Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-2975
Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: E-Mail: se;:l(~tthlaw.com MARY E. BUl1'$ end WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : 1010 Brandon Drive : Chambersburg, PA 17201 : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW MATTHEW LEE HANSON : 3510 North 9TM Street : Lot 143 : Carter, IA 51510 : : and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : ALT 250 East : Post Office Box 98 : Summer, IL 62466 : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: MATTHEW LEE H~NSON, DEFENDANT MIDWEST TIqANSZT, INC. DEFENDANT 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 served, 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 NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, C,O TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTE BELOW TO FIND OUT W~EBE TOU CAN GET LEC~L HELP. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association Post Office Box 186 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (800) 932-7375 LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Se usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demando y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciounes a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association Post Office Box 186 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (800) 932-7375 2 Stephen E. Geduldig. Esquire Attomey I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E-Mail: se~tthlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs: * MARY E. BUI'I'8 end WlLUAM BU'I'I~ MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : 1010 Brandon Drive : Chambersburg, PA 17201 : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2 MATTHEW LEE HANSON : 3510 North 9TM Street : Lot 143 : Carter, IA 51510 : and . MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : ALT 250 EAST : Post Office Box 98 : Summer, IL 62466 : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Plaintiffs Mary E. Butts and William Butts are husband and wife who reside at 1010 Brandon Drive, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 17201. 2. Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson is an adult individual who reside~ at 3510 North 9~h Street, Lot 143, Carter, Iowa, 51510. 1 3. Defendant Midwest Transit, Inc. is a business entity located at Alt 250 East, Post Office Box 98, Sumner, Illinois, 62466. 4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter took place on or about June 18, 1999 at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Interstate 81, Silver Springs Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At that time and place, Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson was in the course and scope of his employment with Midwest Transit, Inc., and acting as its agent, servant, employee or ostensible agent, and was the operator of a Mack truck owned by Midwest Transit, Inc. 6. At that time and place, Plaintiff Mary Butts was traveling southbound in the right-hand lane of Interstate 81, in her 1999 Buick Century. 7. At that time and place, Defendant Hanson was traveling southbound on Interstate 81 in the left-hand lane. 8. At that time and place, Defendant Hanson attempted to move into the right-hand lane, unaware that Plaintiff Mary Butts was traveling beside him. 9. At that time and place, the truck driven by Defendant Hanson struck Plaintiff's car, causing Plaintiff's car to spin in front of Defendant's truck. 10. At that time, the truck driven by Defendant again struck Plaintiff's car, pushing Plaintiff's vehicle along the 2 east berm of the road, across the grass median, and into the northbound lanes of Interstate 81. 11. At that time, Plaintiff's car was struck by a tractor trailer traveling northbound on Interstate 81. 12. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sustained severe and painful injuries which include, but are not limited to, a hematoma on the brain, concussion, twisted spine and severe bruising. 13. By reason of the aforementioned injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mary Butts, she may be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and claim is made therefore. 14. Because of the severe and ongoing nature of the injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has been advised, and therefore avers, that she may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefore. 15. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefore. 16. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sustained work loss and diminution of her future earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefore. 17. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Mary Butts continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation, and therefore, avers that her pain may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and claim is made therefore. 18. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sustained other unreimbursed miscellaneous expenses, and claim is made therefore. COUNT ! MART BUTTS V. M~TTHEWLEB HANSON 19. Paragraphs 1 though 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 20. The foregoing accident and all injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs Mary and William Butts are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, wanton and reckless manner in which Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson operated the truck owned by Midwest Transit, Inc. as follows: a. failure to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway; b. failure to yield to the right of way to other vehicles on the roadway; c. failure to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control; d. failure to keep a proper watch for traffic on the roadway; e. improper lane change; f. driving his vehicle upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II MARY E. BUTTS V. MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 22. Midwest Transit, Inc. is vicariously liable for the negligent, careless, wanton and reckless manner of its agent, servant, employee or ostensible agent, Matthew Lee Hanson. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III NARY BUTTS V. MIDWEST TI~ANSXT, INC. 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 24. Midwest Transit, Inc. is also liable for all of the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs Mary and William Butts, as a result of the following: a. failure to maintain the vehicle in proper and adequate condition for use on the road; b. failure to properly equip the vehicle with the necessary mirrors to allow for safe travel; c. failure to properly train and instruct Matthew Lee Hanson, as an agent, servant, employee or ostensible agent of Midwest Transit, Inc. as to the safe operation and rules and regulations of the operation of the Midwest Transit truck. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. 6 COUN~ ZV WZ~LZAMBU~s V. NA~BL'~E~ ~M~'SONANDNZD~8~ ~I~.,N'SZ~ Z~C. 25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 26. Plaintiff William Butts is, and at the time of the accident alleged in this Complaint was, the husband of Plaintiff Mary Butts. 27. As a result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mary Butts, as set forth above, Plaintiff William Butts has been deprived of the services of his wife and her society and the comfort of her presence since the date of the accident alleged, and will continue to be so deprived for a period of time now unknown. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, :131574.1 By: ST IRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, I~%R~ E. BUTTS &nd WILLZAMBUTTS ? VERXFi CATION '"' M:- ry '~=, E. -~u~s and Willz&m Bu-.'.s, he-'eoy --' - We un~r-~i_:n,3 th~_i false s'-.atem--_nr~ .... .--.'.a_._== ef 1~ P.a.C.S.A. 4904 re-:.tinc IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BU'VFS and WILLIAM BUTTS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, v. NO 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 101 / TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, Esquire and Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire, of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins. as attorneys for the Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in the above-captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 I I 0 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorneys for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. BY: ROBERT A. LERMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 07490 IN f'Hf' ¢.'¢ )1 :R T I )1 C¢)MM¢)N Pl./:..s,.~ 'I.;MBERI.A~I) COl '~'F~ pF. NNSYI MARVI' BI'FI'S;mdWII. i.IAM Pla I fl~ ('IVII .~('1'/()~. I_A~ M,~T'I'I I1' l~ I.FF HANSON and D~f~'mlan~s .II.RV erl.at j)EM..XNDED ~Nr) No~V, lhi~ 2~'" da~ of'M~). ~001, j. Li~a M. I)iB~rnardo. Esqmrc, a IIIclllhcr ot'tlw f~rl I Il' ;RIFj:I I'H, N'I'RICKI,ER, LERM..IN, SOI_.YMOS & CALKINN. hcreh~ c'u'~ljl~ ljlal I jlav~ lhis dale nerved copy oflhc Pruecipc fi.w f~nlr~ of Appearance, by I jmled ~IilIL's Mail. addrcsncd Io II1~ parlv Shcphm~ E. Geduldi8' Esquirt. 'FH()MAS. THOMAS & tIAFER North Front Sl~e/ Harr,sburg. PA 17 ~08 ~717} 2~7.7100 (jRIFI:ITIL STRICKI.ER, LERM.:~N, SOLYMOS & ('.Sd. KiN.,4 i. ISA M. DiBERNARDO. E$Oi ill{t: ,:Mtorney I.[r). No. 56684 I i0 Sollth Nonhero Wax York. Pennsylvania 1741)2 ~ 717} 757-7602 Attorney For ~fcnclants. Multhex~ I.ee tlanson and Midwesl Tmnsil. Inc. I IIIIIIIIIIIII II li llitl'lll:,.lilll llil:, ;,.:., I ~tephen E. Gecluld~g, Er, qu]z~ Attorney. I.D. No. 4353o 'rHO~, 'I~IOMA~ & ~ 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7~.oo E-Mail: ~ A~torneys for Plaintiffs: MARY t;, BU'rl~ ~nd W'~.l .T~M BLrrl~ MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF W~LLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs . : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 0]-2975 Civil . MATTHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT. INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that he attempted to serve a COMPLAINT upon the following by way of CERTIFIED MAIL, return receipt requested, article # 7000 1530 0005 0138 6926, addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing the sarae in the United States Mail, First Class. at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania on the 16t~ day of May, 2001, but that the COMPLAINT was refused and returned to the original sender on May 23, 2001. MIDWEST TRANSIT INC POST OFFICE BOX 151 MT CARMEL IL 62823 Therefore, I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the COMPLAINT by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the 23ra day of May, 2001, addressed to: MIDWEST TRANSIT INC POST OFFICE BOX 151 MT CARMEL IL 62863 S~phen E. ~duld~, E~uim A~mw I.D. No. 435~ SOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 No~ Fm~ Street Post Of~i~ Box ~9 Hs~sbu~, ~nns~anla (717) 237-7100 MARY E. BU'I'r~ and ~LUAM BUTT8 MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : 1010 Brandon Drive : Chambersburg, PA 17201 : v. : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON ' : 3510 North 9tn Street Lot 143 : Carter, IA 51510 : : and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : ALT 250 East Post Office Box 98 : Surmmer, IL 62466 Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: ~-TTBEWLEE HANSO~, DEFEND~ MZDWEST TRANSIT, INC. DEFENDANT 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 served, 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 NOTICE TO YOUR LAW~ER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT ~AVE A LAW~ER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHOt~E THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FI-~D OUT WI~RE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association Post Office Box 186 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (800) 932-7375 LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Se usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las USted tiene viente (20) dias de la .paginas siguientes, ~ma~o y la notlficacion. Us~~ %~1 partlr de la fecha de la ' ~=u ueoe presentar ~f~ta o en persona o pot abo-ado ..... una apariencia c ~ escrita sus defensas o su~ ~f_.~cnlvar en la corte en l~ntr~de, su persona. Sea avisado~J,~c~unes, a.las demandas em COrue tomara medidas y puede ent ~== ~ UsEeo no se defiende, previo avis~ ~ ,~_ . rar u~a orden contra USted sin ~ ~ "~=xzxcaclon y por cualqu~er queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para USted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVIcIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCiA LEGAL. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association Post Office Box 186 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (800) 932-7375 2 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Aifomey I.D. No. 43530 THOMA-~, THOMAs & HAFER. LIP 305 North Front Street Post Of Tlce Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E-Ma;l: ~ffhlaw. com Attorneys for Pla ntfffs. MARY E. BUTT8 and WILLIAM BUT'I~ MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTs, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA : 1010 Brandon Drive : Chambersburg, PA 17201 : : v. : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW : No. 01-2975 Civil : MATTHEW LEE HANSON : : 3510 North 9t~ Street Lot 143 : Carter, IA 51510 : : and : : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : ALT 250 EAST : Post Office Box 98 ' Summer, IL 62466 : Defendants : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Plaintiffs Mary E. Butts and William Butts are husband and wife who reside at 1010 Brandon Drive, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 17201. 2. Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson is an adult individual who resides at 3510 North 9tn Street, Lot 143, Carter, Iowa, 51510. 3. Defendant Midwest Transit, Inc. is a business entity located at Alt 250 East, Post Office Box 98, Sumner, Illinois, 62466. 4. The facts and OCCurrences hereinafter took place on or about June 18, 1999 at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Interstate 81, Silver Springs Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At that time and place, Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson was in the Course and SCope of his employment with Midwest Transit, Inc., and acting as its agent, servant, employee or OStensible agent, and was the operator of a Mack truck Owned by Midwest Transit, Inc. 6. At that time and place, Plaintiff Mary Butts was traveling southbound in the right-hand lane of Interstate 81, in her 1999 Buick Century. 7. At that time and place, Defendant Hanson was traveling southbound on Interstate 81 in the left-hand lane. 8. At that time and place, Defendant Hanson attempted to move into the right-hand lane, unaware that Plaintiff Mary BUtts was traveling beside him. 9. At that time and place, the truck driven by Defendant Hanson Struck Plaintiff,s car, Causing Plaintiff,s car to spin in front of Defendant,s truck. 10. At that time, the truck driven by Defendant again Struck Plaintiff, s car, pushing Plaintiff,s vehicle along the 2 east berm of the road, across the grass median, and into the northbound lanes of Interstate 81. 11. At that time, Plaintiff,s car was struck by a tractor trailer traveling northbound on Interstate 81. 12. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sustained severe and painful injuries which include, but are not limited to, a hematoma on the brain, concussion, twisted Spine and Severe bruising. 13. By reason of the aforementioned injuries sUStained by Plaintiff Mary Butts, she may be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and claim is made therefore. 14. Because of the severe and ongoing nature of the injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has been advised, and therefore avers, that she may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefore. 15. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefore. 3 16. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sustained Work loss and diminution of her fUture earning power and Capacity, and claim is made therefore. 17. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Mary Butts Continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation, and therefore, avers that her pain may be of a permanent nature, Causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and claim is made therefore. 18. As a further result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff Mary Butts has sUStained property damage to her car, Which was totaled, and other Unreimbursed miscellaneous expenses, and Claim is made therefore. COU~ X ~X BU~S V. ~A~W~.~i ~SO~ 19. Paragraphs 1 though 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 20. The foregoing accident and all injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs Mary and William Butts are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, Careless, wanton and reckless manner in which Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson Operated the truck Owned by Midwest Transit, Inc. as follows: a. failure to keep alert and maintain a proper Watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway; 4 b. failure to yield to the right of way to other vehicles on the roadway; c. failure to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control; d. failure to keep a proper Watch for traffic on the roadway; e. improper lane change; f- driving his vehicle Upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and Safety of others and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. COUN~ XX ~ARX Z. BU~s V. ~XD~s~ ~ANSX~, XNC. 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 22. Midwest Transit, /nc. is vicariously liable for the negligent, careless, Wanton and reckless manner of its agent, Servant, employee or OStensible agent, Matthew Lee Hanson. