HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-11 (2)IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ROBERT M. IV~IUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Deceased .
. ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
N0.21-86-398
ROBERT M. MUMNLA II'S RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO DEPOSITIONS OF SCOTT W. MORGAN
ESQUIRE.THOMAS A, FRENCH, ESQUIRE AND MARC J SONNENFELD, ESQUIRE
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, an Objector, who files the within
Response to the "Emergency Motion For Protection With Respect To Depositions Of Scott W.
Morgan, Esquire, Thomas A. French, Esquire And Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esquire, Noticed By
Robert M. Mumma, II" filed with this Court on Apri16, 2011 by Lisa M. Morgan, and responds
as follows:
PLEASE SEE RESPONSE AT PARAGRAPH #22 HEREINBELOW.
S.~ a .
1. Admitted. ~ ~ _-~ ..r , ~-z~
r~~ ~ ~ ~~
2. Admitted. =~
m
~~ ~
.~ C1~ ~ C~7 _::
-,
3. Denied as stated subject to the pending Objections filed to the accounts. ~~ ~„~: -_ ~:~
4. Denied as stated subject to the g ~ ~ ~ R~ 4~ ~"
pendin Objections filed to the accounts. cr. co
-T,
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted that said motion was filed on May 30, 2008; remaining averments are denied as
stated subject to the pending Objections filed to the accounts; further denied to the extent
said averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
8. Admitted as stated.
9. Denied as stated subject to the pending Objections filed to the accounts; further denied to
the extent said averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
10. Denied as stated subject to the pending Objections filed to the accounts; further denied to
the extent said averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted as stated.
15. Admitted as stated; subject to pending applications filed with the Superior Court.
16. Admitted as stated; said letter is a writing which speaks for itself.
17. Admitted that said letter (Exhibit A) was sent by counsel; said letter is a writing which
speaks for itself and no response to the averments contained in counsel's letter is required
in this responsive pleading.
18. Admitted that said Notices of Deposition (Exhibits B, C, and D) were sent; footnote 1 is
denied as constituting a conclusion of law to which no response is required; by way of
further response, subpoenas for all depositions have been issued.
19. Denied. By rules of civil procedure, the purpose of the deposition and matters to be
inquired into need not be stated in the notice of deposition; by way of further response,
the matters to be inquired into relate to issues framed by the objections; further denied to
the extent said averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
2
20. Admitted that witness and exhibit list includes said individuals; by way of further
response, appropriate subpoenas to attend and testify have been issued regarding the
Auditor's hearing.
21. The Rules are in writing and speak for themselves; said averments constitute a conclusion
of law to which no response is required.
22. Admitted as stated as follows: Admitted that the undersigned Objector can state to
the Court the intended scope and purpose of the deposition and the relevance of
examination, and that the prompt scheduling of a discovery conference is
appropriate.1 By way of further response, there will be no objectionable burden or
expense associated with attending the depositions should the Court permit same after a
discovery conference.
23. Admitted that the undersigned does not concur with the relief requested in the motion
regarding the issuance of protective Orders which preclude the taking of the depositions;
however, the undersimed does concur with the Wromnt scheduling of a discovery
conference in order to address Wending discovery matters.
24. No response required.
25. No response required.
26. Admitted as stated.
1 Also on this date of Apri18, 2011, the undersigned has filed a Motion to Enforce Compliance
with Request for Production of Documents Upon a Party and Motion for Sanctions which
references the "prompt scheduling of a discovery conference" outlined in this Paragraph #22, and
which likewise seeks the scheduling of a joint discovery conference to address these discovery
matters.
3
WHEREFORE, based upon the reasons set forth hereinabove, the undersigned Objector
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order that promptly schedules a
discovery conference in this matter, or in the alternative, that denies the instant Emergency
Motion For Protection With Respect To Depositions Of Scott W. Morgan, Esquire, Thomas A.
French, Esquire And Mazc J. Sonnenfeld, Esquire, thereby permitting same to proceed pursuant
to the Notices of Depositions and subpoenas issued therefor; and, to grant any other additional or
further relief deemed just and equitable.
Dated: Apri18, 2011
Res ctfully submitted,
Robert M. Mumma, II
840 Mazket St. -Suite 33333
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717)612-9720
PROSE
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing
Response to Emergency Motion For Protection With Respect To Depositions Of Scott W. Morgan,
Esquire, Thomas A. French, Esquire And Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esquire to be served this date by U.S.
Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to:
Brady Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Mazket Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Bazbara Mann Mumma
541 Bridgeview Dr.
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Linda Mumma Roth
512 Creekview Lane
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire
Court-Appointed Auditor
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE: April 8, 2011
BY: G
Robert M. Mumma, II
840 Market St. -Ste. 33333
Lemoyne, PA 17043
717-612-9720
PROSE
5