ , PRO~~OJJ!OAJ"u;) jR~ Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2002 Sheriff's Costs: $30.50 PD 01/09/2002 RCPT NO 158608 CANTREL In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Gary Be=esford et a1 VS. Keith L Scho= et a1 SERVE: Susan Scho= as admin of estate of Ryan K. Scho= No. 01 77.1' ("';'\7; 1 Now, December 31, 2001 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ./?./ f/./;:'( .~~-:<./~~ Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, ,20_, at 0' clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of ,20_ COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDA VIT $ $ r- r- GARY W. BERRES FORD and HARRY S. HART. JR. Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHOOR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are serve, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and file this Complaint, as follows: 1. Plaintiff Gary W. Berresford ("Berresford") is an adult individual currently residing at 408 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, PA 17043, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was a police officer with the West Shore Regional Police Department 2. Plaintiff Harry S. Hart, Jr. is an adult individual currently residing at 923 Emanuel Road, Lewisberry, PA 17339, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was a police officer with the West Shore Regional Police Department 3. Defendant Keith L Schorr is an adult individual with a last known address of 209 Summer Lane, Enola, PA 17025. 4. Defendant Susan Schorr is an adult individual with a last know address of 1419 Miller Road, Dauphin, PA 17018. 5. Defendants Keith I. Schorr and Susan Schorr are the Administrators of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr. Said Estate is filed at 21-2000-1083 in the Register of Wills of Cumberland County. 6. On November 18, 2000 Ryan Schorr (hereinafter "Schorr") began acting in a threatening manner to his roommate, and other members of the public. 7. On such date Berresford and Hart were on duty with the West Shore Regional Police Department 8. Officers Berresford and Hart responded to a warrant commitment involving Schorr, and transported Schorr to Holy Spirit Hospital. 9. Schorr subsequently left the hospital, and returned to his apartment in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania. 10. Officers Berresford and Hart again responded to the call, and arrived at Schorr's apartment 11. Upon arriving at Schorr's residence, Officers Berresford and Hart attempted to place Schorr under control peacefully. 12. Schorr immediately became violent, and attacked Officers Berresford and Hart. 13. Schorr attempted to obtain Officer Berresford's firearm, and while doing so discharged the firearm, striking Berresford in the hand. 14. Schorr continued to physically assault Officers Berresford and Hart, including striking or attempting to strike the officers with a knife, metal pots and his fists. 15. Due to Schorrs actions Officers Berresford and Hart have suffered severe physical and psychological injuries, which they still suffer from today. 16. Schorr's conduct was done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the rights of Officers Berresford and Hart. COUNT I ASSAULT 17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 18. Schorr's actions were done with the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and/or the intent to place Officers Berresford and Hart in imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact 19. Officers Berresford and Hart did have an imminent apprehension that Schorr would engage in harmful or offensive contact, such harmful and offensive contact ultimately occurring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment for them, and against the Estate of Ryan Schorr, and further award costs, punitive damages and all other relief allowed by law. COUNT II BATTERY 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 21. Schorr's conduct in attacking Officers Berresford and Hart, and otherwise physically assaulting them, has caused serious physical and psychological damages, such damages continuing as of the present, and shall continue in to the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Gary W Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment for them, and against the Estate of Ryan Schorr, and further award costs, punitive damages and all other relief allowed by law. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 23. Schorr owed a duty to the public, including Officers Berresford and Hart, to act in a reasonable and safe manner, and to take all actions or precautions to eliminate threatening or violent behavior. 24. Schorr breached such duty by engaging in both a threatening and violent manner, and Officers Berresford and hart have suffered injuries and damages as a result of such breach. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment for them, and against the Estate of Ryan Schorr, and further award costs, punitive damages and all other relief allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: / '2 A' '?'~ ~/ ark K. Emery, Esquir Supreme Court LD. o. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE: ;- g- '0 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this 8th day of July 2003, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Complaint by mailing a true and correct copy by United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Mr. Gerald J. Williams Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 J.FK Boulevard Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY ~/~ By: /Y /' /"...J ../-::>_/~ / , Mark .tnery .. :--.--..-- VERIFICATION We, Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr., hereby verify that we have read the foregoing Complaint and that the information contained therein is true and correct tot he best of our knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ Harry . Hart, Jr. DATE: 7 - <?-v> 3 0 <::> 0 c W -1'1 ~ :~ "'" ;- <J F~::! m I~~ 2: ..' , 1-;'1 -7 :;- ~.) U! ,;:) r~; j () -r; ':J --n ~L ~.,,,.. (') ,-n :::1 % :J'l )- -;I ::u -, ,n -< GARY W. BERRESFORD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HARRY S. HART, JR.. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. DOCKET NO. 01..7232 CIVIL KEITH \. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR. as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of the Complaint on behalf of the Defendants Keith \. Schorr and Susan Schorr, Administrators of the Estate of Ryan K. Schorr, and certify that I am authorized to do so. DATE:~ , By: / GeralCl J illiams, Esquire William :;uker and Berezofsky One Pe n Center at Suburban Station 1617 J.FK Boulevard Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 i""" ~ (') c:' q ~ c..:, iJ?S:: en "'" ';_1 -:>fJ7 ,~ -.,..., ~- " ,"-- ~~: '\., "'"11 '.0 ;~.c, (? r-';f, _I~J ~::-'- ~'t;J ~f!' ~ ."5 ::r:J ~:"'" c"" ~. ;.y -~5 rrl ~ - );! (AJ ::0 -0;: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten anj sub:nitted in duplicate) . TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:: Please list the within matter far the next A..-gunent Court. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption llUlSt be stated in full) GARY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. (Plaintiff) vs. KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR as Adminisurators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR ( Deferrlant) No. 7232 Civil . 2001 1. S tate matter to be argued (i. e., plaintiff' s lOCltion for ne.r triaL deferrlant' demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's demurer to complaint 2. Identify rounsel who will argue case: (a) far plaintiff: hXlress: Mark Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (b) for defendant: hXlress: Daniel Bencivenga, Esquire Williams Cuker & Berezofsky One Penn Center 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 I will notify all parti~iJa~!fh~i~tiMt ~l~s that this .case has been listed for argurent. 3_ 4. ~t ~ Date: October 22, 2003 Dated: ---L~ -- - Attorney for Uetendant (") 0 9, c w s:: U) ~--~ ifjOJ ..., ?~:D Hi -0 r-r'I-- Z:r:,' N "C.-In: zc :09 (J):J 0" ~z (:~9 .COl -0 :'C+I '< ~Q :3: '2i3 '::"'fn ~u c- (.) c ?& z =<' U1 -< v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-7232 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART. JR., Plaintiffs KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR. as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER. P.J. and GUIDO. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW.~W- J...t, 2003, upon careful consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Demurrer, it is hereby ordered that the Preliminary Objections are denied.1 Mark Emery. Esquire 410 North Second Street Harrisburg. PA 17101 For the Plaintiffs P.J. Daniel Bencivenga, Esquire Williams Cuker & Berezofsky One Penn Center 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 8 Philadelphia, PA 19103 For the Defendants ~r /yt-~~ loZ. - J-ti -0) ]1/5- 1 1) Assumption of risk has no place in an intentional tort action; and 2) "The 'fireman's rule', which provides that a police officer or fire fighter who enters upon the land of another in connection with official duties cannot recover from the possessor of land for subsequent injuries, has not been adopted in Pennsylvania," Holpp v, Fez. Inc,. 440 Pa.Super. 512, 516 (1995). 'VlN\i/\lASN~~'jd "f'w'-..,., '.11' '.'."'~'n" I\J., 't, 1\..) ,J i ': :'::-.:: U i ijf V SO : IIIIV 62330 EnOl A~.J\/l:',:j\!Ci"U.(.Y:kj :!t..ll ~o :J'J!:!:'!O"'fJ31!:.1 GARY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The cllrrent address for Keith l. Schorr is 201 Somerset Drive, Shiremanstown, PA l7011. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Ryan Schorr slIffered from bipolar (manic) disorder - a debilitating psychiatric disorder that results in delusional thinking, hallucinations, and impaired perception and judgment. Because Mr. Schorr's psychiatric condition had worsened in the days leading to November 18, 2000, his family and friends believed that involuntary psychiatric evaluation and treatment had become I necessary. On the morning of November 18, 2000, Mr. Schorr's housemate - who perceived Mr. Schorr's conduct to be threatening - requested that an order be issued for an involuntary commitment of Mr. Schorr pursuant to Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. 97302. While attempting to carry Ollt the involuntary commitment of Ryan Schorr. Plaintiffs Berresford and Hart - West Shore Regional police officers - shot and killed Mr. Schorr. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mr. Schorr was placed in a "high security" room in the emergency department of Holy Spirit Hospital ("Holy Spirit"). Shortly after his arrival at the Hospital, the security personnel for Holy Spirit left the area. Mr. Schorr was put under no physical restraints nor was he sedated or otherwise medicated. Having become agitated when he arrived at the hospital, Mr. Schorr subsequently rushed past a crisis intervention worker and left Holy Spirit. Thereafter, he returned to his apartment in W ormleysburg, Pennsylvania. 10. Admitted. By way of further answer, defendant Susan Schorr - Ryan Schorr's mother- spoke to Ryan on the telephone after he had left Holy Spirit and arrived at his apartment. Mrs. Schorr ascertained that Ryan was in a highly agitated state. She subsequently reported Ryan's whereabouts and his emotional state to the "911" operator at Cumberland County's Control Center. The County Control Center contacted Plaintiffs Berresford and Hart, who proceeded to 445 Meadow Drive in search of Mr. Schorr. 11. Denied as stated. When they arrived at Mr. Schorr's residence, Officers Berresford and 2 Hart were equipped with firearms and batons, but in keeping with policy of the West Shore Regional Police Department, they had no instruments of less lethal force. On their second encounter with Me. Schorr, Plaintiffs possessed not only the knowledge that Me. Schorr posed a potential threat, but the knowledge that he had fled from Holy Spirit Hospital, where they had taken him for involuntary psychiatric commitment only two hours before. They chose to confront Mr. Schorr alone, unaccompanied by psychiatric personnel or crisis intervention workers who could have helped them to place Mr. Schorr under control peacefully. 12. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs confronted Mr. Schorr in the doorway of his bedroom. The confrontation escalated into a physical struggle between Ryan Schorr and the WSPD officers. Me. Schorr was struck several times with batons during the initial struggle. 13. Denied as stated. DlIring the struggle between Mr. Schorr and Plaintiffs, Officer Berresford was wounded in the ring finger when his pistol was discharged. It is specifically denied that Mr. Schorr attempted to obtain Officer Berresford's firearm. 14. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Ryan Schorr and plaintiffs engaged in a physical struggle. 15. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore. the allegations are denied. 16. Denied. Me. Schorr's conduct came as a result of psychiatric illness. 3 COUNT I - ASSAULT 17. This paragraph requires no responsive pleading. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute a conclllsion of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendants specifically deny that Mr. Schorr acted with specific intent to cause harmful or offensive condllct and/or with the intent to place Plaintiffs in imminent apprehension of harmful of offensive condllct. At the time of this incident, Mr. Schorr lacked the mental capacity to form the specific intent required of this intentional tort. 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore, the allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs along with fees, costs, interest and other sllch relief as the Court deems proper. COUNT II - BATTERY 20. This paragraph requires no responsive pleading. 21. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore. the allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs along with fees, costs, interest and other such relief as the Court deems proper. 4 COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE 22. This paragraph reqllires no responsive pleading. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs' allegations relating to the duty of Ryan Schorr . 24. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any injuries sllstained by Plaintiffs Beresford and Hart were caused by their own negligence and/or lack of due care for their own well-being or safety. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs along with fees, costs, interest and other such relief as the Court deems proper. NEW MATTER 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 2. The alleged injuries of Plaintiffs were caused by the negligence and/or recklessness or lack of due care of Plaintiffs and/or those other than Ryan Schorr over whom Mr. Schorr had no controL 3. Any injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs are the result of intervening and/or superceding actions of others and were not proximately caused by the actions of Ryan Schorr and could not have been foreseen by Mr. Schorr. 4. Defendants specifically deny all of the averments and allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint of duty, breach, negligence, causation, and damages and demands strict proof 5 thereof. 5. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs are barred, in whole or in part, by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42. P.S. ~7102 et seq. 6. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs were caused, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs' assumption of the risk. 7. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages by virtlle ofthe fact that the dangers they allege were open and obviolls. 8. With respect to Plaintiffs' allegations of assault and battery, Ryan Schorr lacked the mental capacity to fonn the specific intent required of these intentional torts. 9. To the extent that Plaintiffs have sustained injuries or damages, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate those damages as required by applicable law. 10. Plaintiffs have no right to recover the value of any benefits received by plaintiffs, paid on plaintiffs' behalf, or available to plaintiffs from any collateral source. 6 I I. Defendants reserve the right to assert any additional affirmative defenses that become known as a result of discovery or further investigation 01' proceedings in this case. Respectfully Submitted, WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY ~~ GERALD WILLIAMS DANIEL BENCIVENGA 1617 J.F.K. BOlllevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 215-557-0099 Attorney for Defendants DATED: / //Jlt" if , , 7 VERIFICATION SUSAN SCHORR hereby states that she is an Administrator of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR, the Defendant in this action, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned lInderstands that the statements therein are made sllbject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to allthorities. ~dMtt ~{~ SUSAN SCHORR Dated: r ~ 4{JO f VERIFICATION KEITH L SCHORR hereby states that he is an Administrator of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR, the Defendant in this action, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The lIndersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 4904 relating to lInswom falsification to allthorities. , ////:1/' "!5vvY1 /~-li.0-~. 'KEITH L SCHORR Dated: 1/9/8.(; o/- CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Daniel Bencivenga. hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint was sent via first class mail to Mark K. Emery, Esqllire, attorney for Plaintiffs Gary S. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr., on January 13,2003. Dated: / /;3 / v 'f , I -,.L~ ~ Daniel Bencivenga, Esquire 0 "" 0 ~ c- C~l -" ~-;.: ..1:'" <- ::-:! ::r:~. I. .~ in E.: -0 ,-'j :T' ~-- ;') C, -'CJ " ('5 ~-'-l .' '. ) ;-;-1 (,) :-'-j ::.