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 24. Midwest Transit, Inc. is also liable for all of the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs Mary and William Butts, as a result of the following: a. failure to maintain the vehicle in proper and adequate condition for Use on the road; b. failure to properly equip the vehicle with the necessary mirrors to allow for Safe travel; c. failure to properly train and instruct Matthew Lee Hanson, as an agent, Servant, employee or OStensible agent of Midwest Transit, Inc. as to the Safe operation and rules and regulations of the Operation of the Midwest Transit truck. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring COmpulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV ~LLIAMBUTTs V. ~ATTHEWLEE HANSON AND MIDNEsT TI~NS/T ~NC. 25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Complaint are inCOrporated herein by reference. 26. Plaintiff William Butts is, and at the time of the accident alleged in this Complaint was, the husband of Plaintiff Mary BUtts. 27. As a result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mary Butts, as set forth above, Plaintiff William Butts has been deprived of the Services of his Wife and her society and the comfort of her presence Since the date of the accident alleged, and will continue to be so deprived for a period of time now unknown. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary Butts and William Butts demand judgment against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, /nc., in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Th Usand ($25,000)Dollars or any jurisdictional amount requiring© compulsory arbitration, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, TN~ & H~FER, LLP :131574."-------3 ~ ¥: __ ~ ' STEPHEN E GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ~,R~ E. BUTTs ~ndW-~LL/~BUTTS 8 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 4353o THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, I'.r.p 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (7~7) E-Mail: seE(~t~hlaw. COIT1 At~orne)~ for Plainfitfs: ~ M-4~Y i~* BU'VI~ and ~r/LLiAM BU,Vi~ WILLIAM BUTTS, : IN T~ .' v. : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW : No. 01-2975 Civil .' : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the AMENDED COMPLAINT by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the Ist day of June, 2001, addressed as follows, postage prepaid: Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKIN$ 1~o South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402_3737 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP : 132534.2 _ STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS IN THE COl ~R I' ( W ~.'~ )M ~.,1~ )N I>L[::AS ()F' ('t MBERi.ANDt'{)i'~I'X.' PENNS;YI \",\NIA CERI'IFIC '~1 F. OF .~ER¥1('E lirm t,I'GRIFFT'FH. %TRICKI.ER. I.ERMAN. Si )1 .YMOS & CAI .KIN% hereby'' ccrlll? this date served a copy oF Dclbndants' Intem'~galorics/l~equesl lbr Pn~duclion of Doctmlenls Plaintifl~. by United States Mail. addressed lo thc party or attorney ol'record as lblloxvs: %K~phcn E. (.i~dtlldJg, L'squlre 1HOMAS. THOMAS & IIA~ 305 Noel3 t'roni Street P. O. Box gg9 Harrisburg. P& 1710g Auorne) Iota Plaintiff) ('lRIl' I' iTH, STRICKLER. I.ERMAN. SOLYMOS & CALKINS [.ISA M DtBERNARD¢)~ ESQtilI¢.I' ,a.:torncy I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Wa5' York, Pc'nnsy!vania 17402 1'717) 757-76112 Attorney ti)r Defendants. Malthev,' Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III illllllllll'l'l'll'Iii IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTs and WILLIAM BUTTS, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION. LAW : : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEw LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : : SURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICI~ TO PLP. AI} TO: Mary E. BuRs and William BuRs cio Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAs, THOMAs & HAFER 305 Nortfi Front Street P O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA You are hereby notified to file a written reSpOnse to the enclosed New Matter within twemy (20) days from service hereof or ajudgmant ma,, ~. z ~ ~-~m.,~ against you GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKiNS By: LISA M. DiBERNARn,~ ~ ...... A ' NARDo, E8 UI ttorney I.D. No. 56684 Q RE I I 0 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit,/nc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF CUMBERLAND COUNTy. PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTFS and WILLIAM BUTTs, : Plaintiffs. : CIVIL ACTION. LAW : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT,/Nc., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~TTHEW Ll~.r ~ ~.7.~, 200 l, COmes the Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc.. by and through their altomeys. ORIFFITH, STRICKLERiLERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALK/Ns. and Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire and fi~e this Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiffs, Complaint and statas as follows: I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information Complaint and the same are demed and strict proof thereof ~s demanded at the time of trial. sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations Contained in paragraph ! of Plaintiffs, 2. Admitted. 3. AdmiRed. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendan~ --- .... .... . · o ,~ ~ wlmout Knowleage or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracily of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. $' Denied. The allegations raised in paragraph 5 state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same are den/ed and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of triaL 7. Denied. Atier reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or Veracity of the allegations COntained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity o£the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Same are denied and strict proof thereof ~s demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same are denied and strict proofthereo£is demanded at the time of trial. l 0. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendo-,~ *-- .~, - ~mOwledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph l 0 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. I 1. Denied. After reasonable invest/gat/on, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph I l of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of triaL 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without know/edga or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or Veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations Contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs, 2 Complaint and the same are den/ed and stri,-* ....... . ~, ~,,uo, mereot is aemanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph Complaint and the Same are den/ed and strict proof thereof is 15 of Plaintiffs' demanded at the time of trial. !6. Denied. . . . After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without know/edga or information suffciant to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the Same are · . den~ed and s~'~ct proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. ! 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information suffciem to form a belief'as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph ! 7 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the Same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of'trial. 18. Denied. . . . After reasonable mvast~gat~on. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs, Complaint and the same · . are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial 19. Paragraphs I through 18 above of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 20. Denied. The allegations raised in Paragraph 20 state a Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To thc extent a response is deemed necessao,, it is specifically den/ed that Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson. was negligent, careless and/or otherwise operated his motor vehicle in a wanton and/or reckless manner in the following PartiCUlars: a. failure to keep alert and maintain on the roadway; a proper watch for the Presence of other motor vehicles b. failure to yield to the right of way to other vehicles on the roadway; 3 c. failure to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control; d. fa/lure to keep a Proper watch for traffic on the roadway: e. improper lane change: and f' driving his vehicle Upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and Property and in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant. Matthew Lee · · Hanson Operated his motor vehicle cons]stent with the rules of the road and with due regard for the rights and safety of others Upon the highway. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs, plus costs and such Other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. 21. Paragraphs ! through 20 above of Defendants, Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though se~ forth in full. 22. Denied. The allegations raised in Paragraph 22 state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Midwest TransiL Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs, plus costs and such Other and further relief'as this HOnorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. M~arv Butts v. Mid,vest Trnn~t ln~ 23. Paragraphs I through 22 above of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 4 24. Denied. The allegations raised in paragraph 24 state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a reSponse is deemed necessary, it is specifieally denied that Defendant, Midwest Transit, Inc. is liable for an), alleged injuries and damages sustained b), the Plaintiffs as a result of the following: a. failure to maintain the vehicle in proper and adequate condition for use on the road; b. failure to properly equip the vehicle with the necessary mirrors to allow for safe travel; and c. failure to Properl), train and instruct Matthew Lee Hanson, as an agent, servant, emplo),ee or ostensible agent of Midwest Transit, Inc. as to the safe Operation and rules and regulations of'the Operation fo the Midwest Transit truck. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Midwest Transit, Inc. maintained its vehicle and/or equipment in proper and adequate condition and, properl), trained and instructed all of its emplo),ees, including Defendant Hanson, as to the Safe operation of said vehicle and rules and regulations of the read. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Midwest Transit, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs, plus costs and such other and under the circumstances. ~unher relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate 25. Paragraphs I through 24 above of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information suffiCient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of'Plaintiffs, Complaint and the Same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of'the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of'Plaintiffs, Complaint and the Same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of triaL WHEREFORE, Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit. Inc., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, plus costs and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropr/ate under the cirCumstances. NI~-W MATTER 28, Paragraphs I through 27 above of Defendants, Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 29. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action Upon which relief can be granted. 30. No act or fa/lure to act on the pan of Defendants was a substantial Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, factor in bringing about 1702. 31. Plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury as defined by Act 1990-6, 7:5 Pa.C.$.A. Sect. 32. Plaintiff's claim for non-economic damages may be barred because Plaintiff has elected the limited ton option as set forth in Act 1990-6, 75 Pa.C.S.A. Sect. 1705(b)(3)(d). 33. P~ainti~.~MaryB~tts~asc~n~r.~but~yand/~c~mparat~ve~yneghgenL~h~chc~nt~ib~t~ry and/or comparatwe neghganee was a substantml factor m bringing about her alleged injuries and damages 34. Plaintiffoperated her vehicle m a manner which endangered persons such as Defendant and with careless disregard for the rights and Safely of others such as Defendant lawfully on the highway in the following respects: a. failure to keep alert and maintain on the roadway: a Proper watch for the Presence of other motor vehicles b. fa/lure to yield to the right of way to other vehicles on the roadway; c. failure to keep her vehicle under Proper and adequate COntrol lane; and to remain in her proper d. failure to keep a proper watch for tralfic on the roadway; e. improper lane change; and f" driving his vehicle upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and Property and a reckless manner with careless disregard to the of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ,s,,,a aaa safety orothers and in violation 36. Plaintiff's claim is barred in whole or in pan by the Provisions of the Pennsylvania Molor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 37. P~ainti~' s al~eged injury ~r damages were the resu~ ~f acts ~r ~missi~ns by third parties ~ver Whom Defendant has no responsibility or control. 38. Defendant. Matthew Lee Hanson. was confronted with a "sudden emergency.,, 39. At all times relevant, Defendant. Matthew; and prudently, with due care under the circumstances. -~-,- ,,re,non, acteo carefully, lawfully, properly 40. The injuries and damages that Plaintiff claims she has sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have Pre-existed this accident and were not caused as a result of this accident. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest TransiL/nc., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, plus costs and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER. LERMAN. so Y os& Attorney i.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorneys for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit,/nc. VERIFICATION I, Matthew Lee Hanson, hereby veri~, that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averm~ts which are inconsistent in a ,. · a~,, ! yetiS, that tn3, knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To th.e. exte. nt that the foregoin~ conta' th.at my.Verification is m~a,. ...... ,'~ , .ins legal conclusions or o-;-;..-- · L . fihng this document. .-.-,. -)~u. me aav, ce of counsel, upon who~";'~' ' ne..re.oy state · ,, · -ave reile{I in the This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904 related to unswom falsifications to authorities. Dated: 6 - q-Ol__ ~ Matthew Lee Hanson VERIFICATION I, Hal Hicks, President of Midwest Transit, Inc., hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fa · Information is suf~clent to form a behefthat one or mo currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent aver~et~tq are true. To the exte. nt that the foregoing contains le al . · · ~.at m.y. Ve. rfficatlon is made upon the advice og~-[--c-On,cluslOns o~. opinions, I hereby state · ' ~;ounsei, upon wl~om I have relied in the ming tills aocument. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Hal Hicks, President Midwest Transit, Inc. Ik, '1'1 IF COl :R 1 ( )~- ( '~ )MM~ )N I)LEA',;; (.)1- (. ~ 'MBERL,'~,N[) ('~)l .N"I ',,' PI:..NN~YL VANI^ M -~1~~) F B~ · I'1'% and WII .I. lAM BI I'l'T~,. ~."1~, II ACTION - I.A~ ~('), O~-2975 MA r'rHF%~. LC[. HANN(.)N and MJI')~'ESI ~"RANSII. iNC. Delcndanls. II~RY I'RIAI. DEMANDED CERTIFICATF OF SERVICE AND NOW. this .. __ da> of.lunc. 2001. I. I.isa M. [)iBemardo. Esqtdrc. a mcmbcr offl~c firm of iRIFFI'I'I I. KI'RI('K LER. I.ERMAN. S(}I.,YMOS & ("ALKINS, hercb) cerli~' thai I have this datc served of Del~ndanl~' Answer Wilh New Ma,er )o Plnintiflg' Complainl. by t )nitcd ~[~ItRS Nhiil. add~ssed Stephen E. Gcduldig. Esqui~ TH()MAS, THOMAS & I [AFEI( Harrisburg. PA {710~ A~orn¢y t2)r Plamiit]'s GRIFFITH. S'FRICKLER. t,ERMAN, SOLYMC)S & C.M,KINS . , BY: ....... /~.,,I. ~-,. I.[SA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQiJIRE Am)rn~y I.D. No. 56684 I 0 South No~llem Way York, Pcnnsylvm~ia 17402 ( 71 ~) 757-7602 A.ornoy for ~fendanls. Mallhemv Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit. {nc. I Il Illlll Ill IIIIIlllllllllllJllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIJll II Illl Ill I:ll;l{l:ll. Ilralr[[I]Jll~mlmawj.z;imEc JJ~JJJ:JJ~;i. JJJJI ,, ,jlJl, MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION ~ NOW, it is hereby stipulated by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties referenced above, that the phrase" and other unreimbursed miscellaneous expenses" from paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint shall be deemed WITHDRAWN and/or otherwise DIBMISSED with prejudice, with the express understanding that this Stipulation does not in any way waive, withdraw or impair Plaintiffs' ability to plead, prove and recover the worker's compensation lien or unreimbursed wage and medical specials. THO~kS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LEI~MAN, SOL,MOS & CALKINS Stephen"E. Geduldig, Esquire Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire 305 N. Front Street, Suite 600 1!0 S. Northern Way Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 York, Pennsylvania 17401 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Attorneys for Defendants, Mary B. Butts and Matthew Leo Hanson and William Butts Midwest Transit, Ins. :135~6.1 IN TIlE C'OtiRT C)F cOMM(')N PLEAS OF CLIMBERI.AND C'OI.!N'FY. PENNSYI.VANIA MARY E. 131 rF'FS :md WILLIAM BI. II"FP,. L'IVIL ACI'ION - I.AW I)l~finliffs. TNO (11-1975 MA1 THEW I.EE HANSON illld MII')WEST TRANSIT. INC.. JURY TRIAL DI~.MANDED Defendants. CERTI FICAT_E_OF SERVICE AN D NOW. this ~,'" da)' nf July. 