--~ r ...., :is -', --< WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY BY: Jeffrey P. Nydick, Esquire Ideutificatiou No.: 53778 One Penn Center At Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 w (215) 557-0099 GARRY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of : the EST A TE OF RYAN SCHORR, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE CLERK: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants' Keith L Schorr; Susan Schorr, as personal representative of the Estate of Ryan Schorr in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: April 12, 2005 Byr .<;: 12'.: JEFFREY . NYDICK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants' Keith L Schorr; Susan Schorr. as personal representative of the Estate of Ryan Schorr F:\DA T A\SCHORR\Berresford-Schon\Pleadings\04.l2.0S.Eutry of Appearance2.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeffrey Nydick, hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance, via U.S. first class regular mail. postage prepaid upon the following counsel and paTties of record: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiffs Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg. PA 171J2 Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY By: L-c <: Dated: April 12, 2005 F:\O A T A \SCHORR\Berresford-SchGrr\Pleadings\04.12.05 .Entry ot' Appearance2. wpd --- (~ ,..., .:;:.:) ~ r" .;(\ ~'~.I .,....-" - f~- ( " ...-:.-., c,.) c. - - WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY BY: Gerald J. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 36418 One Penn Center At Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, P A 19103-1819 .. (215) 557-0099 Attorneys for Defendants GARRY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT 011 COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. MOTION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION COMES NOW, Keith Schorr and Susan Schorr, in this case, by and through their attorney, Gerald 1. Williams, Esquire. moves the Court to specially admit William D. Breit, an out of state attorney, as co-counsel in this proceeding for the following reasons: 1. I am an attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a partner witthe law firm of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, counsel for plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. I make this certified statement in support of the Motion to admit William D. Breit, Esquire to appear pro hac vice in this matter. 2. William D. Breit, Esquire is a practicing attorney duly admitted to the Bar of the State of Virginia in good standing in the highest court of that jurisdiction. Mr. Breit has been involved in personal injury litigation and has represented individuals in these type of actions. Mr. Breit's experience would be an asset to this case. 3. As this case is in defense of a personal injury claim, defendants seek the special admission ofMr. Breit so that he may act as co-counsel for defendants and actively participate in any trial or pre-trial proceedings involved. 4. I understand that should this Court determine to admit counsel to appear and participate pro hac vice that I or another member of my firm will sign all pleadings, briefs or other papers filed with the court and that the firm of Williams Cuker Berezofsky shall be held responsible for them in the conduct of the cause and of Mr. Breit as the admitted attorney herein. 5. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(9), I hereby certify that the full text of the motion and the Proposed Order has been disclosed to all parties, and that concurrence to both the motion and proposed order has been given by each party. WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request this Court to admit William D. Breit, Esquire pro hac vice to serve as co-counsel for the defendants, along with the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, . BY: GERALD J. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Counsel for Defendants Keith Schorr and Susan Schorr Dated: q l/lf 10<:; .~J.~'" - WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY BY: Gerald J. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 36418 One Penn Center At Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 a- (215) 557-0099 Attorneys ~Dr Defendants GARRY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT OlF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. CERTIFICATION OF GERALD J. WILLIAMS. ESOVIRE Gerald J. Williams, Esquire, hereby certifies and says: 1. I am an attorney in the Commonwealth off'ennsylvaniaand a partner with the law firm of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, counsel for defendants in the above-captioned matter. I make this certified statement in support of the rnotion to admit William D. Breit, Esquire to appear pro hac vice in this matter. 2. As set forth in the Certification ofCounse:l, Mr. Breit is a member of the bar of the State of Virginia in good standing in the highest court oflhatjurisdiction, and has agreed to comply with all of the provisions of PA.R.I :21-2, 1:20-I(b) and 1:28-2. 3. I have agreed to serve as co-counsel with Mr. Breit in connection with this proceeding. Of course, his participation is subject to this cour:'s authorization permitting him to appear and participate pro hac vice in this matter. .. 4. I understand that should this court determine to admit counsel to appear and participate pro hac vice that I or another member of my firm will sign all pleadings, briefs, or other papers filed with the court, and that the firm ofWi1liarns Cuker Berezofsky shall be held responsible for him and for the conduct of the cause ofthem. 5. I certify that the foregoing statements mad,~ by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully fulse, I am subject to punishment. GERALD J. WILLIAMS Counsel for Plaintiffs Keith Schorr and SUSIIIl Schorr 11f.1 dcO;:;: Dated: ~~~--1 - ~ . "..,(\.... :.....'^"',.':~:v, - WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY BY: Gerald J. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 36418 One Penn Center At Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 a- (215) 557-0099 Attorneys for Defendants GARRY S. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR. COURT 011 COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERlAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the EST A TE OF RYAN SCHORR, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. CERTIFICATION OF WILLIAM D. BREIT, ESQUIRE William Breit, Esquire, hereby certifies and states: I. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Virginia in good standing with the State Bar of Virginia and am able to practice in Virginia courts. 2. I am associated with the law firm of Breit, P.O. Box 822, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23451. 3. I have never been subject to any disciplinary sanctions by any court or any bar association. 4. I am associated in this matter by way of co-counsd, with Gerald J. Williams, Esquire, a partner with the law firm of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, with offices at One Penn Center at Suburban Station, 1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 800, Philadelphia, P A 19103. Gerald J. Williams is a member in good standing of the bar ofthis court arld is qualified to practice pursuant to the P A Bar Admission. 5. I understand that ifI am admitted to appear and participate pro hac vice: a. I shall abide by the rules governing the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including all disciplinary rules; b. I shall notify this court immediately of any matter affecting my standing at the bar of any other court; and, c. I shall have all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court signed by an attorney of record, authorized to practice in this stat,e who shall be held responsible for them in the conduct of the cause and of me as the admitted attorney herein. 6. This is in defense of a personal injury action and I have substantial experience in this type of litigation. In particular, I have litigated similar cases in Virginia and have spent a great deal oftime researching, litigating and negotiating the issue:s in this case. I respectfully request that this court grant this application on behalf ofthe defendants in the above-captioned matter to permit me to appear and participatl~ pro hac vice. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements ro,,," by roe = willfully ful~. I = mbj~l to p"";;m~t. ~ I/n~' . WI lAM D. BREIT, ESQUIRE Dated: September 14,2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, GERALD J. WILLIAMS, hereby certify that on this dat(: I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing application of William D. Breit, Esquire, to practice in this court pursuant to P AR.l :21-2, I :20-l(b) and I :28-2. and the relevant proposed Order which, if granted, would permit such practice in this court was mailed by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid upon the following counsel and parties of record: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 41 0 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiffs Gary W. B,erresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital GERALD J. WILLIAMS Date: September 14,2005 (') "-> ~ = s:; = "" '"n ...... en :r 17; rr ,.... n1~ '~). {':. V ~5;,~,' \D ~6 )'.:~ ~[I.::rj ;:,:: " t-: :x ';'?c5 1: t:, c5rT1 !~ 'Y .---1 ~ .,.. U1 ~ C"'\ ~.. \'~'..".'\ \"\", }' .' , "V ~J. , f([lL:~ LU ..~u 23 Z005 ,or>> GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. KEITH I. SCHORR, ET AL. GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001/ KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this 1.9€< day of ~,...d , 2005, upon careful consideration of the Defendant's unopposed Motion to Consolidate, the Motion to Consolidate is granted and Civil Term dockets 6498-2001 and 7232-2001 are hereby consolidated for aU purposes. BY THE COURT Is} -;d~ (? /LAA I I J. 5 ~ '\ ~1 ~ t 1 ~rc\ 1 .~ ~ .~ .J. ~) ~ . -r ~.i ~ i>- t ~. ~ i'" S ~rY;) - '- <l J c::::b ;,: , GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 C) f"-,) c:--) "_..1 Cl .-n HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT ,.- 1::-1 ;-'1 CJ :::-J [;; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS - - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,-., , CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL Y~NIAi v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 J KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TORT CLAIMS ACT Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully submits that it is entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, and that all claims against it in this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, as follows: I. Plaintiffs Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr. were injured during the course and scope of their employment as police officers with the West Shore Regional Police Department while attempting to apprehend Ryan Schorr, now deceased. 2. Plaintiffs Berresford and Hart commenced an action against Holy Spirit Hospital on February 12, 2002, which case is docketed No. 2001-06498. 3. Later, on July 8, 2003, Plaintiffs Berresford and Hart filed a Complaint against Keith L Schorr and Susan Schorr, as administrators of The Estate of Ryan Schorr, which case is docketed 207232-2001. 4. By order of this Court, dated August 29, 2005, these cases have been consolidated for all purposes. 5. Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Schorr in their own right and as personal representatives of The Estate of Ryan Schorr, filed an earlier Section 1983 action against numerous parties, including Cumber/and County, Holy Spirit Hospital, and the West Shore Regional Police Department. That case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, docketed to No.1 :CV-OI-930. 6. Extensive discovery was undertaken in the federal action, including exchange of documents and depositions of persons at Holy Spirit HospitaL 7. It is undisputed that the claims of all parties in all of the cases mentioned above arise out of an incident that occurred on November 18, 2000. 8. It is undisputed that these events of November 18, 2000 occurred when the Plaintiff police officers obtained custody of decedent Ryan Schorr pursuant to an order and warrant for involuntary commitment under 9302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. See, Plaintiffs' Complaint in CUll1berland County No. 06498-2001, ~~6-I1. 9. It is further undisputed that on November 18, 2000, the Plaintiff police officers delivered the decedent, Ryan Schorr, to Holy Spirit Hospital and no other facility because Holy Spirit Hospital serves as the provider of emergency (crisis intervention) services for the counties of Cumber/and and Perry under a contract between the counties of Cumber/and and Perry, on the one hand, and Holy Spirit Hospital on the other. A copy of the contract in effect on the date of the incident is attached to the Appendix of Holy Spirit Hospital in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit A 2 , 10. The Complaint filed by PIaintiff police officers against Holy Spirit Hospital contains only one Count, titled "Negligence." 11. In ~35 of their Complaint, Plaintiff police officers allege that "Holy Spirit, in its capacity as a mental health provider and as the crisis intervention unit of Cumberland County, owes a duty all members of the general public to keep them safe from harm from individuals placed under its supervision and control." Emphasis added. 12. Holy Spirit Hospital previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment III the case docketed No. 6498-2001 on several grounds. 13. This Court denied Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment in an Opinion and Order dated May 11, 2005. 14. Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully submitted a Motion for Reconsideration following the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. 15. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Opinion and Order dated May 31, 2005. 16. This Court also issued an Order dated September 21, 2005, allowing Plaintiffs to conduct written discovery as to "general income, as well as to all income derived from defendant's position as the Crisis Intervention Unit for Cumberland County Mental HealthlMental Retardation." Emphasis added. 17. Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully submits that because all claims in this case arise out of an involuntary commitment procedure instituted under the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract, through which Holy Spirit Hospital provides 3 Emergency (Crisis Intervention) Services for Cumberland and Perry Counties, the claims of Plaintiff police officers are barred by the governmental immunity provisions of Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), 42 found in ~854l of the Judicial Code 42 Pa.C.S. ~8541. 18. Immunity from suit is a non-waivable defense. 19. The issue of governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act has not been raised or addressed in any fashion by this Court. 20. Materials in support of this Motion, including the applicable contract, have been filed of record as part of the Appendix of Holy Spirit Hospital in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order dismissing all claims against it, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: December I, 2005 BY: MICHAEL D. PIP A, ES E P A 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 4 GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CNIL 2001 KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on December 1, 2005, I served a copy ofthe Motion of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for Summary Judgment pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act via personal delivery as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jeffrey Nydick, Esquire Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, Ste. 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. Post Office Box 822 Virginia Beach, V A 23451 1A~L,QWo Michael D. Pipa 105 J ILlABIMEPILLPGl198860lKPMI13246100828 GARY W BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W BERRESFORD and HARRY S HART, JR, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RY AN K. SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TORT CLAIMS ACT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Answer to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgement Pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 1 , 5. Admitted upon information and belief 6. Denied. Plaintiffs were not a party to the federal action referenced by Defendant, and therefore Plaintiffs do not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the averments in regards to such action, and therefore Paragraph 6 is denied. 7. Denied as a conclusion oflaw. By way of further response, Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraph 6 herein by reference. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. Plaintiff cites to no facts of record or other admissible evidence supporting its contention as to the reasons why Defendant Schorr was delivered to Holy Spirit HospitaL By way of further response, Paragraph 9 is based upon a writing, namely the contract entered into between Holy Spirit Hospital and Cumberland and Perry Counties, such contract being a writing which speaks for itself 10. Paragraph 10 refers to a pleading which speaks for itself and is therefore denied. 11. Paragraph 11 refers to a pleading which speaks for itself and is therefore denied 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Paragraph 16 refers to an Order which speaks for itself, and is therefore denied 17. Denied as a conclusion oflaw. 18. Denied as a conclusion oflaw. 19. Admitted. 2 20. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Gary W. Berresford and Harry S. Hart, Jr., respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgement. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARKK EMERY By: /~~~~ Mark K Emery, Esquire Supreme Court J.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE: January 3, 2006 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 3'd day of January, 2006, I, Mark K Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgement Pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY BY:~--/_________~ . /' Mark KEmery ~o ~::-~ c-:" ~~l c,_ ::''': ",,'~- , f,._' ." ..... -.