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBernardo. Esquirc, a mcmbcr of thc firm of I.ERMAN, SOLYMOS & C At,KINS. hcrcbv ccrfifv ~hat I haw II~ iR FFI'FH STR CKI.ER.. . ' " -- Mail. addrcsscd to Ihe paw or copy ol'lhe tbrcgoiug Stipulation. by I.Inffcd Stales fi)llo~vs: Stephen E. Gcduldig. Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 No~h Front Strce[ P. O. Box 9q9 Harrisburg, PA 17108 A~orney ~or Plaimi(fs GRIFFITH, STRICKI.ER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS ~ CALKINS ; .t - ~ /~..-,.... LISA M. DiBERNARDO. E~)UI-RE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South No,hem Way York, pennsylvm~ia 17402 (717') 757-7602 A~ome~ for ~fendnnts. Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit. Inc. Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attomey I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisbu~, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Atfomeys for Plaintiff%: E-Mail: se;l~tthJaw.com MARY E. BUI'I'S and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF' S RESPONSE TO THE NEW NATTER OF DEFENDANTS~ M~TTHEW LEE ~%NSON ~__"?_ ~rr~WEST TRANSZT~ INC 28. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 29. Denied as a legal conclusion. If a response is necessary, Plaintiffs' Complaint most certainly does state a cause of action in negligence against Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. 30. Denied as a legal conclusion. If a response is required, Defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' injuries and damages. 31. Denied as a legal conclusion. If a response is required, Plaintiffs' injuries are serious injuries. 32. Denied as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, Plaintiff is a full tort claimant. 33. Denied as a legal conclusion. If a response is required, Plaintiff, Mary Butts, was not negligent in any way, shape or form with respect to this accident. 34(a)-(f). Denied as conclusions. If a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiff was negligent in any way, shape or form with respect to this accident and it is averred that she at all times kept alert and maintained the proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles, properly yielded the right-of-way, kept her vehicle under proper and adequate control in her own lane, kept a watch for traffic on the roadway, stayed in her own lane, and drove her vehicle safely in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Code. 35. Denied as a legal conclusion. 36. Denied as a legal conclusion. 37. Denied. It is believed that Plaintiff's injuries and damages were the result of the negligence of Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and/or Midwest Transit, Inc. 38. Denied as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, created the situation giving rise to the accident and therefore may not avail himself of the "sudden emergency" defense. 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BU'I'I'S and WILLIAM BUTI'S, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, .. : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MA'ITI-IEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., ~ Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTilrICATE OF SERVICe. AND NOW, this 1" day of August, 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 I I 0 South Northern Way York, Penasy[vania ] 7402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BU'ITS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATITIEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : ~LIRY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF, ANDNOW, this ~ _ day of September, 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire, a member of the finn ofGRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby ceftin, that I have this date served a copy of Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson's Answers to Plaintiffs' Int~rrogatorins, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record ns follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBEILNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COIVlMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BU ITS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MA'ITHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : ~IRY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF ,q~.~VICP. ANDNOW, this '~-~daY ofSeptembet, 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire, a member ofthe firm ofGRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendant, Midwest Transit, lnc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, by Unit~l States Mail, addressed to the patty or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Slreet P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS By:~,~~ .... ~ M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. $6684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. 'I'IIOMA~, TII{)~I~S & H.,~I"EII. I.U' ~A~Y E. BUTTS ~d I~ TH~ COU~T O~ ~O~ON PLEAS OF WII.LIAM BUTTS, C'T JMBE~AND CO~'I'Y, PE~SYLVANIA PlaintitTs t.'lVIl, ACTION -- LAW v. ~',,. 01-2975 Civil MATI'HEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., Defendants JURY '/RIAL DEMANDED RULE '1'O NIK)W CAUSE AND NOW, this ~.~: .d day ot ...... ~_ ,2002, upon consideration of the nttached Motion of Plaintifl:s. Mary E. [hms and William Buus, DetEndm~t Mat~ew Lee Hanson is hereby ruled to show ~use why this ('om~ :~ho.ld not compel flae deposition of Defend~mt. Mathexv I,ee Hanson. or show cruise why Plainfil~' Mo~ion should not be grm~ted. RULE RETURNABLE ._.~:~ {LX. YS FROM DATE OF SERVICE BY 'File COURT: 03. .q-0 tX Slcphen E Geduldig. Esquire AIIont~y I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THO~.IAS & HAFER, I.LP MARY E. BUTTS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT. INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ¢ ;RDER AND NOW, this day of .2002, upon consideration of the attached Motion to Compel of Plaintiffs, Mary mid William I.?,ults. it is he~eby ORDERED that Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson be present at the ottices of'Fl'sor~ms. Thomas 8: Hal~er LLP, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order tbr his deposition, or be prech~ded I~m offering aa~y deth~ses to Plaintiffs' claims at the trial of this matter. Steplmn E. (Jeduldig. Esquire ^ttomcy I.D. No. 435_30 'rHOMA$. THOMAS & HAFER. LLP E-Mail: SCA~'~.~ttlllt'lw.gOIll MARY E. BU'ITS and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC.. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS, MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM Bu'rrs TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW LEE HANSON AND NOW. this r~g)~-~day of March 2002. come Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts, by their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP. and moves your Honorable Court to compel the deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson, or suffer the imposition of sanctions, based upon the lbllowing considerations: 1. This is a motor vehicle accident commenced with the filing ora Civil Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on June 4. 2001. 2. On June 25. 2001 Defendants filed an Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3. On July 13, 2001, Plaintifl% served Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson with Interrogatories and a Request tbr Production of Documents pursuant, to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. (Exhibit "A") 6. On November 23.2001, l'laintifl's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel attempting to schedule the deposition of Delbndant. Matthew Lee Hanson (Exhibit "B"). 7. On December 18. 2001, PlaintifFs counsel notified defense counsel that the deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson was scheduled tbr March 12, 2002 (A copy ofthe December 18, 2001 letter is attached as Exhibit 8. On March 8. 2002, a Notice of Deposition was served on defense counsel. ¢Copy of which is attached as Exhibit O. No objection was made to thc deposition. 10. Defendant. Matthew Lee Hansun lhiled to appear for his deposition. II. Plaintiffs are severely prejudiced by Defendant's outright refusal to be make himself available tbr a deposition and his continual t~ailure to cooperate in moving the instant litigation to conclusion. WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs. Mary and William Butts. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order Defendant. Mattl~cw I,ee Hanson to make himself available for a deposition at the office of PlaintifFs counsel within seven days or suffer the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019, including being precladed tFom offering any defenses a! trial. Respectfully submitted. 'rHOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP / . by: S f'ephen E.'Geduldig, ~squire I.D. No. 43530 3{15 North Front Street, 6~h Floor I~OB 099 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Plaintiff ~;lcphcn E. (Jcduldig, E~.luirc Almrncy I.D. N~,. 43530 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER. LLP E-Mail: MARY E. Blr~ and WILLIAM BII~S MARY E. BUTTS ~d : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS. : CUMBE~AND COt~TY. PE~SYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST T~NSIT, INC.. : Defendan~ : .IURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIHCATE OF SERVICE I. Barbara Onorato. of the law firm ol" Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. do hereby certil~.' that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the lbregoing MOTION on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail. at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa M. DiBernardo. Esquire GRIFFITIt, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 ffarbara Onorato, Paralegal Date: March 20. 2002 Exhibit A Stephen E Gcdul&g, Esquire Auomcy I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAF£R~ LLP 305 Nnrlh Front S.~eet MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT. MATTHEW LEE HANSON TO: Matthew Lee Hanson, Defendant ¢/O Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH. STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 Soulh Norlhem Way York, Pc~msylvania 17402-3737 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, you are required to forward a copy to the undersigned and retain the original, of your answers and objections, if any, in xvdting and under oath, to the following Interrogatories, within thirty (30) days of service hereof. The Pmswers shall be inserted in the spaces provided following the h~terrogatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Document" means any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, including photographs, microfilms, phonographs, video and audio tapes, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to -- ( 1 ) A natural person, his or her: (a) tidl nan~e; and (b) present or last known residence and employment address (including street nan~e and number, city or town, and state or country); (2) A document: (a) its description (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.), title, and date; (b) its subject matter; (c) its author's identity; (d) its addressee's identity; (e) its present location; and (f) its custodian's identity; (3) An oral communication: (a) its date; (b) the place where it occurred; (c) its substance; (d) the identity ofthe person who made the communication; (e) the identify of each person to whom such communication was made; and (0 the identity of each person who was present when such communication was made; (4) A corporate entity: (a) its full corporate name; (b) its date and place of incorporation, if known; and (c) its present address and telephone number; (5) Any other context: a description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafter be specified and recognized, including relevant dates and places, and the identification of relevant people, entities, and documents. "Incident" means the occurrence that forms the basis ora cause of action or claim for relief set forth in the complaint or similar pleading. "Person" means a natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or government agency. STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS ( 1 ) Duty to answer. -- The interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verified, and sen, ed upon the undersigned within 30 days of their service on you. Objections must be signed by the attorney making them. In your answers, you must furnish such information as is available to you, your employees, representatives, agents, and attomeys. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pelmsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) Claim of privilege. -- With respect to any claim of privilege or inununity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or irnmunity asserted and provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim. (3) Option to produce docnmants. -- In lieu of identifying documents in response to these interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding interrogatories. INTERROGATORIES I. Please state: (a) Your full name, (b) Each other name, if any, which you have used or by which you have been known; (c) The name ofyour spouse at the time of the accident and the date and place of your marriage to such spouse; (d) Your present residence address and the address of each other residence which you have had during the past five years; (e) Present occupation and the name and address ofyonr employer; (0 Date of your biflh; (g) Your Social Security Number; (h) Your military service, if any, and positions held; and, (i) The schools you have attended and the degrees or certificates, ifany, awarded. 2. If you are covered by any type of insurance, including any excess, umbrella or homeowners insnrance, that might be applicable to the incident in this matter, state the tbllowing with respect to each such policy: (a) The nanae of the insurance carder which issued the policy: (b) The named insured under each policy and the policy number-, (c) The type of each policy and the effective dates-, (d) The amount of coverage provided for injury to each person, for each occurrence, and in the aggregate for each policy; (e) Each exclusion, ifany, in the policy which is applicable to any claim thereunder and any reasons why you or the carrier claim the exclusion is applicable; and, (f) Please consider this a formal Request to Produce a copy of the declaration page{s) of said insurance policy or policies. 3. State with particularity the factual basis tbr each claim or defense you are asserting in this case. 4. Identify each person who: (a) Was a witness to the incident through sight or hearing, and/or, (b) Has knowledge of facts concerning the happening ofthe incident or conditions or cimumstances at the scene of the incident prior to, after, or at the time of the incident. (c) With respect to each person so identified, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the incident. 5. If you know ofanyone that has given any statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure} concerning this action or its subject matter, state: (a) The identity of such person, (b} When, where, by whom and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or other~,ise recorded, (c) The identity of any person who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and, (d) Please consider this a Request to produce copies of each such statement(s). 6. Identify documents (except reports of experts subject to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.5) which describe the incident or the cause thereofi Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents. 7. If you were required by law or regulation to be licensed for the activity in which you were engaged at the time of the incident, state. (a) The type of license required {b) The date you first obtained such a license; (c) The dates of issuance and expiration of your current license(s); (d) The identity of the authority that issued your license(s); (e) The number of your license(s); (f) The nature of your license(s), (g) The special restrictions, ifany, imposed on your license. 8. If you have been charged with any criminal violations as a result ofthe incident, describe the charges and identify all documents filed or served in connection with those charges. 9. If you know of the existence ofany photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, maps, diagrams, or models relevant to the incident, state: (a) The nature and type ofsuch item, (b) The date when such item was made; (c) The identity of the person that prepared or made each item; (d) The subject that each item represents or portrays; and, {e) Please consider this a Motion to Produce such materials. 10. If you. or someone not an expert subject to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, conducted any investigations of the incident, identify: (a) Each person, and the employer of each person, who conducted any investigations; {b) All notes, reports or other documents prepared during or as a result of the investigations and the persons who have custody thereof; and; {c) Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents, except those portions which are protected from discovery. 11. Identify each person you intend to call as a non-expert witness at the trial of this case, and for each person identified state your relationship with the witness and the substance of the facts to which the witness is expected to testify. 12. Identify each expert you intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter and for each expert state: (a) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; and, (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. (You may file as your answer to this interrogatory the report of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by your expert.) 13. Identify all exhibits that you intend to use at the trial of this matter and state whether they will be used during the liability or damages portions of the trial. 14. Ifyou intend to use any book, magazine, or other such writing at trial, state; (a) The name of the writing; lb) The author of the writing; {.c) The publisher of the writing; (d) The date of publication of the writing; and, (e) The identity of the custodian of the writing. 15. If you intend to use any admission ora party at trial, identify such admission. 16. If you consumed any alcoholic beverage, sedative, tranquilizer, marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or other drug, medicine or pill during the eight hours immediately preceding the incident, state: (a) The nature, amount and type of item consumed; (b) The an~ount of time over which consumed; (c) The identity of any and all persons who have any knowledge as to the consumption of those items; and, (d) The identity of the physician or medical practitioner or other person who gave, purchased or prescribed any of said items, if any. 17. If you were under any physical or mental disability at the time of the incident, explain the disability. 18. With respect to all motor vehicles involved in the incident, state: (a) The identity of the owners and operators of each vehicle; (b) The identity of the passengers in each vehicle; and, (c) The make, model, and year of each vehicle. 19. Please state: (a) The destination and the point and time of departure of the vehicle you operated in this incident; (b) The purpose of the trip or journey in the vehicle; (c) The time and place of all stops and departures between the commencement of the trip or journey and the time of the incident; (d) Whether you were familiar with the snrrounding area where the incident took place; (e) The weather conditions at the time of the incident, including visibility and roadway conditions, (f) The number ofhours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. on the date of the incident, before the incident occurred; Cg) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport. Inc. the week of the incident, before the incident occurred; and Ih) The number ofhours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. in the week before the incident occurred. 20. State in detail the manner in which you assert that the incident occurred, specifying the speed, position, direction and location of each vehicle involved during its approach to, at the time of, and immediately after the collision. 21. Has the Defendant, or any representative of the Defendant, his/her counsel, or his/her insurer performed, or contracted to be performed, or arranged in any way any type of su~'eillance of the Plaintiff or his or her activities at any time? If so, please attach a complete copy, without editing, of all reports, memoranda, letters, electronic data or information of any type (including computer records) regarding such surveillance activity, along with a copy of any photographs, films, videotapes or other information, including, but not limited to videotapes, 8-millimeter film, and handwritten notes. 22. With respect to any vehicle you operated that was involved in the incident, state: (a) The nature of any damage existing prior to the incident; (b) The identity of any person who pertbrmed repairs to the vehicle following the incident; (c) The total amount of the repair bills, or the total estimated cost of repairing the vehicle if not yet repaired, or the estimated value of the damages to the vehicle and the identity of the person furnishing such estimate; (d) The date and place of last state inspection prior to the incident and identify the person making said inspection; and, (e) The nature of any defect in or problem with the vehicle and the length of time such defect or problem existed. 23. If you deny you arc negligent, set forth the facts that support the basis ofyour denial. 24. Do you claim that Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent and/or that he/she assumed the risk? If so, please state your contentions, or those of anyone acting on your behalf, upon which you base a claim of contributory or comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk. 25. Please state whether you kept a time log or log book of all of your destinations and jot,meys, the amount of rest or sleep you took (1) week before, and up to the time of, the incident, and the number of log book violations, if any. and the location, time. and type of log book violation(s). (Please consider this a Request to Produce the log book and documentation of violation(s)). Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP By:. STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG. ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants ::;lephen E Geduldig. Esquire Auomey I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS~ THOMAS & HAYER. LLP Ilamsburg. Pennsylvama 17108 ( ? 17 ) 237.7100 Attorneys for Plaint~t~s' ~-Mail. seg, a. lthla~ corn MARY E. BU~ and WILLIAM BU~S MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara Onorato, a Legal Assistant at the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, do hereby certify, that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT MATTHEW HANSON on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail. at Harrisburg, Pem~sylvania. addressed as follows: Lisa DiBemardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Date: March 20, 2002 Barbara A. Onorato, Legal Assistant Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER. LLP 305 Norlh Front Str~el Post Office Box 999 Han~sburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Attorneys Ibr Plaintiffs: E-Mail: sc~'b.:ltllluw ¢Oill MAI{¥ E. BU'ITS and WILLIAM B[IT'['$ MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS The following documents in the attached schedule are to be produced for inspection, testing and copying in the above-designated offices of counsel within thirty (30) days of service hereof. You must produce those items possessed or controlled by you or anyone acting or having acted on your behalf including, but not limited to your attorneys, accountants, agents, servants, workmen, employees, and other natural persons, businesses or organizations. Alternatively you may respond by attaching marked copies of the documents hereto, executing the verification and transmitting the same to the undersigned. These requests for production are continuing. Any items secured subsequent to the production of those requested which would have been includable in the initial response should be produced immediately after the same are brought to your attention or come within your possession or control as previously defined. The term document as used herein means any report, writing, memorandum, correspondence, tape, or magnetic recording, computer program or data, visual or audio reproduction, sketch, drawing, photographs or other manual, stenographic, mechanical or other form of record. Production should be made whether your interest in the document identified and account or obligation evidence thereby is sole or joint. Each request and portion of each result is deemed severable and if objection is made to all or part of a request, the remainder should be produced. If you object solely to the copying or testing of a document or thing, it should be produced for inspection. 1. All statements, signed statements, transcripts of recorded statements or interviews, recorded statements, if not transcribed, or any statement or recorded statements, if not transcribed verbatim, taken of any parties, persons or witnesses as part of an investigation of the happening or cause of the accident in question, conducted by, or in the possession of, Defendant, Defendants' Attorneys, insurers or anyone else acting on behalf of Defendants. 2. All photographs in the possession, custody or control of defendants, counsel for Defendants or any other person or entity acting on behalf of Defendants, including any insurer for defendant, showing, representing or purporting to show any vehicles, locales, instrumentalities, persons, buildings, and any and all other matters related to the subject matters of this litigation. 3. All diagrams, sketches, drawings, plans, measurements or blueprints in the possession, custody or control of defendant, defendant's counsel, or any other person or entity acting on behalf of defendant, including any of the defendant's insurers, showing, representing or purporting to show any of the instrumentalities, locales, persons or other matters involved in the accident which forms the basis of Plaintiffs' complaint. 4. All documents prepared by Defendant, or any insurers, representatives, agents to anyone acting on behalf of Defendant, except Defendants' Attorney, dudng an investigation of any aspect of the accident in question. Such documents shall include any documents made or prepared up through the present time, with the exclusion of the mental impression, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense, respecting strategy or tactics. 5. All expert opinions, expert reports, expert summaries or other writings of experts in the possession, custody or control of Defendant, Defendants' Attorneys or insurers, which relate to the subject matter of this litigation and the incident in question. 6. All insurance agreements and other documents relating to Defendants' insurance concerning the accident which forms the basis of Plaintiff s complaint. 7. Any contract, release or other agreement, whether tacit or written, between any and all Defendants concerning release, relinquishment or limitation of liability with regard to the accident which the subject of Plaintiff's complaint. 8. Any and all documents or exhibits which you intend to offer as evidence against the Plaintiffs in this action. 9. Copies of all pick-up and delivery records, trip summaries, and all delivery manifests for the truck driven by Matthew Hanson on the date of the accident. 10. Any and all documents which evidence any facts on the basis of which you assert a defense against the cause of action stated in the Plaintiffs' complaint. 11. Copies of all bills of lading and all manifests and waybills. 12. Copies of the written response from each agency contacted with reference to Hanson's driving record. 49 CFR 391.23. 13. Copies of all written records with respect to each past employer who was contacted about the Matthew Hanson's qualifications. 14. Matthew Hanson's driver qualification file, 49 CFR 391.51, including employee's application, list of truck driver's previous employers for the 10 years preceding the date of the application, the reasons for leaving said employment, medical examiner's certificate, a note showing when and who reviewed the driver's record with him or her for each year of employment, 49 CFR 391.25. (NOTE: Employers are required to keep the driver's file at its principal place of business as long as the driver is employed and for 3 years thereafter.) 15. Copies of the ddver's logs (i.e. record of duty status) for the two minors prior to and the month of this incident. 16. Copy of the accident register. 17. Copy of repair invoices during the period that the truck has been operated on your behalf. 18. Copy of all lease and trip contracts between you and the truck/trailer owner and operator. 19. Copy of Matthew Hanson's list of violations of motor vehicle traffic laws. 20. Copy of Matthew Hanson's personnel files. 21. Any and all documents identified in the response to interrogatories directed to Defendant Matthew Hanson and Midwest Transport, Inc. 22. Copies of any surveillance documents or photographs taken of the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP By: STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Stephen E. Geduld~g, Esquire Altumey I.D. No. 4353,3 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFKR. LLP 305 North F~nl Street Pos~ Ofl~cc Box 999 Han'isburg. Pennsylvania 17108 (717 ) 237-7 I00 Atmmcys/bt Plaintiffs: E-Mail: sea(&~hlaw.com MARY E. BU~S and WILLIAM MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS. CUMBERLAND COLq'qTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this __ day of July, 2001 I, Barbara Onorato, a Legal Assistant of the Law Firm of Thomas, Thomas & Haler LLP, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa M. DiBcrnardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Barbara A, Onorato Date: March 20, 2002 Exhibit B (7a7) 237-7141 E-Mail: bao@tthlaw.com November 23, 2ool Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICYI.~.R, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 11o South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 174o2-3737 Re: Butts v. H~n~on and Midwest T~ansit. Inc. Cumberland County No. Ol-2975 Civil Dear Lisa: Enclosed please find our Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Documents. You will recall that inasmuch as we had already provided you with the worker's compensation lien file, we have not duplicated the disclosure of those documents at this time. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning these documents. We would like to move this matter forward with depositions. Please contact your insured to see what arrangements can be made to produce yoor driver for deposition purposes. Very t rnl.v yours, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAltER, LLP By: Barbara Onorato, Legal Assistant SEG/bao Enclosure bc: Mr. and Mrs. Butts (without enclosure) Ms. Melissa Robles (without enclosure) Dominique Celli, Esquire (without enclosure) Exhibit C (717) 237-7141 E-Mail: bao@tthlaw.com December 18, ~oo~ Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKI.~R, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKIN$ no South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Re: Butts v. Hanson and Midwest T~An~it: Cumberland County No. oi-2975 Civil Dear Lisa: I would like to move this case forward and take the deposition of your client, Matthew Hanson, as well as Pierce Morrison and Frank Morrison, your independent witnesses. I propose that we take these depositions on January 14, 2002, in my office starting at 9:00. If I do not hear to the contrary from you by January 2, I will send out the deposition notice and schedule the court reporter. Very. truly yours, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire SEG/bao bc: Mr. and Mrs. Butts Ms. Melissa Robles Dominique Celli, Esquire Exhibit Smphen E. Geduldig, Esquire A~ornw I.D. No. 435~ THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 No~h Front Har~sbu~, Penn~lYania 17108 (717) 237-7100 A~omws ~r PlaintS: E-Mail: ~e~,,~hlaw.com MARY E, BUTT8 and ~LUAM BU'rT~ MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION NOTI~ TO: Ail parties and their counsel: P?.~E T~ NOTICE that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned will take the deposition of MATTu~ HANSON ON F~tRCH 12, 2002, beginning &~ 8:00 A.M. AT THE LAW OFFICES OF THO~IAS, TEO~I~S & lha_~, 305 NORTH ~tONT ST~ET, 6~ FLOOR, ~ISBURG, PA 17101 upon oral examination, for the purpose of discovery and for use as evidence in the above-captioned action, at the o£fices of before a Notary Public or some other person authorized or commissioned to administer oaths on all matters not privileged which are relevant and material to the issues and subject matter involved in the pending action, including, but not limited to, the facts of the alleged incident, and the events leading up thereto. Parties and attorneys are directed to bring with them any and all materials or documents which in any way relate to the subject lawsuit. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & ~R, LLP March 8, 2002 STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ~R~ E. BIFTTS and~LLI~tM BUTTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the £oregoing document by FAXing same on the 8th day of March, 2002, addressed as follows: Lisa M. OiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL,MOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Attorneys for Defendants THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP :':tephen E. Geduldig, Esquire :161113.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MI DWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS, MATTHEW I.F.F. HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT. INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW. comes the Defetldants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., by and through their attorneys, Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins. and file the instant Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule Absolute and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. AdmiRed. 2. Admitted. The document speaks for itself. 3. Admitted. 4. AdmiRed. 5. Admitted in part: denied in part. It is admitted that upon receipt of Plaintiffs' Rnle to Show Cause. counsel for Defendants did not to file a formal response with the Court. It is denied, however, that no response to the Rule was given, as counsel for the Defendants telephoned Plaintiffs' counsel and, explained what was already well known to Plaintiffs' attorney; that is, Defendant Matthew Hanson. a resident oflowa at the time of this incident, could not. despite the best efforts of defense counsel, her office and, an investigator, locate the Defendant. Accordingly. Defendant could not be produced for a deposition. Moreover, counsel for the parties discussed that there would be no opposition to the instant Petition, provided that the Order were fashioned/draRed in such a way so that it indicated that liability only could not be contested, as the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries are very much at issue. 