- {~-1 . W r:~ ~0 J.:~ GARY W BERRESFORD AND HARRY S HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RY AN K SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER OF DECEMBER 1, 2005 AND STRIKE CASE FROM ARGUMENT COURT LIST AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Mark KEmery, Esquire, and files this Motion to Amend Scheduling Order of December 1, 2005 and Strike Case from Argument Court List, as follows: 1. As the result of a Status Conference, the Honorable Kevin A Hess issued a scheduling order dated December I, 2005. A copy of such Order is attached hereto as Exhibit" A" 2. Pursuant to such Order, discovery was extended to March 1, 2006. 3. In addition, pursuant to the scheduling Order Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was to be listed for the February 15, 2006 Argument Court date. 4. Currently Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is listed for argument for February 15, 2006. 5. Plaintiffs propounded valid discovery requests upon Defendants on December 30,2005, such discovery addressing issues which are relevant and material to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement. 6. Defendants have served objections to such discovery, and did so only recently on February 1, 2006. 7. Plaintiffs have, concurrently herewith, filed a Motion to Deem Requests Admitted, or Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to request for Admissions, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees. ("Discovery Motion") A copy of such Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 8. As the disposition of Plaintiffs Discovery Motion would have direct impact and bearing on the disposition of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, including, but not limited to, the presentation of all relevant and pertinent facts to necessary for the Court to make a determination on summary judgement, it is hereby requested that the Motion for Summary Judgement be stricken from the February 15,2006 Argument Court list. 9. As it can not be determined at this time when the Discovery motion will be addressed, it is further requested that the scheduling order of December 1, 2005 be stayed until such time as a new scheduling order can be established based upon the conclusion of discovery requested under the Discovery Motion 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 206-2 counsel for Defendant was advised of the intention to file this Motion and was requested to consent to the request therein. As the cOUltesy of a response was not provided, it is assumed Defendant does not concur. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court strike the listing of Defendant's motion for Summary Judgement from the February 15, 2006 Argument Court list, and stay the Scheduling Order of December 1, 2005 until such time as Plaintiff's Discovery Motion is heard and ruled upon. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: ~#:~~ Mark K Emery, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE: February 7,2006 3 GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LA W NO. 01-6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LA W NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this / " day of December, 2005, following conference with counsel for the plaintiffs and with counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital, a conference which counsel for Keith L Schorr et al. did not attend, the following scheduling order is entered: I. All discovery in this case, including the furnishing of defense expert reports, shall be completed by March 1,2006. 2. The pending summary judgment motion of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, will be listed for argument no later than the session to be held on February 15, 2006. 3. Counsel may list this case for trial during the week of June 12. 2006. EXHIBIT I A Inasmuch as counsel for Keith L ScholT, et aI., did not appear at the conference, said counsel shall be estopped from objecting to this scheduling order after December 16, 2005. BY THE COURT, Mark K. Emery, Esquire For the Plaintiffs I ~ II ;;L Michael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Defendant Gerald]. Williams, Esquire William D. Breit, Esquire For Keith L ScholT, et aI. :rlm GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K SCHORR - Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees, as follows: On December 1, 2005 a Status Conference was held before the Honorable Kevin A Hess. EXHIBIT I 8 2. At such Status Conference, inter alia, the Court established a discovery deadline of March 1, 2006. A copy ofJudge Hess' Status Conference Order is attached hereto as Exhibit" A". 3. At such Status Conference counsel for Defendant served a Motion for Summary Judgment, raising a defense of qualified immunity. 4. On December 30,2005 Plaintiffs served upon Defendant a Request for Admissions - Second Set. A copy of these Requests are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Service, pursuant to Pa. R.c.p 440 (b), was complete upon mailing on December 30,2005, and therefore the computation of time commenced that day. 5. Pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 40I4(b), all matters are admitted unless an answer or objection to the Request for Admission is served within 30 days of service. 6. Rather than provide Answers to any ofthe valid requests for Admissions, Defendants asserted bad faith and meritless objections to all Requests. A copy of Defendant's obj ections are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 7. Defendants did not serve their objections to the Request for Admissions until February 1,2006, which is outside of the time period allowed by statute. The time for service, as set forth in Pa. R.c.P. 40I4(b) wold have been no later than January 30, 2006. 8. Defendants timed the service of their baseless objections in order to inhibit Plaintiff s ability to defend their Motion for Summary Judgment, scheduled for Argument Court on February 15, 2006. 2 9. Aside from the fact Defendant served its Objections outside ofthe time period allowed by statue, Defendant's objections are without merit. and propounded solely for the purpose of inhibiting proper discovery and again delaying the litigation. 10. Defendants lengthy objections are essentially a claim that discovery should not be allowed after a motion for summary judgment is filed. Defimdant cites to no statute, case\aw or court ruling as a support for such contention, as no such support exists. 11. Defendant's objections ignore both the Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's order of December 1, 2005, which specifically establishes a discovery deadline. 12. The Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery, Pa. R.C.P 4001 et seq., place no time limitation on propounding discovery requests, or in any way limit the use of discovery once a motion for summary judgment is filed. 13. Defendant argues that Pa.R. c.P 1035 J allows a party to assert in response to a motion for summary judgment that it cannot present evidence essential to justify the opposition to a motion and propose action to be taken to present such evidence. 14. Defendant makes a substantial leap in logic to argue that because Plaintiff did not assert such in their Answer to the Motion for Summary Judgment, they are prohibited from conducting any discovery in order to present a full and complete factual record to the Court in considering Defendant's Motion. 15 Such position ignores that at the Status Conference a continuation of discovery was specifically discussed and agreed upon, thereby negating the need to assert 3 additional discovery was needed in Plaintiffs' Answer to the Motion or Summary Judgment. ] 6. But for Defendant's bad faith objections, discovery would have been complete in time to supplement the record, as allowed under Pa. R.C.P. 10353, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Motion for Summary Judgment. 17. Defendants' objections are for the sole purpose of evading proper discovery requests in order to shield from the Court's determination of its Motion for Summary Judgment facts harmful to its case. 18. Defendant's position that the Request for Admissions were not timely, as baseless as it is, would have been properly asserted by a Motion for Protective Order under Pa. R.C.P. 4012, not by simply filing objections to otherwise valid discovery requests. 19. Defendant has undertaken a course of conduct designed solely to delay the proper adjudication of this matter, such course being a hallmark of its conduct throughout this litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court deem all Request for Admissions admitted as Defendant failed to timely file its objections, or , alternatively, Order Defendant to serve full and complete answers to the Request for Admissions within 10 days. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS FEES 20 Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 21 As set forth above, Defendant has failed to make discovery as required under Pa. R.c. P. 4014 and the Court's scheduling order of December 1, 2005. 4 22. Pursuant to Pa.RC.P. 40I9(a)(viii) the Court may sanction Defendant for this bad faith conduct. 23. Defendant's conduct is part and parcel of their dilatory conduct throughout the course of this litigation. 24. Defendant attaches as a support for its baseless objections correspondence from the undersigned, sent over the course of the last year, demanding Defendant to cease their dilatory conduct. Defendant now claims its past dilatory conduct is the justification for delaying this matter even further by filing baseless objections to valid and authorized discovery requests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court enter sanctions against Defendant, and further award attorney's fees in an amount to be determined. LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: y~~ "Mark K Emery, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE February 7, 2006 5 GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CNILACTION -LAW NO. 01-6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRlT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRES FORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-7232 CNIL KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this I" day of December, 2005, following conference with counsel for the plaintiffs and with counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital, a conference which counsel for Keith L Schorr et at did not attend, the following scheduling order is entered: 1. All discovery in this case, including the furnishing of defense expert reports. shall be completed by March 1,2006. 2. The pending summary judgment motion of defendant, Holy Spirit HospitaL will be listed for argument no later than the session to be held on February 15,2006. 3. Counsel may list this case for trial during the week of June 12,2006. Inasmuch as counsel for Keith I. Schorr, et a!., did not appear at the conference, said counsel shall be estopped from objecting to this scheduling order after December 16,2005. BY THE COURT, Mark K. Emery, Esquire For the Plaintiffs -AJ~ Michael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Defendant Gerald J. Williams, Esquire William D. Breit, Esquire For Keith I. Schorr, et a!. :r1m GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTlIFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V A'N1A V. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARYW. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITII L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET TO: Holy Spirit Hospital c/oMichael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 These Request for Admissions are propounded pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and are to be answered by the Defendant in accordance therewith. Defendant is required to answer these Requests for Admissions in writing under oath, based upon all information available to her and to her attorneys, employees, and other agents, or representatives. Defendant is also required to serve answers to these Request for Admissions within thirty (30) days, to the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel, The Law Offices of Mark KEmery, 410 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, and supplement her answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. INSTRUCTIONS 1. The following Requests for Admissions are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days of service upon you. Objections must be signed by the attorney raising the objection. In answering, you must furnish any and all information available to you, your employees, representatives, agents and attorneys. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identifY the privilege or immunity asserted and provides sufficient information to substantiate the claim. 3. In lieu of identifying documents in response to these Request for Admissions, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding Request. 4. These Requests for Admissions shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. "Hospital", as used herein, shall refer to Holy Spirit Hospital and its affiliates. 6. "Schorr", as used herein, shall mean Ryan Schorr. 2 1. On November 18, 2000, Holy Spirit did not provide treatment to Schorr. ANSWER: 2. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the security policies of Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 3. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties control the staffing of security guards, including the number of guards on duty at anyone time, at Holy Spirit hospital ANSVv'ER: 4. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the training of security guards at Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 5. Holy Spirit Hospital is a privately owned and operated health care facility. Ac'lSWER: 3 6. Holy Spirit Hospital provides medical services through its emergency rooms services that are in no way affiliated or connected to its contract with Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. ANSWER: 7. Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. ANSWER 8. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are employed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 9. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are under the supervision or control of Cumberland or Perry Counties.. At'lSWER: 4 10. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not established by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 11. The securitY procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not monitored or reviewed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 12, The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are established and performed solely under the direction and control of Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: 13. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties make payment to Holy Spirit Hospital for the security services or personnel provided or employed by Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: 14. Pursuant to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract, Holy Spirit Hospital is "an independent contractor and not an agent, servant, or employee of [Cumberland or Perry] County". ANSWER 5 15. The Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract does not address or control the security staffing, programs or implementation by Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY DATE' December 30,2005 7-;:?4~ BY~~~ Mark K. Emery, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30th day ofDecernber, 2005, I, Mark K Emery, Esquire do hereby certify-that I have served Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, Second Set by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: ~7~---- Mark K Erhery GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CNIL 2001 KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to the Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set in its entirety and to each and every one of the fifteen (15) requested admissions in the Second Set. Defendant objects because the request is untimely, would case unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expense, and appears at least in part to have been sought in bad faith. For a significant amount oftime, approaching one year, Plaintiffs' through their counsel have repeatedly asserted that discovery in this matter is either complete or near completion and that the case should be listed for trial promptly. Letters from Plaintiffs' counsel to this effect, dated March 18, 2005, July 6,2005 and August 10,2005 are attached to this response. Further, Plaintiffs represented to the Court in the August 10, 2005 letter and their uncontested Motion for Continuance / Rescheduling that the case was ready for trial. In addition, Plaintiffs' attended a status conference in this case on December l, 2005, and asked that the case be listed for trial promptly on the basis that all necessary discovery in order to present the case at trial had been completed. Moreover, the substance of Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set appear to be directed toward arguments that Plaintiffs might raise in response to a pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Hospital on or about December 1, 2005. Under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035, a motion for summary judgment may be filed at the close of all relevant discovery. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Hospital is the second Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this case. Rule 1035 provides a method through which a party opposing summary judgment may supplement the factual record in the case within thirty days or alert the movant and the Court that the opposing party believes that more than thirty days is necessary in order to conduct further discovery to sufficiently develop the factual record. Specially, Rule 1035.3 provides that, within thirty days after the filing for motion a summary judgment, the adverse party must file a response, in which case the adverse party has several options. The options include: "(b) an adverse party may supplement the record or set forth the reasons why the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion and any action proposed to be taken by the party to present such evidence." Rule l035.3(b). 