6. While Defendants do not concur with the filing of the instant Motion, given the inability, to locate such a key and crucial witness as Defendant Hanson, it is recognized and acknowledged that Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to prove their case and, that the instant Motion and relief sought as to liability only is warranted. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER. LERMAN. SOLYMOS & CALKINS [~I~A M~. DiBgRNARDO. ESQUI RE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 I I 0 South Northern Way York. Pennsylvania 17402 {717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S.A. SECTION 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MI DWEST TRANSIT, INC.. : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 22''a day of May, 2002, 1, Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire, a meEnber of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule Absolute, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew L~e Hanson and Midwest Transit. Inc. MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : 01-2975 CIVIL : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE ORDER AND NOW, this ,, o ' day of June, 2002, upon consideration of the attached motion to make absolute this court's rule to show cause of March 1 I, 2002, it is ordered that said rule is made absolute and that the defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, shall submit himself to deposition with at least fourteen (14) days' notice to counsel or suffer a sanction upon further motion. BY THE COURT, ss. J. Stephen E. G~uldig, Esquire l%r the Plaintiffs Lisa DiBeruardo, Esquire For the Defendants ('-~- :rim 201)'Z Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. lqo. 4353o THOMAS, THO~ & ~LM~EB, LLP 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsyh.ania x7~o8 (Tt?) 237-7~oo Attoraeys for Plaintiffs: E-Mail: Se~(~ltth]aw.coFll I~L~,RY E. BLrl'r~ and W'~-~.~,~ BD~-~ MARY E. BUTFS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON pI.I~.~S OF WILLIAM BUTFS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. ol-2975 Civil : : MATFHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of ,2002, upon consideration of the attached Motion to Make Rule Absolute this Court's Rules to Show Cause of March l~, 2oo2, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Rule is made absolute, and that Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson is precluded from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challenging liability at the trial of this matter and establishing that liability against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. is admitted. BY THE COUP, T, Stephen E. Oeduldig, Esquire A~orney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Hnrrisbu~, Pennsylvania ~7~o8 (7~7) 237-7~oo Atiorney~ for Plaintiffs: E-Mail: se~i,~:t t hlaw.c~m MARY I~. Bu,ri~ and Tt~fl .T .l~ B~J-i-i~ MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI.~.AS OF WILLIAM BUTFS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVILACTION - LAW v. : No. Ol-2975 Ci~4l : : MATI'HEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURYTRIAL DEMANDED MorION OF PLAINTIFFS. MARY E. BLrI'I'S AND lir[i.I.IAM BIXI~S TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Mary. E. Butts and William Butts, by their attorneys, Stephen E. Geduldig and Thomas, Thomas & Haler, LLP, and file this Motion to Make Rule Absolute, and in support thereof, represent as follows: 1. On March 21, 2002, Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts filed with this Court a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson. 2. On March 22, 2002, this Honorable Court issued a Rule to Show Cause, ruling Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson to show cause why the Motion of Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts should not be granted. A true and correct copy of said Rule to Show Cause is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 3. The Rule was returnable twenty. (20) days from date of service. 4. The Rule to Show Cause was served on Defendant's counsel on March 28, 2002. A true and correct copy of the letter from counsel for Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts to Defendant's counsel dated March 28, 2002 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". 5. More than twenty (20) days have passed from the date of the service of the Rule to Show Cause upon counsel for Defendant, yet he has not fi]ed a response to the Rule to Show Cause. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts, respectfully request this Honorable Court to make the Rule Absolute and enter an order precluding Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challenging liability at the trial of this matter and establishing that liability against Defendants Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. is admitted. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, l.l.p by: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire I.D. No. 4353o 3o5 North Front Street, 6th Floor POB 999 Harrisburg, PA 171o8-o999 (717) 237-71oo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of May, 2002, I, Barbara 0norato, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify, that I sent a true and comet copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICI~I.I~.R, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CAI.KINS 11o South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Barbara A. Onorato, Legal Assistant Exhibit A Slcphen £. G~duldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, I.LP ~05 Nord] Front Ita~i~bur~ Pennsylva]lin 17lOg ~717) 237-7100 Attorneys Ibp ['lainlifl~: E-M~I: ~(~tII1]:IW.CO]11 MARY E. BU~andWILLIAM BU~S M~Y E. 8U~S ~d : ~LL[~ BUTTS. : CUrE.AND CO~TY~ PE~SYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACT[ON -- LAW : ~o. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LE~ HANSO~ and : Defenders : JUEY TR]AL DEEDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this .~.. ~'9-'~day of' '~q O. f-C..L ,2002, upon consideration of the attached Motion of Plaintiffs. Mar), E. Butts and William Butts, Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson is hereby ruled to show cause why this Court should not compel the deposition of DefendanL Mathcw Lee Hanson. or show cause why Plaintiffs' Mo'6on should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE ,~. 0 DAYS FROM DATE OF SERVICE BY THE COURT: / ,/ J. TRUE COPY FROk4 RECORD / :n Testimony whereof. I h~re un'~o set my hand and t~ seal o~ saidJCour~ at Carlisle, Pa. 5[eldlen E. Geduldig. Esquire ARomey I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS. THOR, lAS & HAFEP~ LLP 305 North Front Street Harrisburg Pcnnsvlvan a 7 08 (7 ] 7) 237-7100 Altomeys ~br Plaintit't~: E-Mail: seI2,~£tJllaw.¢onl MARYE. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUT]'S and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil : : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC.. : DefendanL~ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, tl~is day of ,2002, upon consideration of the attached Motion to Compel of Plaintiffs, Mm3* mid William BuiL~. it is h~'eby ORDERED tha! Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson be present at the offices of Thomas. Thomas & Hater LLP, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order for his deposition, or be precluded from offering m~y defenses to Pla~tiffs' claims at thc trial of tltis minter. Stephen E. Geduldig. Esquire Altomev D No 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP _105 Noah From Suet HarrisbuiT~ Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-71,.,/~, ++1 100 Attorneys for Plaintifl~: E-Mail: se~,..!ttJlaaw. COlll MARY E. BIITI'S and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION--LAW '-" ": ' v. : No. 01-2975 Civil ~=" MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT,/NC., : . Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ' ' MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS, MARY E. BUTTS and W-IIJ TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW l.i~.l~. HANSON AND NOW, this ~tg~da. y of March, 2002. come Plaintiffs, May E. Butts and William Butts, by their attorneys, Thonms, Thomas & Hafts, LLP, and moves your Honorable Court to compel the deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson, or suffer the imposition of sanctions, based upon the following considerations: 1. This is a motor vehicle accident commenced with the filing of a Civil Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cm~berland County on June 4, 2001. 2. On June 25, 2001 De£endants filed an Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3. On July 13, 2001, Plaintiffs sen,ed Defendant Matthew Lee Hanson with Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents pursuam, to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. (Exhibit "A") 6. On November 23,2001. Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's comasel attenapting to schedule the deposition of Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson (Exhibit "B"). 7. On December 18~ 2001, PlaintifFs counsel notified defense counsel that the deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson was scheduled for March 12~ 2002 (A copy of the December 18, 2001 letter is attached as Exhibit "C"). 8. On March 8, 2002, a Notice of Deposition was served on defense cotmsel. (Copy of which is attached as Exhibit "D."). 9. No objection was made to the deposition. 10. Defendmat, Matthew Lee Htmson failed to appear for his deposition. 1 I. Plaintiffs are severely prejudiced by Defendant's outright refusal to be make himself available for a deposition and his continual failure to cooperate in moving the instant litig,'~tion to conclusion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs. Mary. and Willimn Butts, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson to make himself available for a deposition at the office of Plaintiff's counsel within seven days or suffe~ the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019, including being precluded from offering any defenses at trial. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP by: , _. ~-;ix/,~ _ " .c~ ~' Stephen E. 'Geduldig, ~quire ~ I.D. No. 43530 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor POB 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Plaintiff St~l'~hen E. Geduldi8. Esquire Auorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS .e, HAF£R, LLP I---Mail' se,a,~.~tthlaw.com MARY E. BuTr8 and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Barbara Onorato, of the law fima of Thomas, Thomas & Hat'er, do hereby certify that on this day 1 served a trae and con'ect copy of the foregoing MOTION on the followh~g by depositing a ~ue and correct copy in the United States Mail, at Heaxisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York. Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Brarbara Onomto, Paralegal Date: March 20. 2002 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and J'LTRy TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT. MATTHEW LEE HANSON TO: Matthew Lee Hanson, Defendant c/o Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALIf..INS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, you are required to forward a copy to the undersigned and ~ the original, of your answers and objections, if any, in writing and under oath, to the following Interrogatories, within thirty (30) days of service hereof. The Answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided following the Interrogatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an l. ntexrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Document" means any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, including photographs, rnicwfllms, phonographs, video and attdio tapes, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, dam cells, drums, and other data compilations fi'om which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to -- (1) A natural person, his or her: (a) full name; and (b) present or last known residence and employment address (including street name and number, city or town, and state or count3,); (2) A document: (a) its description (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.), title, and date; (b) its subject matter; (c) its authors identity.; (d) its addressoe's identity; (e) its present location; and (f) its custodian's identity; (3) Paa oral communication: (a) its date; (b) the place where it occurred; (e) its substance; (d) the identity of the person who made the communication; (e) the identify of each person to whom such communication was made; and (f) the identity of each person who was present when such communication was made; (4) A corporate entity: (a) its full corporate name; (b) its date and place of incorporation, if known; and (c) its present address and telephone number; (5) Any other context: a description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafier be specified and recognized, including relevant dates and places, and the identification ofrelevam people, entities, and documents. "Incident" means the occurrence that forms the basis ora cause of action or claim for relief set forth in the complaint or similar pleading. "Person" means a natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or government agency. STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS (1) Duty to answer. -- The interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within 30 days of their service on you. Objections must be signed by the attorney making them. In your answers, you must furnish such information as is 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) Claim ofprivilege. -- With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or irmnunity asserted and provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim. (3) Option to produce documents. -- In lieu of identifying documents in response to these interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding interrogatories. INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state: (a) Your full name, (b) Each other name, if any, which you have used or by which you have been known; (c) The name of your spouse at the time of the accident and the date and place of your marriage to such spouse; (d) Your present residence address and the address of each other residence which you have had during the past five years; (e) Present occupation and the name m~d address ofyour employer; (0 Date of your birth; (g) Your Social Security Number; (h) Your military service, if any, and positions held; and, (i) The schools you have attended and the degrees or certificates, if any, awarded. 2. I£you are covered by any type of insurance, including any excess, umbrella or homeowner's insurance, that might be applicable to the inciden! in this matter, state the following with respect to each such policy: (a) The name of the insurance carrier which issued the policy; (b) The named insured under each policy and the policy number-, (c) The ~ype of each policy and the effective dates-, (d) The anmunt of coverage provided for injury to each person, for each occurrence, and in the aggregate for each policy; (e) E~h exclusion, if auy, in the policy which is applicable to any claim thereunder and any reasons why you or the carrier claim the exclusion is applicable; and, (f) Please consider tl~s a formal Request to Produce a copy of the declaration page(s) of said insurance policy or policies. 3. State with particularity the factual basis for each claim or defense you are asserting in this case. 4. Identify each person who: (a) Was a witness to the incident through sight or hearing, and/or, (b) Has knowledge of facts concerning the happening of the incident or conditions or cimumstances at the scene of the incident prior to, after, or at the time of the incident. (c) With respect to each person so identified, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the incident. 5. If you know of anyone that has given any statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure) concerning this action or its subject matter, state: (a) The identity of such person, (b) When, where, by whom and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded, (c) The identity of any person who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and, (d) Please consider this a Request to produce copies of each such statement(s). 6. Identify documents (except reports of experts subject to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.5) which describe the incident or the cause thereof. Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents. 7. If you were required by law or regulation to be licensed for the activity in which you were engaged at the time of the incident, state. (a) The type of license required (b) The date you first obtained such a license; {c) The dates of issuance and expiration of your current license(s); (d) The identity of the authority that issued your license(s); (e) The number of your license(s); (f) The nature of your license(s), (g) The special restrictions, if any, imposed on your license. 8. If you have been charged with any criminal violations as a result ofthe incident, describe the charges and identify all documents filed or served in connection with those charges. 9. If you know of the existence of any photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, maps, diagrams, or models relevant to the incident, state: (a) The nature and type of such item, (b) The date when such item was made; (c) The identity of the person that prepared or made each item; (d) The subject that each item represents or portrays; and, (e) Please consider this a Motion to Produce such materials. 