2 In response to Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' did not supplement the record and did not set forth any reasons why they could not present evidence essential to oppose the motion or any proposed action (such as further discovery). Instead, Plaintiffs simply filed an Answer to the Motion in which they admitted many of the contentions in the Motion, denied others as conclusions oflaw, and claimed that several of the paragraphs of the Motion refer to pleadings that speak for themselves. In any event, Plaintiffs did not, under Rule 10353, assert the need for any further discovery. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully submits that discovery in this matter, particularly as it pertains to the Motion for Summary Judgment under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, is closed, primarily at the insistence of Plaintiffs. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital has listed the Motion for Summary Judgment for disposition pursuant to the Court's Order, which Order was obtained at a status conference during which the Motion for Summary Judgment and the thirty day response period were discussed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to further discovery now. Defendant respectfully submits that it is burdensome, oppressive, designed to delay a decision on the merits, designed to harass, and otherwise suggestive of bad faith for Plaintiffs to now seek further discovery, especially given the clarity of the applicable rule of procedure. By way of further answer, and without waiving any objection, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital also objects to the Request for Admissions because the subject matter, including the tem1S and conditions of the written contract issued by Cumberland and Perry Counties for the provision of mental health crisis intervention services, has already been discussed thoroughly during the depositions in this case. Further, in Plaintiffs' answer to Paragraph 9 ofRoly Spirit 3 Hospital's Motion, Plaintiffs' claim that there is no evidence supporting the Hospital's contention about why Ryan Schorr was brought to the Hospital. However, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff Police Officers were serving a Section 302 a warrant at the time, as they have testified in their depositions and so pled in their Complaint in this action. For Plaintiffs to now suggest that the reason for bringing Ryan Schorr to Holy Spirit Hospital is unknown or not established or in any way a proper subject of further discovery or a genuine issue of fact for trial reflects the unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Holy Spirit Hospital as a result of this proposed discovery and suggests that this discovery is sought in bad faith. Plaintiffs have many times asserted that this matter is ready for trial. Plaintiffs filed an Answer to Holy Spirit Hospital's pending Motion for Summary Judgment and did not, in that Answer, claim that any additional time was necessary in order to supplement the factual record. The factual record for purposes of summary judgment is now closed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully objects to this attempt to conduct discovery relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment. All other specific objections to each and every one ofthe fifteen requests are specifically reserved and preserved. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: February I, 2006 BY'~ MICHAEL D. PIP ESQUIRE PA 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 4 ( LAW OFFICES OF MARKK. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 \ Mark K. Emery, Esquire Fax (717) 238-98~4 e-mail memerylaw@aol.com March 18, 2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I had left a message for you on March 16, 2005, but have received no response. Therefore, this letter is to inform you that I will wait no longer to move this matter to trial. I believe it is fair to say that I have provided the utmost professional courtesy, and my demand now is more than reasonable. I will provide until the end of this month for you to file your contemplated Motion for Summary Judgment. If it is not filed by such time I will list this matter for trial on April 1 ,2005. Thank you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY MKElvh BY:~~~ Mark K. Emery ~r :!~ ,~ji~I~! /, :?f/i - ;if ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ( LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 238-9883 Mark K. Emery, Esquire Fax (717) 238-9884 e-mail Inemerylaw@aol.com July 6, 2005 The Honorable Kevin A Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Berresford et. al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 06498-2001 Dear Judge Hess: Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Plaintiffs Uncontested Motion for Continuance/Rescheduling. As stated therein, I am on vacation on the date scheduled for argument on my clients' Motion for Leave of Court to Conduct Discovery Relevant to Punitive Damages. I therefore respectfully request a rescheduling of that argument. As also noted in the Motion, this matter is ready for trial. I am concerned that my conflict of schedule will move the argument back further, thereby delaying the ability to list the matter for trial. I therefore respectfully request that, if possible, the argument be rescheduled at an earlier date and time. I have noted in the Motion dates that opposing counsel, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, is unavailable. I appreciate your consideration of this request, and apologize for any inconvenience it may cause. Thank you. Very truly yours. LAW OFFICES OF MARK 1<. EMERY By: Mark K. Emery MKE/vh Enclosure cc: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire (w/enc.) m~@~nl)~~ Uu JUL - 7 2005 W By (,fil, \ j c)\.. \ lp - ~d't (f?) (Q) ~ ~ ~- ( (' LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238.9883 Mark K. Emery, Esquire ~ Fax (717) 238-9884 e.mail memerylaw@aol.com August 10, 2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg. PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I write to specifically put you on notice that upon the resolution of my discovery motion as to punitive damages intend to list this matter for trial. At that time I will move to consolidate this action with the Schorr Estate action. I have confirmed with Holy Spirit's prior counsel that they had concluded discovery. I do not believe any further discovery is necessary, and you have taken no steps to conduct any discovery since you entered your appearance. If you truly believe additional discovery is necessary, then you should commence such immediately. Lastly, I do not believe a status conference is necessary. If that is your belief, than you are certainly able to request one. However, just as with the discovery issue, I will accept no further delays in bringing this matter to trial. Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Thank you. 'n,'; (,'_c 'I r,n 'e I .;-=.: '~l '_.:: U L..../ L.;:n .'< lilr AUG 1 1 2005 i ~ I \~~;'~ vi V, \ I \ \0 ___u____ J~~0- O~O MKEJvh Very truly yours. LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY ~~-;.:...----- BY://~:'~~------:7 Mark K. Emery__________~ GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT J1JRY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL V Ac'lIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on February I, 2006, I served a copy of the Response of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set via first class regular mail as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jeffrey Nydick, Esquire Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 IF-K. Boulevard. Ste. 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law. P.C Post Office Box 822 Virgmia Beach, VA 23451 105_ A ILlABIMEPID 15C\21 0651 \KPM\ 13246100828 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2006, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certifY that I have served Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order of December 1, 2005 and Strike Case from Argument Court List, by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, Pc. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By4~- Mark KEmery ',...'-:'..\......'r'y:->....A." ~,~~.,"""".,. "' , GARY W BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v . DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. . DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators ofthe Estate of RYAN K SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Mark KEmery, Esquire, and files this Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorn~y's Fees, as follows. I. On December I, 2005 a Status Conference was held before the Honorable Kevin A Hess. 2. , At such Status Conference, inter alia, the Court established a discovery deadline of March 1,2006. A copy of Judge Hess' Status C(Jnference Order is attached 3. hereto as Exhibit "A" At such Status Conference counsel for Defendant served a Motion for Summary Judgment, raising a defense of qualified immunity. On December 30, 2005 Plaintiffs served upon Defendant a Request for Admissions - Second Set A copy of these Requests are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Service, pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 440 (b), was (:omplete upon mailing on December 30, 2005, and therefore the computati(Jn oftime commenced that 4. 5. day Pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 4014(b), all matters are adlUitted unless an answer or objection to the Request for Admission is served within 30 days of service. Rather than provide Answers to any of the valid requests for Admissions, Defendants asserted bad faith and meritless objections to all Requests. A copy of Defendant's objections are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Defendants did not serve their objections to the R.equest for Admissions until February I, 2006, which is outside of the time periOd allowed by statute. The time for service, as set forth in Pa. RC.P. 4014(b) Wold have been no later than 6. 7. 8. January 30, 2006. Defendants timed the service of their baseless objections in order to inhibit Plaintiff s ability to defend their Motion for SUffill1ary Judgment, scheduled for Argument Court on February 15, 2006. 2 "-"-"--'-""""-'-'-""""'.'~."-"--"-' .. -,,,,>.,,,,,-,,,,,,,,"-,-,--,,".-"-"~""""",---=-'-'.'''''' -~,,-~.-,. ", ,-"- .. 1 9 Aside from the fact Defendant served its Objections outside of the time period allowed by statue, Defendant's objections are without merit, and propounded solely for the purpose of inhibiting proper discovery and again delaying the litigation. 10. Defendants lengthy objections are essentially a claim that discovery should not be allowed after a motion for summary judgment is filed. Defendant cites to no statute, caselaw or court ruling as a support for such contention, as no such support exists. 11. Defendant's objections ignore both the Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's order of December 1, 2005, which specifically establishes a discovery deadline. 12. The Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery, Pa. R.C.P 400] et seq., place no time limitation on propounding discovery requests, or in any way limit the use of discovery once a motion for summary judgment is filed. 13. Defendant argues that Pa.RC.P 1035.3 allows a party to assert in response to a motion for summary judgment that it cannot present evidence essential to justify the opposition to a motion and propose action to be taken to present such evidence. 14. Defendant makes a substantial leap in logic to argue that because Plaintiff did not assert such in their Answer to the Motion for Summary Judgment, they are prohibited from conducting any discovery in order to present a full and complete factual record to the Court in considering Defendant's Motion. 15. Such position ignores that at the Status Conference a continuation of discovery was specifically discussed and agreed upon, thereby negating the need to assert 3 additional discovery was needed in Plaintiffs' Answer to the Motion or Summary Judgment 16 But for Defendant's bad faith objections, discovery would have been complete in time to supplement the record, as allowed under Pa. RC.P. 1035.3, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Motion for Summary Judgment' 17. Defendants' objections are for the sole purpose of evading proper discovery requests in order to shield from the Court's determination of its Motion for Summary Judgment facts harmful to its case. l8. Defendant's position that the Request for Admissions were not timely, as baseless as it is, would have been properly asserted by a Motion for Protective Order under Pa. R.c.P. 4012, not by simply filing objections to otherwise valid discovery requests. ] 9. Defendant has undertaken a course of conduct designed solely to delay the proper adjudication of this matter, such course being a hallmark of its conduct throughout this litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court deem all Request for Admissions admitted as Defendant failed to timely fiJe its objections, or, alternatively, Order Defendant to serve full and complete answers to the Request for Admissions within 10 days. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS FEES 20 Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 2] As set forth above, Defendant has failed to make discovery as required under Pa RC. P. 40]4 and the Court's scheduling order of December 1,2005. 4 , , 22 Pursuant to Pa.RC.P. 4019(a)(viii) the Court may sanction Defendant for this bad faith conduct. 23 Defendant's conduct is part and parcel of their dilatory conduct throughout the course of this litigation. 24. Defendant attaches as a support for its baseless objections correspondence from the undersigned, sent over the course ofthe last year, demanding Defendant to cease their dilatory conduct. Defendant now claims its past dilatory conduct is the justification for delaying this matter even further by filing baseless objections to valid and authorized discovery requests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court enter sanctions against Defendant, and further award attorney's fees in an amount to be determined LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: ~/~ ;' Mark K Emery, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 I (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE February 7, 2006 5 - GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs vs. KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LA W NO. 01-6498 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-7232 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this /" day of December, 2005, following conference with counsel for the plaintiffs and with cOlmsel for Holy Spirit Hospital, a conference which counsel for Keith 1. Schorr et al. did not attend, the following scheduling order is entered: 1. All discovery in this case, including the furnishing of defense expert reports, shall be completed by March 1,2006. 2. The pending summary judgment motion of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, will be listed for argument no later than the session to be held on February 15,2006. 3. Counsel may list this case for trial during the week of June 12,2006. '." EXHIBIT J i A Inasmuch as counsel for Keith I. Schorr, et aI., did not appear at the conference, said counsel shall be estopped from objecting to this scheduling order after December 16, 2005. BY THE COURT, Mark K. Emery, Esquire For the Plaintiffs ~IlJ Michael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Defendant Gerald J. Williams, Esquire William D. Breit, Esquire For Keith I. Schorr, et al. :rlm GARYW. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINT1FFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYANK SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET TO: Holy Spirit Hospital c/oMichael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 These Request for Admissions are propounded pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and are to be answered by the Defendant in accordance therewith. Defendant is required to answer these Requests for Admissions in writing under oath, based upon all information available to her and to her attorneys, employees, and other agents, or representatives. Defendant is also required to serve answers to these Request for Admissions within thirty (30) days, to the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel, The Law Offices of Mark KEmery, 410 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, and supplement her answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure EXHIBIT I () INSTRUCTIONS 1. The following Requests for Admissions are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days of service upon you. Objections must be signed by the attorney raising the objection. In answering, you must furnish any and all information availab!e to you, your employees, representatives, agents and attorneys. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. With respect to any claim ofprivjlege or immunity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or immunity asserted and provides sufficient information to substantiate the claim. 3. In lieu of identifying documents in response to these Request for Admissions, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding Request. 4. These Requests for Admissions shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. "Hospital", as used herein, shall refer to Holy Spirit Hospital and its affiliates. 6. "Schorr", as used herein, shall mean Ryan Schorr. 2 I. On November 18, 2000, Holy Spirit did not provide treatment to Schorr. ANSWER: 2. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the security policies of Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 3. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties control the staffing of security guards, including the number of guards on duty at anyone time, at Holy Spirit hospital ANSWER: 4. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the training of security guards at Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 5. Holy Spirit Hospital is a privately owned and operated health care facility. ANSWER: 3 ---- 6. Holy Spirit Hospital provides medical services through its emergency rooms services that are in no way affiliated or connected to its contract with Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. ANSWER: 7. Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. ANSWER: 8. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are employed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 9. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are under the supervision or control of Cumberland or Perry Counties.. ANSWER 4 --- 10. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not established by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 11. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not monitored or reviewed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 12. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are established and performed solely under the direction and control of Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 13. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties make payment to Holy Spirit Hospital for the security services or personnel provided or employed by Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 14. Pursuant to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract, Holy Spirit Hospital is "an independent contractor and not an agent, servant, or employee of [Cumberland orPerryJ County". ANSWER 5 15. The Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract does not address or control the security staffing, programs or implementation by Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K EMERY DATE: December 30, 2005 ~ BY~~~ Mark K Emery, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2005, I, Mark K Emery, Esquire do hereby certify. that I have served Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, Second Set by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.C. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY BY:~~~ Mark K. Erhery GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRlT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to the Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set in its entirety and to each and every one of the fifteen (15) requested admissions in the Second Set. Defendant objects because the request is untimely, would case umeasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expense, and appears at least in part to have been sought in bad faith. For a significant amount oftime, approaching one year, Plaintiffs' through their counsel have repeatedly asserted that discovery in this matter is either complete or near completion and that the case should be listed for trial promptly. Letters from Plaintiffs' counsel to this effect, dated March 18, 2005. July 6, 2005 and August 10, 2005 are attached to this response. ~ EXHIBIT J j c Further, Plaintiffs represented to the Court in the August 10, 2005 letter and their uncontested Motion for Continuance / Rescheduling that the case was ready for trial. In addition, Plaintiffs' attended a status conference in this case on December I, 2005, and asked that the case be listed for trial promptly on the basis that all necessary discovery in order to present the case at trial had been completed. Moreover, the substance of Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions- Second Set appear to be directed toward arguments that Plaintiffs might raise in response to a pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Hospital on or about December 1, 2005. Under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035, a motion for summary judgment may be filed at the close of all relevant discovery. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Hospital is the second Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this case. Rule 1035 provides a method through which a party opposing summary judgment may supplement the factual record in the case within thirty days or alert the movant and the Court that the opposing party believes that more than thirty days is necessary in order to conduct further discovery to sufficiently develop the factual record. Specially, Rule 1035.3 provides that, within thirty days after the filing for motion a summary judgment, the adverse party must file a response, in which case the adverse party has several options. The options include: "(b) an adverse party may supplement the record or set forth the reasons why the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion and any action proposed to be taken by the party to present such evidence. " Rule I035.3(b). 2 In response to Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' did not supplement the record and did not set forth any reasons why they could not present evidence essential to oppose the motion or any proposed action (such as further discovery). Instead, Plaintiffs simply filed an Answer to the Motion in which they admitted many of the contentions in the Motion, denied others as conclusions oflaw, and claimed that several of the paragraphs of the Motion refer to pleadings that speak for themselves. In any event, Plaintiffs did not, under Rule 1035.3, assert the need for any further discovery. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully submits that discovery in this matter, particularly as it pertains to the Motion for Summary Judgment under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, is closed, primarily at the insistence of Plaintiffs. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital has listed the Motion for Summary Judgment for disposition pursuant to the Court's Order, which Order was obtained at a status conference during which the Motion for Summary Judgment and the thirty day response period were discussed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to further discovery now. Defendant respectfully submits that it is burdensome, oppressive, designed to delay a decision on the merits, designed to harass, and otherwise suggestive of bad faith for Plaintiffs to now seek further discovery, especially given the clarity of the applicable rule of procedure. By way of further answer, and without waiving any objection, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital also objects to the Request for Admissions because the subject matter, including the terms and conditions of the written contract issued by Cumberland and Perry Counties for the provision of mental health crisis intervention services, has already been discussed thoroughly during the depositions in this case. Further, in Plaintiffs I answer to Paragraph 9 of Holy Spirit 3 Hospital's Motion, Plaintiffs' claim that there is no evidence supporting the Hospital's contention about why Ryan Schorr was brought to the Hospital. However, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff Police Officers were serving a Section 302 a warrant at the time, as they have testified in their depositions and so pled in their Complaint in this action. For Plaintiffs to now suggest that the reason for bringing Ryan Schorr to Holy Spirit Hospital is unknown or not established or in any way a proper subject of further discovery or a genuine issue of fact for trial reflects the umeasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Holy Spirit Hospital as a result of this proposed discovery and suggests that this discovery is sought in bad faith. Plaintiffs have many times asserted that this matter is ready for trial. Plaintiffs filed an Answer to Holy Spirit Hospital's pending Motion for Summary Judgment and did not, in that Answer, claim that any additional time was necessary in order to supplement the factual record. The factual record for purposes of summary judgment is now closed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully objects to this attempt to conduct discovery relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment. All other specific objections to each and every one ofthe fifteen requests are specifically reserved and preserved. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: February 1, 2006 BY:1W~ MICHAEL D. PIP PA 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 4 ( LAW OFFICES OF MARKK. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Mark K. Emery, Esquire Fax (717) 238-98~4 e-mail memerylaw@aol.com March 18, 2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I had left a message for you on March 16,2005, but have received no response. Therefore, this letter is to inform you that I will wait no longer to move this matter to trial. I believe it is fair to say that I have provided the utmost professional courtesy, and my demand now is more than reasonable. I will provide until the end of this month for you to file your contemplated Motion for Summary Judgment. If it is not filed by such time I will list this matter for trial on April 1 ,2005. Thank you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: ~7~~ Mark K. Emery MKElvh ~- ---. .-~ ,--- '1 7' c= [i\ I I~. .~>., ',-- I \-.,;;c- --.. ~r ~ L': '~!-'~l~i L /, ::;;:;V& - ;,e ~ @ y c ( ! LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 4 J 0 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 238-9883 Mark K. Emery, Esquire Fax (7] Z) 238-9884 e.mail memerylaw@aol.com July 6, 2005 The Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Berresford et. al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 06498-2001 Dear Judge Hess: Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Plaintiffs Uncontested Motion for Continuance/Rescheduling. As stated therein, I am on vacation on the date scheduled for argument on my clients' Motion for Leave of Court to Conduct Discovery Relevant to Punitive Damages. I therefore respectfully request a rescheduling of that argument. As also noted in the Motion, this matter is ready for trial. I am concerned that my conflict of schedule will move the argument back further, thereby delaying the ability to list the matter for trial. I therefore respectfully request that, if possible, the argument be rescheduled at an earlier date and time. I have noted in the Motion dates that opposing counsel, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, is unavailable. I appreciate your consideration of this request, and apologize for any inconvenience it may cause. Thank you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: Mark K. Emery MKENh Enclosure cc: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire (w/enc.) ~[E@!~iJW~~ ~~ JUL - 7 2005 W BL(,p(Y\ \3 OJ\.- \ lp - '6dt; f2) @ lQJ ~ ( (' LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 1710 1 (717) 238.9883 Mark K. Emery, Esquire > Fax (717) 238-9884 c e-mail memerylaw@aol.com August 10, 2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg. PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I write to specifically put you on notice that upon the resolution of my discovery motion as to punitive damages intend to list this matter for trial. At that time I will move to consolidate this action with the Schorr Estate action. I have confirmed with Holy Spirit's prior counsel that they had concluded discovery. I do not believe any further discovery is necessary, and you have taken no steps to conduct any discovery since you entered your appearance. If you truly believe additional discovery is necessary, then you should commence such immediately. Lastly, I do not believe a status conference is necessary. If that is your belief, than you are certainly able to request one. However, just as with the discovery issue, I will accept no further delays in bringing this matter to trial. Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, IriiI n [E if' ii' il IV! I:C: ~1. I'.. "J '..0 U G L'o r I I' -.; I' , ),>~i 'I, ! I! :I'l" P.UG 1 J 2005 !Ui J-".J _ Li\ i . I.r: r, \J ,-, .-'1...... : c. \ 1..::LU \ . !~~Io- O~'O MKE/vh LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY ~ .---/~. / :c::/c: By: / ~ ..--/:~~ Mark K. Emery______// GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V AN1A v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH L SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on February I, 2006, I served a copy of the Response of Defendant Holy Sllirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set via first class regular mail as follows: IVlark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jeffrey Nydick, Esquire Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 IF.K. Boulevard, Ste. 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.C. Post Office Box 822 Virginia Beach, V A 23451 \05_ A\UAB\NfEP\DlSC\2 10651 \KPM\13246\00828 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2006, I, Mark K Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: ~~-: Mark KEmery f'-:~, j "'''''"'1 -,- ~~,,, ,~,J r.;"', (:) 1. .-\ ~-C ---r""l :'1\ . ) c. " ':-<, -'.7 '.1 0\ .. ~ i GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 . HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO 01-7232 CIVIL/ KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RY AN K SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this g"2-- day of February, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order of December I, 2005 and Strike case form by A'tfee Metvr Argument Court Lis~ it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement is stricken from the February 15, 2006 Argument Court list, and the Scheduling Order of December 1, 2005 is hereby STAYED until such time as all pending discovery motions are ruled upon. BY THE COURT /:;/ 1~ c2 /~ Kevin A Hess, 1. Distribution: Mark K Emery, Esquire Michael D. Pipa, Esquire {~~ William D. Breit, Esquire C:De>.-j AJlVL;...,;"tl/."'lH'~ ON"C'L J..O~'.o(. ~. > GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL .... KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYAN K. SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, as follows: 1. On December I, 2005 a Status Conference was held before the Honorable Kevin A Hess. 2. At such Status Conference, inter alia, the Court established a discovery deadline of March 1, 2006. A copy of Judge Hess' Status Conference Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. At such Status Conference counsel for Defendant served a Motion for Summary Judgment, raising a defense of qualified immunity. 4. On December 30, 2005 Plaintiffs served upon Defendant a Request for Admissions - Second Set. A copy of these Requests are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5. Rather than provide Answers to any of the valid requests for Admissions, Defendants asserted objections to all Requests. A copy of Defendant's objections are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 6. Defendants objections are essentially a claim that discovery should not be allowed after a motion for summary judgment is filed. Defendant cites to no statute, caselaw or court ruling as a support for such contention, as no such support exists. 7. Defendant's objections ignore both the Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Order of December 1,2005, which specifically establishes a discovery deadline. 8. The Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery, Pa. RC.P 4001 et seq., place no time limitation on propounding discovery requests, or in any way limit the use of discovery once a motion for summary judgment is filed. 9. Defendant argues that Pa.RC.P 1035,3 allows a party to assert in response to a motion for summary judgment that it cannot present evidence essential to justify the opposition to a motion and propose action to be taken to present such evidence. 10. Defendant's objections argue that because Plaintiff did not assert such in their Answer to the Motion for Summary Judgment, they are prohibited from conducting any discovery aimed presenting a full and complete factual record to the Court in considering Defendant's Motion. 2 11. Such position ignores that at the Status Conference a continuation of discovery was specifically discussed and agreed upon, thereby negating the need to assert additional discovery was needed in Plaintiffs' Answer to the Motion for Summary Judgment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court Order Defendant to serve full and complete answers to the Request for Admissions within 20 days of the date of such Order Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK KEMERY By: ~~ . Mark KEmery, E e Supreme Court LD. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE: February 9, 2006 3 GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LA W NO. 01-6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this / It day of December, 2005, following conference with counsel for the plaintiffs and with counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital, a conference which counsel for Keith I. Schorr et at did not attend, the following scheduling order is entered: 1. All discovery in this case, including the furnishing of defense expeli reports, shall be completed by March 1,2006. 2. The pending summary judgment motion of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, will be listed for argument no later than the session to be held on February 15,2006. 3. Counsel may list this case for trial during the week of June 12,2006. Inasmuch as counsel for Keith 1. Schorr, et aI., did not appear at the conference, said counsel shall be estopped from objecting to this scheduling order after December 16, 2005. BY THE COURT, Mark K. Emery, Esquire For the Plaintiffs ~IIJ Michael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Defendant Gerald J. Williams, Esquire William D. Breit, Esquire For Keith 1. Schorr, et al. :rlm GARY W BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAlNTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRlTHOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH L SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYANK. SCHORR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET TO: Holy Spirit Hospital c/oMichael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 These Request for Admissions are propounded pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and are to be answered by the Defendant in accordance therewith. Defendant is required to answer these Requests for Admissions in writing under oath, based upon all information available to her and to her attorneys, employees, and other agents, or representatives. Defendant is also required to serve answers to these Request for Admissions within thirty (30) days, to the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel, The Law Offices of Mark K. Emery, 410 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, and supplement her answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. INSTRUCTIONS 1. The following Requests for Admissions are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days of service upon you. Objections must be signed by the attorney raising the objection. In answering, you must furnish any and all information available to you, your employees, representatives, agents and attorneys. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identifY the privilege or immunity asserted and provides sufficient information to substantiate the claim. 3. In lieu of identifying documents in response to these Request for Admissions, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding Request. 4. These Requests for Admissions shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. "Hospital", as used herein, shall refer to Holy Spirit Hospital and its affiliates. 6. "Schorr", as used herein, shall mean Ryan Schorr. 2 1.' On November 18, 2000, Holy Spirit did not provide treatment to Schorr. ANSWER: 2. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the security policies of Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: 3. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties control the staffing of security guards, including the number of guards on duty at anyone time, at Holy Spirit hospital ANSWER: 4. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the training of security guards at Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: 5. Holy Spirit Hospital is a privately owned and operated health care facility. ANSWER: 3 6. Holy Spirit Hospital provides medical services through its emergency rooms services that are in no way affiliated or colUlected to its contract with Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. ANSWER: 7. Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. ANSWER: 8. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are employed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 9. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are under, the supervision or control of Cumberland or Perry Counties.. ANSWER: 4 . 10. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not established by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 11. The securitY procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not monitored or reviewed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: 12. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are established and performed solely under the direction and control of Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 13. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties make payment to Holy Spirit Hospital for the security services or personnel provided or employed by Holy Spirit HospitaL ANSWER: 14. Pursuant to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract, Holy Spirit Hospital is "an independent contractor and not an agent, servant, or employee of[Cumberland or Perry] County". ANSWER 5 15: . The Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract does not address or control the security staffing, programs or implementation by Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY DATE: December 30,2005 By:~f~ Mark K. Emery, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 , . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2005, 1, Mark K Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, Second Set by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OffiCES OF MARK KEMERY BY:~?~ Mark KEmery . " I GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA Y. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' REOVEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to the Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions- Second Set in its entirety and to each and every one of the fifteen (15) requested admissions in the Second Set. Defendant objects because the request is untimely, would case unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expense, and appears at least in part to have been sought in bad faith. For a significant amount of time, approaching one year, Plaintiffs' through their counsel have repeatedly asserted that discovery in this matter is either complete or near completion and that the case should be listed for trial promptly. Letters from Plaintiffs' counsel to this effect, dated March 18, 2005, July 6, 2005 and August 10, 2005 are attached to this response. .,..,- , , Further, Plaintiffs represented to the Court in the August 10,2005 letter and their uncontested Motion for Continuance I Rescheduling that the case was ready for trial. In addition, Plaintiffs' attended a status conference in this case on December 1,2005, and asked that the case be listed for trial promptly on the basis that all necessary discovery in order to present the case at triaI had been completed. Moreover, the substance of Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set appear to be directed toward arguments that Plaintiffs might raise in response to a pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the HospitaI on or about December 1, 2005. Under Pa.R.c.P. No. 1035, a motion for summary judgment may be filed at the close of all relevant discovery. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Hospital is the second Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this case. RuIe 1035 provides a method through which a party opposing summary judgment may supplement the factual record in the case within thirty days or alert the movaot and the Court that the opposing party believes that more than thirty days is necessary in order to conduct further discovery to sufficiently develop the factual record. Specially, Rule 1035.3 provides that, within thirty days after the filing for motion a summary judgment, the adverse party must file a response, in which case the adverse party has several options. The options include: "(b) an adverse party may supplement the record or set forth the reasons why the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion and any action proposed to be taken by the party to present such evidence." Rule l035.3(b). 2 , , In response to Holy Spirit Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' did not supplement the record and did not set forth any reasons why they could not present evidence essential to oppose the motion or any proposed action (such as further discovery). Instead, Plaintiffs simply filed an Answer to the Motion in which they admitted many of the contentions in the Motion, denied others as conclusions oflaw, and claimed that several of the paragraphs of the Motion refer to pleadings that speak for themselves. In any event, Plaintiffs did not, under Rule 1035.3, assert the need for any further discovery . Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully submits that discovery in this matter, particularly as it pertains to the Motion for Summary Judgment under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, is closed, primarily at the insistence of Plaintiffs. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital has listed the Motion for Summary Judgment for disposition pursuant to the Court's Order, which Order was obtained at a status conference during which the Motion for Summary Judgment and the thirty day response period were discussed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital objects to further discovery now. Defendant respectfully submits that it is burdensome, oppressive, designed to delay a decision on the merits, designed to harass, and otherwise suggestive of bad faith for Plaintiffs to now seek further discovery, especially given the clarity of the applicable rule of procedure. By way of further answer, and without waiving any objection, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital also objects to the Request for Admissions because the subject matter, including the terms and conditions of the written contract issued by Cumberland and Perry Counties for the provision of mental health crisis intervention services, has already been discussed thoroughly during the depositions in this case. Further, in Plaintiffs' answer to Paragraph 9 of Holy Spirit 3 f. I I , , , ., Hospital's Motion, Plaintiffs' claim that there is no evidence supporting the Hospital's contention about why Ryan Schorr was brought to the Hospital. However, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff Police Officers were serving a Section 302 a warrant at the time, as they have testified in their depositions and so pled in their Complaint in this action. For Plaintiffs to now suggest that the reason for bringing Ryan Schorr to Holy Spirit Hospital is unknown or not established or in any way a proper subject of further discovery or a genuine issue of fact for trial reflects the unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Holy Spirit Hospital as a result ofthis proposed discovery and suggests that this discovery is sought in bad faith. Plaintiffs have many times asserted that this matter is ready for trial. Plaintiffs filed an Answer to Holy Spirit Hospital's pending Motion for Summary Judgment and did not, in that Answer, claim that any additional time was necessary in order to supplement the factual record. The factual record for purposes of sururnary judgment is now closed. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital therefore respectfully objects to this attempt to conduct discovery relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment. All other specific objections to each and every one of the fifteen requests are specifically reserved and preserved. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: February 1, 2006 ~ BY: MICHAEL D. PIP ESQUIRE P A 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 4 . ,. j ( LAW OFFICES OF MARKK. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 \ .. ,. , Mark K. Emery, Esquire Fax (717) 238-98~4 e-mail memerylaw@aol.com March 18, 2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I had left a message for you on March 16,2005, but have received no response. Therefore, this letter is to inform you that I will wait no longer to move this matter to trial. I believe it is fair to say that I have provided the utmost professional courtesy, and my demand now is more than reasonable. I will provide until the end of this month for you to file your contemplated Motion for Summary Judgment. If it is not filed by such time I will list this matter for trial on April 1 , 2005. Thank you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY MKElvh By: ~~~ Mark K. Emery MAR 2 1 ~'I c= cg' ,,". 'U 0, .7 ,~ 1'-_ I 1S;~. \-:1 := J.S '- G I ,'.I L=3 ;rf_' 1"0;1 ~ ~ J J . ,. ) ( ( LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 238-9883 l. I. I Mark K_ Emery, Esquire Fax (71 P 238-9884 e-mail memerylaw@aol.com July 6, 2005 The Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Berresford et. al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 06498-2001 Dear Judge Hess: Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Plaintiffs Uncontested Motion for Continuance/Rescheduling. As stated therein, I am on vacation on the date scheduled for argument on my clients' Motion for Leave of Court to Conduct Discovery Relevant to Punitive Damages. I therefore respectfully request a rescheduling of that argument. As also noted in the Motion, this matter is ready for trial. I am concerned that my conflict of schedule will move the argument back further, thereby delaying the ability to list the matter for trial. I therefore respectfully request that, if possible, the argument be rescheduled at an earlier date and time. I have noted in the Motion dates that opposing counsel, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, is unavailable. I appreciate your consideration of this request, and apologize for any inconvenience it may cause. Thank you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: Mark K. Emery MKElvh Enclosure cc: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire (w/enc.) ~~@~DW~m W JUL - 7 2005 W ByJ:f(Y, \ j ~L\ l.p - od't \0) (Q) lQJ ~ (~' (0 . (-.I , LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 . I' I Mark K. Emery, Esquire > Fax (717) 238-9884 , e-mail memerylaw@aol.com August10,2005 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 RE: Berresford et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital No. 6498-2001 (Cumberland) Dear Mike: I write to specifically put you on notice that upon the resolution of my discovery motion as to punitive damages intend to list this matter for trial. At that time I will move to consolidate this action with the Schorr Estate action. I have confirmed with Holy Spirit's prior counsel that they had concluded discovery. I do not believe any further discovery is necessary, and you have taken no steps to conduct any discovery since you entered your appearance. If you truly believe additional discovery is necessary, then you should commence such immediately. Lastly, I do not believe a status conference is necessary. If that is your belief, than you are certainly able to request one. However, just as with the discovery issue, I will accept no further delays in bringing this matter to trial. Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, r'1"'1c; (f) iT 0 [0 ~~I \ , " " 'C"', r ~' I: ~,<: ~ ,j ".~ ~ I !I j ii:ri AUG 1 1 Z005 !Ui !....:~ L.:\ i~vXf 0\ o_i;\~ J~~0- 6d-O MKElvh LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY ~~~. By://_/,---/' /,:.::=-z /' Mark K. Emery/ c j" I . . If . GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRE HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRES FORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CNIL2001 KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRlAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on February 1,2006, I served a copy of the Response of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set via first class regular mail as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 1 Jeffrey Nydick, Esquire Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, Ste. 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. Post Office Box 822 Virginia Beach, V A 23451 ~ \05_ A ILIABIMEPIDISC\2 I 065 I \KPMI 13246100828 '( , .. . . 'lit ,t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2006, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order of December 1, 2005 and Strike Case from Argument Court List, by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.C. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY BY~~ Mark K. Emery . ' If . , '!If' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2006, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.C. PO. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY BY~#~ Mark K. Emery ,., ~<'\ /.... \-..' .....'.1 () 0.;1 .;:;~ ,'t-. " (,.1 GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR,. PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v : DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ~/DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as Administrators of the Estate of RYANK SCHORR : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees. Respectfully submitted LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: ~ Mar K. Emery, EsqUire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATE: February 9, 2006 .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2006, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs' Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire MARSHALLDENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 William D. Breit, Esquire Breit Law, P.c. P.O. Box 822 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY BY#~~- , Mark K. Emery ....." r:,C~ l.j' __1 ',- ~rl -r"'\ r" l/.j G,~ -n co' .. GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-7232 CIVIL V' KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS ORDER AND NOW, this I" day of February, 2006, a rule is issued on the defendants to show cause why the relief requested in the within motion to compel ought not to be granted. This rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. BY THE COURT, GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPIT AL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 /' KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the EST A TE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL'S STATEMENT OF CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND NOW, comes Holy Spirit Hospital, through its attorneys, and in response to a Rule to Show Cause issued by this Honorable Court, respectfully submits that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions should be denied, as addressed in more detail below. In order to show cause, Holy Spirit Hospital responds to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions, as follows: 1. Admitted that a status conference was held before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess on December I, 2005. 2. Admitted that the Court established a discovery deadline of March 1, 2006. It is specificaJly denied that additional time for discovery was sought by the Plaintiffs at the Status Conference and that the discovery deadline specifically contemplated additional discovery by the Plaintiffs. To the contrary, the additional time for discovery was granted at the suggestion of counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital, who indicated that defense expert reports would be necessary once the Plaintiffs clarified the expert testimony that they intended to at trial. Further to the contrary, Plaintiffs had insisted that their discovery was complete and been demanding for some time that the case be listed for trial. Correspondence to that effect is attached to Holy Spirit's response to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, which in turn is attached in its entirety as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' pending Motion to Compel. The letters include a letter dated March 18, 2005, in which Plaintiffs' counsel stated "this letter is to inform you that I will wait no longer to move this matter to trial." Also included is a letter dated July 6, 2005, in which Plaintiffs' counsel stated to Judge Hess that "this matter is ready for trial." FinaJly, by letter dated August 10, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel stated explicitly that: "I do not believe any further discovery is necessary," and "I do not believe that a status conference is necessary." Counsel also stated that "I will accept no further delays in bringing this matter to trial." It is clear that Plaintiffs had announced the position for many months that no further discovery was necessary and that no status conference setting a discovery schedule was necessary. Further, the December 1, 2005 Order of Court specificaJly and explicitly mentioned only "the furnishing of defense expert reports." 2 Further, at the December 1, 2006 status conference, there was discussion at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel about listing the Motion for Sururnary Judgment of Holy Spirit Hospital under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) for argument as soon as possible. Counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital suggested that the argument could not be held until after the passage of thirty days, so that Plaintiffs could respond appropriately to the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.3. It was therefore ordered that the Motion for Sururnary Judgment would be listed for argument no later .than the session to be held on February 15, 2006, in order to allow the Plaintiffs the required thirty days in which to appropriately respond to the Motion. 3. It is admitted that Holy Spirit served a Motion for Summary Judgment under the PSTCA at the December 1,2005 status conference. 4. It is admitted that Plaintiffs' served upon Defendant a Request for Admissions _ Second Set. 5. Admitted that Holy Spirit Hospital objected to the requests in general. By way of further answer, Holy Spirit Hospital also preserved all specific and explicit objections to each and every one of the requests, as set forth in the response attached to Plaintiffs' Motion as Exhibit C. 3 6. It is specifically denied that Holy Spirit's Objections are "essentially a claim that discovery should not be allowed after a Motion for Sururnary Judgment is filed." To the contrary, the objections in no way, shape, or form constitute any such claim. Further to the contrary, the reason Holy Spirit objected is set forth unambiguously in its original response, which is incorporated herein by reference. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Motion evidences that Plaintiffs, at the least, misunderstand the objection, and perhaps further, have intentionally mischaracterized Holy Spirit's position. As explained in the response, Holy Spirit objects because the Request for Admissions is untimely in the context of the procedural rules governing sururnary judgment (and in the context of Plaintiffs' repeated assertions that they have completed all discovery). In the context of a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 1035.5, there are specific and explicit methods through which a party opposing sururnary judgment may supplement the factual record. That factual record must be supplemented within thirty days. If the responding party believes that it cannot supplement the factual record within thirty days, then the opposing party must alert the Movant and the Court that the opposing party believes that more than thirty days is necessary in order to conduct further discovery to sufficiently develop the factual record. In response to Holy Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs did not do so. The record for purposes of summary judgment must therefore be considered closed. All of this is set forth in more detail in Holy Spirit's Response to the Request for Admissions. 4 Thus, it is clear that Holy Spirit does not contend in any way that "discovery should not be allowed after a Motion for Sururnary Judgment is filed." To the contrary, Holy Spirit explained that Plaintiffs did not appropriately respond to the Motion under Rule 1035.3 and that the record, for the purooses of the Motion, should therefore be deemed closed. The pending Request for Admissions is discovery related to the Motion for Summary Judgment, as such, it is untimely. 7. It is specifically denied that Holy Spirit's "objections ignore both Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Order of December 1, 2005." To the contrary, Holy Spirit's objections are based explicitly on the Rules on Civil Procedure and this Court's Order of December 1, 2005. The response to Paragraph 6 above is incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, Plaintiffs' have failed to appropriately follow the Rules of Civil Procedure and have mischaracterized their own positions for the past year as announced to both Holy Spirit and the Court. 8. It is admitted that the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery place no time limitation on propounding discovery requests or limit the use of discovery generally once a Motion for Sururnary Judgment is filed. This is precisely why Holy Spirit's response and objection is not based upon the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery. The responses to Paragraphs 6 and 7 above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, and as set forth in more detail in Holy Spirit's Response to the Request for Admissions, Holy Spirit's objection is based upon the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to summary judgment practice. Those Rules specifically and explicitly mention the proper methods of discovery and the proper methods through which parties should seek to build the factual record for the purposes of sururnary judgment. 5 The Rules governing summary judgment state explicitly that, within thirty days after the filing of the motion for sururnary judgment, the 'adverse party must supplement the record or set forth reasons why the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion. Rule 1035.3(b). Therefore, thirty days is framed as the time period for any discovery essential to an opposition to a motion for summary judgment. The provisions ofthe Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery cannot be used as a basis to avoid the thirty day time limitation established in Rule 1035.3. To do so would render Rule 10.35.3 meaningless and leave civil litigants and the Courts without any method for closing the factual record relevant to a sururnary judgment motion. This case vividly illustrates the disorder that would follow if Rule 1035.3 is ignored. By Court Order, Holy Spirit listed its Motion for Summary Judgment for disposition on February 15, 2006, and filed a twenty page supporting brief. Before that, Holy Spirit filed an extensive appendix in support of summary judgment, establishing the necessary factual record. Now, by seeking to conduct discovery beyond the thirty day time period established in Rule 1035.3, Plaintiffs' have delayed this Court's consideration of Holy Spirit's Motion and, in effect, obtained for themselves an extension of time in which to consider and respond to the arguments set forth in Holy Spirit's supporting brief. Rather than working within the time frames and procedures established in the Rules of discovery, Plaintiffs have or at least are attempting to work around the thirty day time limitations set forth in Rule 1035.3. Plaintiffs have also in effect caused discovery to continue beyond the deadlines set by this Court in its December I, 2005 Order. 6 9. Admitted. Rule 103S.3(a) states unambiguously that an adverse party must, "within thirty days after service ofthe motion," file a response identifying facts in the record that controvert the evidence cited by the movant or evidence that establishes that facts essential to the cause of action or defense have not been produced. If a party cannot do so, then Rule 1 035.3(b) states explicitly that an adverse party may supplement the record. Rule 1035.3(b) further states, ifthe adverse party cannot point to evidence in the record or supplement the record, then the adverse party may "set forth reasons why the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion and any action proposed to be taken by the party to present such evidence. " In this case, Plaintiffs' filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment in the form of an Answer. In that Answer, Plaintiffs admitted or denied the numbered paragraphs of Holy Spirit's Motion. Plaintiffs did not supplement the record, set forth reasons why they could not present evidence essential to justify opposition to the Motion, or propose any action to allow them to present such evidence. 10. Admitted. The responses to Paragraphs 6 through 9 are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, Rule 1035.3 states explicitly that the record for summary judgment should be deemed complete and the motion considered based upon the existing record unless the objecting party (1) supplements the record, (2) sets forth reasons that it cannot present evidence justifying opposition, or (3) proposes action to allow the party to present such evidence. Holy Spirit respectfully submits that the language of Rule 1035.3 is unambiguous. To refuse to enforce this unambiguous language would mean that parties, without filing a proper response to a motion for summary judgment, could nevertheless conduct unilateral activities designed to develop opposing evidence and then later, beyond the thirty day time period, seek to supplement 7 the record in opposition to sururnary judgment. To allow such conduct ignores the plain language of the Rule and also the plain language of Rule 1035.2 which provides that motions for summary judgment can be filed at any time that a party believes "discovery relevant to the motion" has been completed. In other words, pursuant to the Rules governing motions for summary judgment, a party may move for summary judgment when that party believes discovery relevant to the motion has been completed. If the opposing party does not believe discovery relevant to the motion has been completed, the opposing party must act within thirty days. The opposing party must either supplement the record or must advise the movant and the Court that there is some good reason for his or her failure to supplement the record and must further propose the action to be taken to allow supplementation of the record. Plaintiffs did not do so in this case. Moreover, Plaintiffs had repeatedly advised Holy Spirit and this Court that they believed all discovery relevant to their claims had been completed and that this matter was ready for trial. Based upon these declarations, Holy Spirit was confident that the discovery in the case, including the discovery relevant to the Motion for Sururnary Judgment, had been concluded and that Holy Spirit could file its Motion and have the Motion decided based upon the factual record as it stood, pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Rules governing motions for summary judgment. Holy Spirit followed every appropriate procedural mechanism in this case and advised Plaintiffs and the Court that it desired additional discovery time in order to produce expert reports. Plaintiffs are now seeking to reopen what they declared to be a closed factual record, in violation of the Rules governing motions for summary judgment, and to the prejudice of Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit respectfully submits that Plaintiffs' attempts should be denied, and the Motion for Summary Judgment should be decided based upon the extensive factual record set forth in 8 the appendix, including a Court Order already finding that the connections between Cumberland County and Holy Spirit are so close that Holy Spirit must be properly characterized as a "state actor" for federal constitutional purposes. Moreover, in their Answer to Holy Spirit's Motion for Sururnary Judgment, Plaintiffs stated that they could not admit or deny certain matters because those matters were established through the federal court litigation that Plaintiffs claim they were not party to. However, throughout the conduct ofthis pending state court litigation, Plaintiffs, through counsel, have repeatedly asserted that all necessary discovery in this case has already been completed through the discovery in the federal court action. Discovery in that action included the deposition testimony of the principals at Cumberland County and at Holy Spirit Hospital who are involved in the contract for the provision of County Mental Health Services. Based upon that deposition testimony, and the language of the agreement, it has already been held that the relationship between the County and Holy Spirit Hospital is of the character and type that easily satisfies the test for agency under the PSTCA. 11. It is specifically denied that a continuation of discovery relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment was specifically "agreed upon" at the status conference. To the contrary, defense counsel noted that Plaintiffs had thirty days in which to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and that Plaintiffs might assert the need for some further discovery. Holy Spirit did not in any way agree that such discovery was necessary or should be allowed. This Court was not presented with any proposal for further discovery related to the Motion for Summary Judgment and conducted no argument or hearing on any request. No request was made by Plaintiffs for additional time in which to conduct discovery related to the Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further specifically denied that any discussions or any Court order in 9 any way negate the provisions of the Rules governing motions for summary judgment, including the clear and unambiguous provisions of Rule 1035.3. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to properly and appropriately respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment by supplementing the record or proposing other action. Instead, Plaintiffs merely responded by stating admissions and denials. Plaintiffs are attempting to avoid the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Rules, to their advantage, and to the substantial prejudice of Holy Spirit. WHEREFORE, Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully submits that this Court should find cause to deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions and enter an Order denying the Motion. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: March 6, 2006 BY: ~. MICHAEL D. P PA 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 10 GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPlT AL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Wamer, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on March 6, 2006, I served a copy ofthe Holy Spirit Hospital's Statement of Cause why Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions should not be Granted via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 1 Jeffrey Nydick, Esquire Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, Ste. 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 105 _A ILIABIMDPIP A ILLPG12145311KAMOYERS113Z461G08Z8 " GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs vs. KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01,6498 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW )>40.01-7232 CIVIL / :/ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS ORDER AND NOW, this 13 ~ day of March, 2006, argument on the plaintiffs' motion to compel answers to request for admissions is set for Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 3 :00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. BY THE COURT, . . ~ark K. Emery, Esquire For the PlaintitTs AiChael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Holy Spirit Hospital ~'ald .1. Williams, Esquire L(,william D. Breit, Esquire For Keith I. Schorr, et al. :rlm ~..,-~ ~ GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01,6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LA W j NO. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH 1. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS ORDER AND NOW, this .( f' day of March, 2006, argument on the plaintiffs' motion to compel answers to request for admissions set for April 6, 2006, is continued to Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. BY THE COURT, Kt2~~,1 J / ;!l ".J o ~:: '" .Jl..l " ~ . Mark K. Emery, Esquire F or the Plaintiffs Michael D. Pipa, Esquire For the Holy Spirit Hospital Gerald J. Williams, Esquire William D. Breit, Esquire For Keith L Schorr, et at :r\m "~~<.ld j_.30.0G cl , GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6498 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD and HARRY S. HART, JR., Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW :~O. 01-7232 CIVIL KEITH I. SCHORR and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2006, following argument thereon, the motion of the plaintiff to compel answers to outstanding requests for admissions is granted, and the defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is directed to file answers to said requests for admissions within thirty days. The Prothonotary is directed to list Holy Spirit Hospital's pending motion for summary judgment at the next regular session of Argument Court, to be held on July 12, 2006. The parties to file their briefs in accordance with local rule. In the event that a dispute should arise concerning any answers to the request for admissions, counsel are authorized to contact the court in an attempt to resolve the matter by an informal conference. By the Court, ~/fJ Kev~A. Hess, J. 01-6498 CIVIL & 01-7232 CIVIL Mark K. Emery, Esquire For Plaintiff Geoffrey S. McInroy, Esquire For Holy Spirit Hospital :bg F; led - OF~/(J/;; Op- ntt=: P~071-foA...Jo~ ey tlay ~ c9-~,- ~ GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOL Y SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 /' KEITH I. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - SECOND SET AND NOW, comes Defendant Holy Spirit, through its counsel, and answers Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set, as follows: I. On November 18, 2000, Holy Spirit did not provide treatment to Schorr. ANSWER: Denied. As a preliminary matter, Holy Spirit objects to this request because the word "treatment" is ambiguous, capable of differing interpretations, and has not been defined specifically by the Plaintiffs. Without waiving this objection, and in light of the provisions of the Mental Health Procedures Act and the written agreement between Holy Spirit Hospital and Cumberland and Perry Counties, pursuant to which Holy Spirit Hospital provided services to Ryan Schorr as part of the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health/Mental Retardation program, it is specifically denied that Holy Spirit Hospital did not provide treatment to Ryan Schorr. To the contrary, it is undisputed that Ryan Schorr was transported to Holy Spirit Hospital for Crisis Intervention Services under a warrant for involuntary commitment under the Mental Health Procedures Act. The warrant for treatment was executed by a delegate of Cumberland County in order to cause Ryan Schorr to be delivered, albeit against his will, to Holy Spirit Hospital for crisis intervention treatment under the Mental Health Procedures Act. Crisis intervention treatment was therefore the sole reason that Ryan Schorr presented to Holy Spirit Hospital on November 18, 2000. Ryan Schorr was therefore delivered to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Crisis Intervention Treatment Unit at Holy Spirit Hospital and, from the moment of his arrival on the premises, was considered to be and treated as a "client" ofthe County under the Contract. The health care personnel therefore attended immediately to Ryan Schorr. A medical treatment chart was opened and, Ryan Schorr, as a mental health patient, received initial intake and triage services. Among other things, Ryan Schorr was examined by a physician, David Spurrier, M.D. Dr. Spurrier's treatment of Ryan Schorr included an initial history and physical and assessment. These treatment services cannot legally be provided in Pennsylvania without a medical license. These treatment services were provided to Ryan Schorr under the auspices of Crisis Intervention services as part of the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program, and for no other reason. The treatment provided by health care personnel, including Dr. Spurrier, is reflected in the record of medical treatment that has been produced during discovery in this case. 2. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the security policies of Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Denied. The response to request number one above is incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, all events at Holy Spirit Hospital that relate to this case occurred as part as the delivery of mental health crisis intervention services under the Mental Health Procedures Act and the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health/Mental Retardation (Crisis Intervention) Program. The Mental Health Crisis Intervention Services include security policies and concerns. Under the contract pursuant to which such services are provided, Cumberland and Perry Counties have extensive audit and inspection rights, including the right to conduct walk-through inspections of the premises to evaluate, among other things, security issues. To the extent that the Counties desire, they retain the contractual right and obligation to discuss and address any security concerns related to the Program. The Counties further have the contractual right to control the security policies of Holy Spirit Hospital as applied to Crisis Intervention Treatment Services provided under the County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program. 3. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties control the staffing of security guards, including the number of guards on duty at anyone time, at Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Denied. The answer to request number 2 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, as part of the audit and inspection rights reserved to the Counties, County personnel have the right to study the sufficiency of staffing and to request additional security staff as part of the delivery of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services under the Contract. 4. Neither Cumberland nor Perry County control the training of security guards at Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Denied. The answer to request number 2 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, as part of the audit and inspection rights reserved to the Counties, County personnel have the right to study the sufficiency of training and to request additional training for security staff as part of the delivery of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services under the Contract. 5. Holy Spirit Hospital is a privately owned and operated health care facility. ANSWER: Admitted in part. It is admitted that the facility is privately owned. It is denied that the facility is privately "operated" in all respects, to the extent that "operation" is understood in the context of this case. To the contrary, the responses to all requests above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services are delivered through a program operated in close conjunction with Cumberland and Perry Counties. 6. Holy Spirit Hospital provides medical services through its emergency rooms services that are in no way affiliated or connected to its contract with Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. ANSWER: Objection. This request relates to information that is not relevant in any way to the claims raised in this case, which claims arise out of Crisis Intervention services provided pursuant to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation (Crisis Intervention) Program. Without waiving this objection, it is admitted that Holy Spirit Hospital provides medical services through its emergency department that are in no way affiliated or connected to its contract to provide mental health treatment as part of the Cumberland- Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. 7. Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. ANSWER: The objection to request number 6 above is incorporated herein by reference. Without waiving this objection, this request is admitted in part and denied in part. For purposes of the Mental Health Crisis Intervention Services at issue in this case, it is specifically denied that Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. To the contrary, the insurance that Holy Spirit Hospital maintains related to the provision of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services is maintained in conjunction with Cumberland and Perry Counties through the contract between Holy Spirit Hospital and Cumberland and Perry Counties for Crisis Intervention Services. To the extent that Holy Spirit Hospital conducts activities that are not part of the Crisis Intervention Services Program, it is admitted that Holy Spirit Hospital maintains insurance coverage separate from Cumberland and Perry Counties. 8. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are employed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: The objections to request 6 and 7 above are incorporated herein by reference. Without waiving those objections, request no. 8 is admitted with clarification and explanation. Although persons involved in the provision of Crisis Intervention services under the Program are employed by Holy Spirit Hospital, portions of their salary and wages are paid by the Counties pursuant to the contract for the provision of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services. The use of County funds to pay wages and salaries is reflected clearly in the annual budget and monthly program expenditures reports that Holy Spirit Hospital is required to submit to the County. Those documents are attached to this answer as Exhibit B. Further, as part of the utilization of County funds to pay the wages of persons involved in the delivery of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services, Holy Spirit Hospital is required to follow certain other County employment policies and procedures, including the state and County civil service job codes and other County employment rules. 9. None of Candace Highfield, Carol Joerger, Dr. David Spurrier and Cory Graby are under the supervision or control of Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: The responses to all of the requests above are incorporated herein by reference, including in particular the responses to requests No.1 and 6-8. Persons involved in the provision of Crisis Intervention services under the County Program, may from time to time also perform tasks and provide services that are not part of the Crisis Intervention Services provided under the contract with Cumberland and Perry Counties. It is admitted that, at those times, such personnel are not under the supervision or control of Cumberland or Perry Counties. On the other hand, personnel engaged in providing Crisis Intervention services under the Contract are, at those times, subject to the provisions of the Contract. Through the contract, Cumberland and Perry Counties impose certain duties and obligations upon those providing County Mental Health Crisis Intervention Services. Moreover, the County, in part, funds the wages and salaries of those personnel, as illustrated in Exhibit F to the Appendix in Support of Summary Judgment filed by Holy Spirit Hospital in this case. Through the Contract, the Counties retain the right to control the activities of these personnel and others involved in the provision of Mental Health Crisis Intervention Treatment Services. 10. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not established by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: Admitted in part and denied in part. The responses to all of the requests above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, Holy Spirit Hospital provides County Crisis Intervention services under the auspices of the Contract with Cumberland and Perry Counties. Security procedures of the hospital are directly relevant and important to the provision of County Crisis Intervention services under the Contract. To the extent that security procedures are involved in and impact upon the County Crisis Intervention services provided under the Contract, it is specifically denied that those security procedures are not established by Cumberland or Perry Counties. The contract with the Counties grants to the Counties broad audit and inspection rights and requires Holy Spirit Hospital to meet certain minimum standards for the operation of those parts of its facilities that are utilized in the County Crisis Intervention Services provided under the Perry-Cumberland Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. In this fashion, Cumberland and Perry Counties retain the right to establish security procedures. 11. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are not monitored or reviewed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. ANSWER: Admitted in part and denied in part. The responses to all of the requests above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, Holy Spirit Hospital provides County Crisis Intervention services under the auspices of the Contract with Cumberland and Perry Counties. Security procedures of the hospital are directly relevant and important to the provision of County Crisis Intervention services under the Contract. To the extent that security procedures are involved in and impact upon the County Crisis Intervention services provided under the Contract, it is specifically denied that those security procedures are not monitored or reviewed by Cumberland or Perry Counties. The contract with the Counties requires Holy Spirit Hospital to submit periodic reports and grants to the Counties broad audit and inspection rights. The County Contract further requires Holy Spirit Hospital to meet certain minimum standards for the operation of those parts of its facilities that are utilized in the County Crisis Intervention Services provided under the Perry-Cumberland Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program. In this fashion, Cumberland and Perry Counties retain the right to monitor and review security procedures. 12. The security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are established and performed solely under the direction and control of Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: This request is redundant because it seeks the same information sought in request number 10 above, except that the information is requested in the positive formulation of the statement in this request. Therefore, the response to request number 10 above is incorporated herein by reference, so that it is specifically denied that the security procedures of Holy Spirit Hospital are established solely under the direction and control of Holy Spirit Hospital. To the contrary, security procedures related to the provision of County Crisis Intervention services under the Contract are a collaborative effort between the hospital and the Counties, and are established and performed under the direction and control of the Counties. 13. Neither Cumberland nor Perry Counties make payment to Holy Spirit Hospital for the security services or personnel provided or employed by Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Denied. It is specifically denied that no payment is made by the Counties for security services provided by Holy Spirit Hospital. To the contrary, funds received from Cumberland and Perry Counties under the contract are allocated according to budget and expenditure reports provided to the County, and disbursed to different operating departments within the hospital, including the security operations. Therefore, a portion of County funds are and have always been utilized to fund security services at Holy Spirit Hospital. 14. Pursuant to the Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract, Holy Spirit Hospital is "an independent contractor and not an agent, servant, or employee of [Cumberland or Perry] County." ANSWER: Admitted with explanation. It is admitted that the language quoted in this request appears in the Contract. However, by way of explanation, the Plaintiffs served this request after Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). As a general legal proposition, the grant of immunity applies broadly to agents or employees of local governmental units and may also apply in a similar fashion to independent contractors. The applicable interpretative and precedential case law makes clear that the terms and conditions of a contract with a local governmental unit are not dispositive of the immunity issue. Rather, the terms and conditions of a contract are only one factor to be considered in light of the overall relationship between the parties to the contract. All of the responses to the requests above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, County funds are allocated to security services and to the wages and salaries of employees directly involved in the provision of County Crisis Intervention services. In addition, the Counties retain substantial contractual rights to inspect and control the program. County Crisis Intervention Services are a collaborative effort between the Counties and Holy Spirit Hospital. Therefore, Holy Spirit Hospital is properly entitled to PSTCA immunity regardless of the term of the Contract that characterizes it as an independent contractor. 15. The Cumberland-Perry Counties Mental Health-Mental Retardation Program Contract does not address or control the security staffing, programs or implementation by Holy Spirit Hospital. ANSWER: Denied. The responses to requests 1 through 14 above are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth therein, it is specifically denied that the contract does not address or control the security, staffing, programs or implementation by Holy Spirit Hospital. To the contrary, as set forth at length in the responses above, which are incorporated herein by reference, County funds are allocated, in part, to security and the Counties retain broad rights to control activities conducted as part of the County Crisis Intervention Program, including security. T~l DATE: Mft1 _, 2006 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: MICHAEL D. PIP A, E PA 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PAl 7112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital VERIFICA TION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Answers of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set are based upon information that has been furnished to counsel by me and information that has been gathered by counsel in the preparation ofthe defense ofthis lawsuit. I have read the Answers of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counse~ it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief To the extent that the contents of the Answers of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set are that of counse~ I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 6 ~3 Joro I I ~ . -SteveBucciferro ~ Director of Mental Health Services Holy Spirit Hospital GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 06498-2001 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GARY W. BERRESFORD AND HARRY S. HART, JR., PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOCKET NO. 01-7232 CIVIL 2001 KEITH 1. SCHORR, and SUSAN SCHORR, as personal representatives of the ESTATE OF RYAN SCHORR, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do J''V\Ml I hereby certify that on May _, 2006, I served a copy of the Answers of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions - Second Set via first class regular mail as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 1 Mark Cuker, Esquire Williams Cuker Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, P A 19103-1819 ~ \05 _A \LlAB\MDPIP A \DISC\217591 \KAMOYERS\13246\00828 o (~ ,......, C";;:J ':~~ C~;...,. o -n ::::.! ri, :0 : jT'; f~~''''' '-/ :.~) :2 ,.'):":"d /() (.0) :.::.iIT1 ~~.1 C) ::5 CJ -< (- I r"-'