10. If you, or someone not an expert subject to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, conducted any investigations of the incident, identify: (a) Each person, and the employer of each person, who conducted any investigations; (b) All notes, reports or other documents prepared during or as a result of the inves!igations and the persons who have custody thereof; and; (c) Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents, except those portions which are protected from discovery. 11. Identify each person you intend to call as a non-expert witness at the trial of this case, and for each person identified state your relationship with the witness and the substance of the facts to which the witness is expected to testify. 12. Identify each expert you intend to call as a witness at the thai of this matter and for each expert state: (a) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; and, (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. (You may file as your answer to this interrogatory the report of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by your expert.) 13. Identify all exhibits that you intend to use at the thai of this matter and state whether they will be used during the liability or damages portions of the trial. 14. If you intend to use any book, magazine, or other such writing at trial, state; (a) The name of the writing; (b) The author of the writing; (c) The publisher of the writing; (d) The date of publication of the writing; and, (e) The identity of the custodian of the writing. 15. If you intend to use any admission of a party at trial, identify such admission. 16. If you consumed any alcoholic beverage, sedative, tranquilizer, marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or other drug, medicine or pill during the eight hours immediately preceding the incident, state: (a) The nature, amount and type of item consumed; (b) The amount of time over which consumed; (c) The identity of any and all persons who have any knowledge as to the constanption of those items; and, (d) The identity of the physician or medical practitioner or other person who gave, purchased or prescribed any of said items, if any. 17. If you were under any physical or mental disability at the time ofthe incident, explain the disability. 18. With respect to all motor vehicles involved in the incident, state: (a) The identity of the owners and operators of each vehicle; (b) The identity of the passengers in each vehicle; and, (c) The make, model, and year of each vekicle, 19. Please state: (a) The destination and the point and time of departure ofthe vehicle you operated in this incident; (b) The purpose ofthetrip orjoumey in the vehicle; (c) The time and place of all stops and departures between the commencement of the trip or journey and the time of the incident; (d) Whether you were familiar with the surrounding area where the incident took place; (e) The weather conditions at the time of the incident, including visibility and roadway conditions, (0 The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. on the date of the incident, before the incident occurred; (g) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. the week of the incident, before the incident occurred; and (h) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. in the week before the incident occurred. 20. State in detail the mamaer in which you assert that the incident occurred, specifying the speed, position, direction and location of each vehicle involved during its approach to, at the time of, and immediately after the collision. 21. Has the Defendant, or any representative of the Defendant, his/her counsel, or his/her insurer performed, or contracted to be performed, or arranged in any way any type of surveillance of the Plaintiff or his or her activities at any time? If so, please attach a complete copy, without editing, of all repons, memoranda, letters, electronic data or information of any type (including computer records) regarding such surveillance activity, along with a copy of any photographs, films, videotapes or other information, including, but not limited to videotapes, 8-millimeter film, and handwritten notes. 22. With respect to any vehicle you operated that was involved in the incident, state: (a) The nature of any damage existing prior to the incident; Co) The identity of any person who performed repairs to the vehicle following the incident; (c) The total amount of the repair bills, or the total estimated cost of repairing the vehicle if not yet repaired, or the estimated value of the damages to the vehicle and the identity of the person furnishing such estimate; (d) The date and place of last state inspection prior to the incident and identify the person making said inspection; and, (e) The nature of any defect in or problem with the vehicle and the length of time such defect or problem existed. 23. If you deny you are negligent, set forth the facts that support the basis of your denial. 24. Do you claim that Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent and/or that he/she assumed the risk? If so, please state your contentions, or those of anyone acting on your behalf, upon which you base a claim of contributeD' or comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk. 25. Please state whether you kept a time log or log book of all of your destinations and journeys, the amount of rest or sleep you took (1) week before, and up to the time of, the incident, and the number of log book violations, if any, and the location, time, and type of log book violation(s). (Please consider this a Request to Produce the log book and documentation of violation(s)). Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & I-IAFER LLP By: STEPI-13EN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Stephen E. Geduldig. Esquire Attorney I.D. No. ~.3530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAF£R, LLP 305 North Front Street Posl Office Box 999 Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17108 ¢717) 237-7100 At:omeys for Plaintiffs: E-Mail: ~ozl~,ltblaw.cmn MARY E, BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and WILLI.~vl IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara Onorato, a Legal Assistant at the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Haler, do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT MATTHEW HANSON on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, at Hanisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa DiBemardo, Esquire GRIFFITIt, STRICICLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Date: March 20, 2002 Barbara A. Onorato, Legal Assistant Stephen E. Gcduldi8, Esquire AUomey I.D. No. 43530 Pos[ Or, ce Box 999 Hamsburg, Pennsylvania [7108 (Tt 7) 23'/-7100 MARy E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TPdAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TP~.NSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS The following documents in the attached schedule are to be produced for inspection, testing and copying in the above-designated offices of counsel within thirty (30) days of service hereof. You must produce those items possessed or controlled by you or anyone acting or having acted on your behalf including, but not limited to your attorneys, accountants, agents, servants, workmen, employees, and other natural persons, businesses or organizations. Alternatively you may respond by attaching marked copies of the documents hereto, executing the verification and transmitting the same to the undersigned. These requests for production are continuing. Any items secured subsequent to the production of those requested which would have been includable in the initial response should be produced immediately after the same are brought to your attention or come within your possession or control as previously defined. The term document as used herein means any report, writing, memorandum, correspondence, tape, or magnetic recording, computer program or data, visual or audio reproduction, sketch, drawing, photographs or other manual, stenographic, mechanical or other form of record. Production should be made whether your interest in the document identified and account or obligation evidence thereby is sole or joint. Each request and portion of each result is deemed severable and if objection is made to all or part of a request, the remainder should be produced. If you object solely to the copying or testing of a document or thing, it should be produced for inspection. 1. All statements, signed statements, transcripts of recorded statements or interviews, recorded statements, if not transcribed, or any statement or recorded statements, if not transcribed verbatim, taken of any parties, persons or witnesses as part of an investigation of the happening or cause of the accident in question, conducted by, or in the possession of, Defendant, Defendants' Attorneys, insurers or anyone else acting on behalf of Defendants. 2. All photographs in the possession, custody or control of defendants, counsel for Defendants or any other person or entity acting on behalf of Defendants, including any insurer for defendant, showing, representing or purporting to show any vehicles, locales, instrumentalities, persons, buildings, and any and all other matters related to the subject matters of this litigation. 3. All diagrams, sketches, drawings, plans, measurements or blueprints in the possession, custody or control of defendant, defendant's counsel, or any other person or entity acting on behalf of defendant, including any of the defendant's insurers, showing, representing or purporting to show any of the instrumentalities, locales, persons or other matters involved in the accident which forms the basis of Plaintiffs' complaint. 4. All documents prepared by Defendant, or any insurers, representatives, agents to anyone acting on behalf of Defendant, except Defendants' Attorney, during an investigation of any aspect of the accident in question. Such documents shall include any documents made or prepared up through the present time, with the exclusion of the mental impression, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense, respecting strategy or tactics. 5. All expert opinions, expert reports, expert summaries or other writings of experts in the possession, custody or control of Defendant, Defendants' Attorneys or insurers, which relate to the subject matter of this litigation and the incident in question. 6. All insurance agreements and other documents relating to Defendants' insurance concerning the accident which forms the basis of Plaintiff s complaint. 7. Any contract, release or other agreement, whether tacit or written, between any and all Defendants concerning release, relinquishment or limitation of liability with regard to the accident which the subject of Plaintiffs complaint. 8. Any and all documents or exhibits which you intend to offer as evidence against the Plaintiffs in this action. 9. Copies of all pick-up and delivery records, trip summaries, and all delivery manifests for the truck driven by Matthew Hanson on the date of the accident. 10. Any and all documents which evidence any facts on the basis of which you assert a defense against the cause of action stated in the Plaintiffs' complaint. 11. Copies of all bills of lading and all manifests and waybills. 12. Copies of the written response from each agency contacted with reference to Hanson's driving record. 49 CFR 391.23. 13. Copies of all written records with respect to each past employer who was contacted about the Matthew Hanson's qualifications. 14. Matthew Hanson's driver qualification fife, 49 CFR 391.51, including employee's application, list of truck driver's previous employers for the 10 years preceding the date of the application, the reasons for leaving said employment, medical examiner's certificate, a note showing when and who reviewed the driver's record with him or her for each year of employment, 49 CFR 391.25. (NOTE: Employers are required to keep the driver's file at its principal place of business as long as the driver is employed and for 3 years thereafter.) 15. Copies of the driver's logs (i.e. record of duty status) for the two minors prior to and the month of this incident. 16. Copy of the accident register. 17. Copy of repair invoices during the period that the truck has been operated on your behalf. 18. Copy of all lease and trip contracts between you and the truck/trailer owner and operator. 19. Copy of Matthew Hanson's list of violations of motor vehicle traffic laws. 20. Copy of Matthew Hanson's personnel files. 21. Any and all documents identified in the response to interrogatories directed to Defendant Matthew Hanson and Midwest Transport, Inc. 22. Copies of any surveillance documents or photographs taken of the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted Thomas, Thomas & Haler LLP By: STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Stephen E Geduldis, Esquin: Attorney ID No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFEf~ LLP 305 North Front Sn'eet Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Attorneys £or Plainuffs: E-Mail: sent~thlnw.com M.a~.y E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTrS MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. i~IATTHEW LEE HANSON and j-LrRY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF AND NOW, this ~ day of July, 2001 I, Barbara Onorato, a Legal Assistant of the Law Firm of Thomas, Thomas & Haler LLP, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITI-I, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 1 I0 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Barbara A. Onorato Date: March 20, 2002 Exhibit B Exhibit C (717) 237-7141 E-Mail: bao@tthlaw.com December 18, 2OOl Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRII.-I-ITH, ~-i'glCI(LF.R, I~RMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 11o South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 174o2-$737 Re: ;t,~s v. I-l~.~on and Midwest Transit. Inc. Cumberland County No. ox-~975 Civil Dear Lisa: I would like to move this case forward and take the deposition of your client, Matthew Hanson, as well as Pierce Morrison and Frank Morrison, your independent witnesses. I propose that we take these depositions on January 14, 2002, in my office starting at 9:oo. If I do not hear to the contrary from you by January :~, I will send out the deposition notice and schedule the court reporter. very truly yours, T .I~.OMAS, THOMAS & HAFt. R, ~-~-P Stephen E. C-eduldis, Esquire SEG/bao bc: Mr. and Mrs. Butts Ms. Melissa Robles Dominique Celli, Esquire Exhibit S~phenE. G~uld~,E~uim A~omeyI.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 Noffh Front ~met Haffisbu~. Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Affomw$ ~r Plai~: E-Mail: seq~,tthlaw.com MARY E, BU~S and ~LLIAM BUTTS MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION NOTICE TO: Ail parties and their counsel: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned will take the deposition of MATTHEW HANSON ON M~RCH 12, 2002, beginning at 8:00 A.M. AT THE LAW OFFICES OF TEO~qS, THOMAS & HAFF. R, 305 NORTH FRONT STREET, 6~ FLOOR, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 upon oral examination, for the purpose of discovery and for use as evidence in the above-captioned action, at the offices of before a Notary Public or some other person authorized or commissioned to administer oaths on all matters not privileged which are relevant and material to the issues and subject matter involved in the pending action, including, but not limited to, the facts of the alleged incident, and the events leading up thereto. Parties and attorneys are directed to bring with them any and all materials or documents which in any way relate to the subject lawsuit. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP March 8, 2002 St~~. G~ STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARX E. BUTTS an~WILLIAM BUTTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by FAXing same on the 8th day of March, 2002, addressed as follows: Lisa M. 0iBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LEP~, SOL,MOS & C~KINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Attorneys for Defendants THEWS, THOI~AS & ~R, LLP Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire :161113.1 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP A'ITORNEYS AT LAW JOSEPH P. HAFER STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG KAREN S. COATES JAMES K. THOMAS. II 305 NORTH FRONT STREET ROBERTSON R. TAYLOR TODD B. NARVOL JAMES J. DODD-O JEFFREY R. RETTIG SIXTH FLOOR PETER J. CURRY DANIEL L. GRILL R. BURKE McLEMORE. JR. P.O. BOX 999 JOHN J. MeNALLY. UI EDWARD H. JORDAN. JR. KE'VIN C. McNAMARA C. KENT PRICE HARRISBURG. PA 17108 BROOKS R. FOLAND RANDALL G. GALE JONATHAN C. DEISHER DAVID L. SCHWALM (717) 237-7 I00 JOHN FLOUNLACKER PETER J. SPEAKER JOHN T. HUSKIN. JR. DOUGLAS B. MARCEl. LO FAX (717} 237-7105 MICHELE J. THORP PAUl. J. DELLASEGA STEPHANIE L HERSPEROER SARAH W. AROSELL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER HUGH E O'NEILL. HI EUGENE N. McHUGH W. DARREN POWELL LAURA J. HERZOG DRUMMOND B. TAYLOR OF COUNSEl. (717) 237-7141 DEREK O. BAHL JAMES R. TEOMAS K]MBERJN A. BOHLE E-Marl: bao@tthlaw.eom MARK I. POWELL March 28, 2oo2 Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICICLER, I.~.RMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 11o South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Re: Butts v. Han~on and Midwest Transit. Inc. Cumberland County No. Ol-2975 Civil Dear Lisa: Enclosed please find a True Test Copy x*~ith a Rule to Show Cause in the above captioned matter. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning same. Very truly yours, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Barbara Onorato, Legal Assistant SEG/bao LEHIGH VALLEY OFFICE: 3400 BATH PIKE. SUITE 201. BETHLEHEM. PA 18017 (610) 868-1675 FAX (610) 865-1702 dE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,4ARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS,:CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : NO. 01-2975 ¥. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : jURy TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTR.~Y OF APPEARANCE pURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 10!2 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Michael B. Scheib, Esquir~ of Griffith, Strickler, Letman, Solymos & Calldns, as attorneys for the Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in the above-captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, soLmos s, c r.%s f MICHAEL B. SCHEIB, ESQUIRIz Attorney I.D. No. 63868 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 {717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. Dated: June ._~, 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BU~TS and WILLIAM BUTTS.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs. : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1 lth day of June, 2002, I, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire, a member oftbe firm ofORIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS , ~ MICHAEL B. SCHEIB, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 63868 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. klffhanson-prp.z IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS ~md WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs. : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire, as attorney for the Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., in the above-entitled matter and mark the docket accordingly. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiB~:RNARDO. ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 I I 0 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants. Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BU'I'FS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~' day of June, 2002, I, Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH. STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Praecip¢ for Withdrawal of Appearance, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER. LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LI~A-M. DiI~RNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 I I 0 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : .. v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~ERTIFICATE O~ SERVICE AND NOW, this '-1 day of August, ;~002, I, Michael B. Sch~ib, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served the Notice Of Deposition by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17106 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 63868 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typcwriuen and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) (X) for JURY u'ial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for ~al without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) MARY E. BUTTS and (X) Civil Action - Law WILLIAM BUTTS. Plaintiffs ( ) Appeal fi.om Arbilration VS. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and ( ) : (other) MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., Defendants NO. 0'1-2975 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED The uial list will he called on February I 1, 2003 Trials commence on March 10, 2003 Pretrials will be held on February 18, 2003 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretfials.) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to ail counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1 ) Indicate the attorney who will fry case for the parD/who files this Praecipe: Steuben E. Geduldi~.. Esauire. Thomas. Thomas & Haler. LLP. P.O. Box 999. Hamsbura. PA. 17108-0999 Indicate Izial counsel for other parties if known: Stenhen E. Geduldi~. Esuuire. Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburp.. PA. 17108-0999 for Plaintiffs Miehael B. Seheib. Esouire. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 for Defendants -%...~..'" ,~k/"~.~/.i' This case is ready for trial. Signed~~. Prin~ Name'. S~phen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: January 7. 2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2003, I, Barbara Onorat~, of the law fim~ of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Michael B. Seheib, Esquire GRIFFITH, ~TRICYT.RR, LERblAN 11o South Northern Way Y°rk' Pennsylvania ~74°~-3737 ~2~ Barbara Onorato, Legal Assistant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this c~~IV~ day of January, 2003, I, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that I have, this date, served the Notice Of Intent To Serve Subpoena to Plaintiffs by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, BY: MICHAEL B. g(~HEIB; ESC~IRE Attorney for Defendant Hanson Supreme Court I.D. No. 63868 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: 717-757-7602 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typawrinen and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the fo[lowing case: (Check one) (X) for JURY trial at thc next term of civil court. ( ) fur~ialwithoutajury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) MARY E. BUTI'S and (X) Civil Action - Law WILLIAM BUTTS, Plaintiffs ) Appeal from Arbitration VS. MA! 1 HEW LEE HANSON and ) .- (other) MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., Defendants ~]O. 01-2975 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED The trial list will be called on April 1, 2003 Trials commence on April 28, 2003 Pretrials will be held on April 9, 2003 (Br/efs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The paw] listing this case for trial shall provide furthwith a copy of the praecipa to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214. I) Indicate the atlomey who will uy case for the party who files this Praecipa: Steuben E. Geduldip., Esquire, Thomas. Thomas & Haler. LLP. P.O. Box 999. Han-isburt. PA. 17108-0999 Indicate trial counsel for other pa~es if known.' Stephen E. Geduldin. Esnulre. Thomas. Thomas & Haft:r. LLP. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburo. PA. 17108-0999 for Plaintiffs Michael B. Seheib~ Esauire. GRIFFITH, STRICKLEIL LERMAN, l 10 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 for Defendants This case is ready for Irial. Signed: /, Print Name: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: February 11, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1 lth day of February, 2003, I, Barbara Onorato, of the law fu'm of Thomas, Thomas & Haler, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Michael B. Seheib, E~quire GRIFFITH, ~-I'KICKLI~I~ LERMAN llO South Northern Way I~rbara Onorato, Legal Assistant Mary E. Butts and William Butts : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V : Matthew Leo Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. : NO. 01-2975 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, February 14, 2003, counsel having failed to call the above case for trial, the case is stricken from the March 10, 2003 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. By the Court, ,~Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire For the Plaintiff fi/Michael B. Scheib, Esquire For the Defendant ' ! Court Administrator ld IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. NO. 01-2975 : MATI'HEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS TO THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT PA. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4019 COME NOW, Defendants Matthew Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., by and through their attorney, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire, of Griffith, Strickler Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, and responds to the Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions as follows: 1. Admitted. 2 Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a complaint was filed and that an accident occurred. It is denied that Defendant caused the accident. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. The first letter which gives a date for Mr. Hanson's deposition is December, 2001. 5. Denied. The letter which is Exhibit A indicated that Mr. Hanson had filed for bankruptcy. Counsel did not know whether this lawsuit was listed on Mr. Hanson's bankruptcy petition. Obviously, if this lawsuit was listed on the bankruptcy petition, then this matter would have been subject to the automatic stay. 6. Denied as stated. It is not denied that defense counsel was unable to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. That has now changed. At the Call of the List on April 1, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel was informed that Mr. Hanson was available for deposition. This was reiterated at the pretrial conference on April 9, 2003, and in an e-mail dated April 10, 2003. See the e-mail from attorney Scheib to Attorney Geduldig dated April 10, 2003, which are attached as Exhibit A. 7. See Paragraph 6. The letter speaks for itself. 8. The letter speaks for itself. The deposition was not scheduled until March, 2002. 9. The letter speaks for itself. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. It appears that there were several concerns about this day. In addition, Attorney Geduldig represented that he was unavailable on March 12, 2002. 12. It is admitted that Mr. Hanson was not deposed on March 12, 2002. It is also admitted that Mr. Hanson is now available with no prejudice to Plaintiff. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. The document speaks for itself. 18. The document speaks for itself. The Court, however, did not feel that this was an appropriate sanction. 18. The document speaks for itself. The Court, however, did not feel that this was an appropriate sanction. 19. The document speaks for itself. The Court, however, did not feel that this was an appropriate sanction. 20. Denied. 21. Admitted. It is further admitted that defense counsel has offered to produce Mr. Hanson for deposition prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. 22. (sic) 23. Admitted. 24. Denied. Plaintiffs listed this case for trial, but failed to appear at the Call of the List. Accordingly, Judge Hoffer struck the case from the March, 2003 trial term. (See Judge Hoffer's Order dated February 14, 2003, which is attached as Exhibit B). 25. Denied. Defendants did not indicate a desire not to locate Mr. Hanson. 26. Denied. Plaintiffs' counsel never appeared at the Call of the List. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' counsel never sent any letter/e-mail expressing the statements contained in paragraph 26. See Judge Hoffer's Order dated February 14, 2003. 27. Admitted that Defendant did not offer to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. In addition, it is interesting to note that Plaintiffs never made a demand for this case. On several occasions, defense counsel requested Plaintiffs to provide a demand. Despite the requests, Plaintiffs have never made a demand in this case. 28. Admitted. 29. Denied in part and admitted in part. Although Plaintiffs have never made a demand, Defendants have indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve this matter. On March 12, 2003, Defendants offered $65,000 to settle this case. To date Plaintiffs have not even responded to the demand. Furthermore, on April 1, 2003, defense counsel advised that Mr. Hanson was located and that a continuance would be necessary. 30. It is admitted that on April 1, 2003, defense counsel advised that Mr. Hanson had been located. 31. Denied. In October, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel was informed that Mr. Hanson had filed for bankruptcy. 32. Denied. Defendants have served requests to Plaintiffs' counsel about outstanding discovery requests. These requests were in 2002 and 2003. 33. It is admitted that on April 9, 2003, Judge Oler struck the case from the April, 2003, trial term. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. Plaintiffs have not been harmed or prejudiced in any way. When Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Plaintiffs knew or should have known that they had the burden of proof with respect to liability. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, even a delay does not prejudice Plaintiffs. Judge Oler's Order provides that the case was continued at Defendant's request. In the event of a finding of liability in favor of Plaintiffs, then they will be allowed to request delay damages. 36. Denied. Judge Hess' Order is quite clear. Defendants are now in a position to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. In addition, the case is not on any trial list. Thus, there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs. In the event of a finding of liability in their favor, Plaintiffs will be allowed to request delay damages. In addition, even if the Court had previously ruled on a motion for sanctions, the order could be vacated and/or modified in light of Defendants' ability to produce Mr. Hanson for deposition. 37. Denied. As previously stated, Defendants are now in a position to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. This would justify vacating and/or modifying any order which attempted to preclude Defendants from contesting liability. In addition, Plaintiffs have not been harmed or prejudiced in any manner. When they filed this lawsuit, Plaintiffs knew that it was their burden to prove that Defendants caused the motor vehicle accident. They are in the same position today. Finally, Plaintiffs are also protected. In the event that a verdict is returned in their favor, Plaintiffs will be allowed to request delay damages. Thus, there is no harm to Plaintiffs by allowing Defendants to produce Mr. Hanson for deposition. 38. Denied. As previously stated, Defendants are now in a position to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. This would justify vacating and/or modifying any order which attempted to preclude Defendants from contesting liability. In addition, Plaintiffs have not been harmed or prejudiced in any manner. When they filed this lawsuit, Plalintiffs knew that it was their burden to prove that Defendants caused the motor vehicle accident. They are in the same position today. Finally, Plaintiffs are also protected. In the event that a verdict is returned in their favor, Plaintiffs will be allowed to request delay damages. Thus, there is no harm to Plaintiffs by allowing Defendants to produce Mr. Hanson for deposition. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,. SOLYMOS & CALKINS ~ , /7 MIC~,[:~'EJ. ~C~EIB, I~QU[RE Attorney for Defendant Supreme Court I.D. No. 63868 110 S. No~hern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: 717-757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BuTrs and WILLIAM BUTFS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : v. NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS TO THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR SANCTIONS PURUSANT TO PA. RULES OF CIVIL PROCREDURE 4019 was served upon counsel of record listed below by U.S. Mail this day of May, 2003, addressed as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 306 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMANv! SOLYMOS & ~ALI~INS /~/~/ BY: , MI(~I-I~E-~'B. ~CHEIB', E~Q~IRE Attorney for Defendant Supreme Court I.D. No. 63868 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: 717-757-7602 Exhibit A Page I of 2 Michael B. Scheib From: "Michael B. Scheib" <MScheib~gslsc. com> To: "Geduidig, Stephen E." Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Butts Steve, As per my statements at the PTC on 419103, I have now been able to locate Matt Hanson and am ready, willing and able to produce him for a deposition. Please contact my office so that we can select a mutually convenient date. In addition, Please contact my office so that we can schedule the IME of your client. I would like to know about your recent meeting w/Ms. Butts' doctor. This will have an impact on whether we will need 1 or 2 IMEs. Finally,pis talk wi your client and the lien holders to advise what your client is looking for in connection with this matter. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Mike : IN ~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Mary E. Butts and William Butts : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : V : : Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. : NO. 01-2975 CML TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, February 14, 2003, counsel having failed to call the above case for trial, the case is stricken from the March 10, 2003 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case whan ready. By the Court, Stephen B. Geduldig, Esquire For the Plaintiff Michael B. Scheib, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator ld Stephen E. C-eduldig, F~quire Atu)mey I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS. TflOMAS & HAFEP~ LLP 305 North Front Sueet Post Office Box 9~2 ~u'risbur~, Pmmylvnnia 17108 (7]7) 237-7100 Attorneys for P]aint~ffs~ E-Mail: ~e~f~tlh]nw.enm MARY E. BU'FI'S and WILLIAM 8uTrs MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM IN TH~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaln~ff(s) NO. 01-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC. Defendant(s) PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDer'S, MATTHEW LEE HANSON TO: Matthew Lee Hanson, Defendant C/O Lisa M. DiBcmardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKI,EI~ LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CAI,K~S 110 South Nozthern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS of thc Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, you are required to forward a copy to the undersigned and retain the original, of your answers and objections, if any, in writing and under oath, to the following Interrogatories, within thin'y (30) days of service hereof. The Answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided following the Interwgatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, thc remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Document" means any vaitten, printed, typed, or other graphic malter of any kind or nature, however produced or ~produced, including photographs, microfilms, phonographs, video and audio tapes, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drum~, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to -- (1) A natural person, his or h~r: (a) full name; and present or last known residence and employment address (including street name and number, city or tnwn, and state or country); (2) A document: (a) its description (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.), title, and date; (b) its subject matter; (c) its author's identity; (d) its addressee's identity; (e) its present location; and (0 its custodian's identity; (3) An oral communication: (a) its date; (b) the place where it occurred; (c) its substance; (d) the identity of the person who made the communication; (¢) the identify of each person to whom such communication was made; and (0 the identity of each person who was present when such communication was made; (4) A corporate entity: (a) its full corporate name; (b) its date and place ofincorporatiou, if known; and (c) its present address and telephone number; (5) Any other context: a description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafter be specified and recognized, including relevant dates and places, and the identification of relevant people, entities, and documents. "lacident' means the occurrence that forms the basia ora cause of action or claim for relief set forth in the complaint or similar pleading. "Person" means a natural person, partnership, associatiou, corporation, or government agency. STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS (1) Duty to answer. -- The interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within 30 days of their service on you. Objections must be signed by the attorney making them. In your answers, you must furnish such information as is available to you, your employees, representatives, agents, and atWmeys. Your answers must be supplemented and emended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) Claim of privilege. -- With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or immunity asserted and provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim. (3) Option to produce documents. - In lien ofidentifbing documents in response to these interrogatories, you may pwvide copies of such documents with appwpriale references to the corresponding interrogatories. INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state: (a) Your full name, Co) Each other name, if any, which you have used or by which you have been known; (c) The name of your spouse at the time of the accident and the date and place of your marriage to such spouse; (d) Your present residonce address and the address of each other residence which you have had during the past five years; (e) Present occupation and the name and address of your employer; (f) Date of your birth; (g) Your Social Security Number; (h) Your military service, if any, and positions held; and, (i) The schools you have attended and the degrees or certificates, if any, awarded. 2. If you are covered by any type of insurance, including any excess, umbrella or homeowner's insurance, that might be applicable to thc incident in this matter, state the following with respect U) each such policy: (a) The name of the insurance carrier which issued the policy; (b) The named insured under each policy and the policy number-, (c) The type of each policy and the effective dates-, (d) The amount of coverage provided for injury to each person, for each occurrence, and in the aggregate for each policy; (e) Each exclusion, if any, in the policy which is applicable to any claim thereunder and any reasons why you or the carrier claim the exclusion is applicable; and, Please consider this a formal Request to Produce a copy of the declaration page(s) of said insurance policy or policies. 3. State with particularity the factual basis for each claim or defense you are asserting in this case. 4. Identify each person who: (a) Was a witness to the incident through sight or hearing, and/or, (b) Has knowledge of facts concerning the happening of the incident or conditions or circumstances at the scene of the incident prior to, a/~er, or at the time of the incident. (c) With respect to each person so identified, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the incident. 5. If you know of anyone that has given any statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure) concerning this action or its subject matter, state: (a) The identity of such person, (b) When, where, by whom and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or othenvise recorded, (c) The identity of any person who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and, (d) Please consider this a Request to produce copies of each such statement(s). 6. Identify documents (except ~ports of e~perts subject to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.5) which describe the incident or the cause thereof. Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents. 7. If you were required by law or regulation to be licensed for the activity in which you were engaged at the time of the incident, state. (a) The type ofhcense required (b) The date you first obtained such a license; (c) The dales of issuance and expiration of your current license(s); (d) The identity of the authority that issued your license(s); (e) The number of your license(s); (f) The nature of your license(s), (g) The special res~ictions, if any, imposed on your license. 8. If you have been charged with any criminal violations as a result of the incident, describe the charges and ideotify all documents filed or served in connection with those charges. 9. If you know of the existence of any photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, maps, diagrams, or models relevant to the incident, state: (a) The nature and type of such item, (b) The date when such item was made; (c) The identity of the person that prepared or made each item; (d) The subject that each item represents or portrays; and, (e) Please consider this a Motion to Produce such material~. 10. If you, or someone not an expert subject to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, conducted any investigations of the incident, identify: (a) Each person, and the employer of each person, who conducted any investigations; Co) AIl notes, reports or other documents prepared during or as a result of the investigations and the persons who have custody thereof; and; (c) Please consider this a Request to Produce such documents, except those portions which are protected from discove~'y. 11. Identify each person you iutand to call as a non-expert witness at the ~al of this case, and for each person identified state your relationship with the witness and the substance of the facts to which the witness is expected to testify. 12. Identify each expert you intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter and f~r each expert state: (a) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; and, (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a s~mmary of the grounds for each opinion. (You may file as your answer to this interrogatory tho ~port of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by your expert.) 13. Identify all exhibits that you intend to usc at thc ~al of this matter and state whether they will be used during the liability or damages portions of the trial. 14. If you intend to use any book, magazine, or other such writing at trial, state; (a) The n~m¢ of the writing; (t)) The author of the writing; (c) Thc publisher of the writing; (d) The date of publication of the writing; and, (e) The identity of the custodian of the writing. 15. If you intend to use any admission of a party at trial, identify such admission. 16. If you consumed any alcoholic beverage, sedative, tranquilizer, marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or other drug, medicine or pill during the eight hours immediately preceding the incident, state: (a) The nature, amount and type of item consumed; Co) The amount of time over which consumed; (c) The identity of any and all persons who have any knowledge as to the c~msumption of those items; and, (d) The identity of the physician or medical practitioner or other person who gave, purchased or prescribed any of said items, if any. 17. If you were under any physical or mental disability at the ffme of the incident, explain the disability. 18. With respect to all motor vehicles involved in the incident, state: (a) The identity of the owners and operators of each vehicle; Co) The identily of the passengers in each vehicle; and, (c) The make, model, and year of each vehicle, 19. Please state: (a) The destination and the point and time of departure of the vehicle you operated in this incident; Cb) The purpose of the Irip or journey in the vehicle; (c) Thc time and place of all stops and departures between thc commencement of the trip or journey and the time of the incident; (d) Whether you were familiar with the surrounding area where the incident took place; (e) The weather conditions at the time of the incident, including visibility and roadway conditions, (f) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. on the date of the incident, before the incident occurred; (g) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Tran~ort, Inc. the week of the incident, before the incident occurred; and (h) The number of hours you had driven for Defendant Midwest Transport, Inc. in the week before the incident occurred. 20. State in detail the manner in which you assea't that the incident occurred, specifying the speed, position, direction and location of each vehicle involved during its approach to, at the time of, and immediately after the collision. 21. Has the Defendant, or any representative of the Defendant, his/her counsel, or his/her insurer performed, or conlxaeted to be performed, or arranged in any way any type of surveillance of the Plaintiff or his or her activities at any time? If so, please attach a complete copy, without editing, of ail repons, memoranda, letters, electronic data or information of any type (including computer records) regarding such surveillance activity, along with a copy of any photographs, films, videotapes or other information, including, but not limited to videotapes, 8-millimeter film, and handwritten notes. 22. With respect to any vehicle you operated that was involved in the incident, state: (a) The nature of any damage existing prior to the incident; (b) The identity of any person who performed repairs to the vehicle following the incident; (c) The totai amount of the repair bills, or the total estimated cost of repairing the vehicle if not yet repaired, or the estimated vaiue of the damages to the vehicle and the identity of the person furnishing such estimate; (d) The date and place of last state inspection prior to the incident and identify the person making said inspection; and, (e) The nature of any defect in or problem with the vehicle and the length of time such defect or problem existed. 23. If you deny you are negligent, set forth the facts that support the basis of your 24. Do you claim that Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent and/or that he/she assumed the risk? If so, please state your contantions, or those of anyone acting on your behalf, upon which you base a claim of contributory or comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk. 25. Please state whether you kept a time log or log book of all of your destinations and journeys, the amount of rest or sleep you took (I) week before, and up to the time of, the incident, and the number of log book violations, if any, and the location, time, and type of log book violation(s). (Please consider this a Request to Produce the log book and documentation of violation(s)). Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP By:. ~ STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Stephen E. C, edutdig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS. THOMAS & HA~EB, LLP 305 North Pro~t S~eet Post Ofi%¢ Box e~99 Hm'/~sbur~, P~'nnsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 AV~'neFs for E-Mail: ~ MARY £. BUTI~ and WILLIAM MARY E. BUTTS and WILLI.AJ~ IN THE COURT OF COIVIMON PLEAS OF BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ?lsin~i~s) NO. 0~-2975 Civil V. MATTHEW LEE HANSON and ~rRY TRIAL DEMANDED MIDWEST TRANSPORT, ]NC. Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara Onorato, a Legal Assistant at the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, do hereby certify that on this day I saved a Iru¢ and correct copy of the INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT MATITIEW HANSON on the following by doposiling a tree and correct copy in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Lisa DiBernardo, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALK, INS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Date: July 13, 2001 ~arbara A. Onorato,/~cgal Assistant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P£NNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BIfFrS, : CML ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT. MATTHEW LEE HANSON'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTll~S' ]I¥1'i~RROGATOR1ES 1. a. Matthew Lee Hanson b. Matt c. N/A d. 35 I0 North 9~ Sirent, Lot 143, Caner Lake, Iowa 51510 e. Romans Motor Freight f. 12/22/73 g. 482-~'! a. 525 h. N/A i. N/A 2. Liben~ Mulual Insurance Group - copy ofhhe dsclaralion sheet for Defendant's employer, Midwest Trensi~, Inc. has been requested and will be provided upon receipt. 3. The accident was caused as the result of the negligence of Plaietiffi Mary Butts who le/t her lane of travel and slruck Defendant's tractor Irailer. Discovery is ongoing and this rezponse will be supplemente, d, but in the interim, see statemenis of Defendant Hanson, Pierce Morrison and Framk Morrison, Ir. 4. See Police Accident Report. $. See statements already produced. 6. See Police Accident Report; Defendant Hansen's s~atement4 statements ofFrenk Morrison, Jr. and Pierce Morrison and, select accident forms completed for Defendant's employer and inoinded in Defendant's personnel file which has already ~ pwvided. 7. a. CDL Class A b. 1996 e. 10/17/00; 12/22/04 d. Iowa DOT e. 482844525 f. CDL Class A g. B - Prescription glasses 8. See Police Accident Report. 9. See photographs already produced. 10. Not to thc best of my knowledge. I 1. Answering Defendant has not yet identified his non-expert witnesses for use at the time offal end, this response will be supplemented when appropriate. 12. See response to Intarrogato~ No. 11 above. 13. Answering Defendant has not yet identified his Irinl exhibits and, therefore, this response will be supplemeoted when appropriate. 14. Not yet identified; this response will be supplemented. 15. Not yet identified; this response will be supplemented. 16. None. 17. None. 18. See Police Accident Report. 19. a. Om,hR~ NE Post Office b. Work c. N/A d. No e. All conditions were good. f. Thee hours approximately; ! do not have a log book from the date of incident g. Unknown. h. Unknowu. 20. See statement given by Defendant, Matlhew Lee Hanson and produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents. 21. No. 22. a. Normal wear end tear. b. N/A c. N/A d. Do not know. e. None 23. Objection. Interrogatory No. 23 requests a le~l opinion from a person who is not competen! to render same. Without waiving said objection, however, see Def~dRnt, Matthew Lee statement, as well as the statements of independent wimeases, Frank Morrison, .~r. end Pierce Morrison. As discovery is ougoing, ~ response may, however, be supplemented. Succinctly stated, Defendant Hanson, while Iraveling in his own lane and, at a proper rote of speed, was stmck when the Plaintiff lott her lane oflravel and impacted the front, right tire of Defendant's lractor Irailer. 24. See response to Interrogatory No. 23 above. 25. Objection. The information sought in Interrogatory No. 25 is irreievant and not reasonably calculated to lead to tho discovery of admissible evidence. Wi&nut waiving same, answering Defendant has requested a copy of any existing log book for the time period in question. There were, however, no log book violations for the one week period prior to &is incident. ORIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, , SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 Somh Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for De£endanta, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Trnnsit, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she is counsel for the party or parties indicated on the preceding page as being represented by said counsel, that she has examined the pleadings and the entire investigative file made on behaif of said party or parties, tlmt she is taking this verification to assure compliance with the pertinent rules pertaining to tlm~ly filing of pleadings and other documents described by said rules; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and beHe£. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the peoaiflas of 18 PA C.S.A. SECTION 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 ; MAI-I'PI~W LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~y~y of S~ember, 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire, a member of the firm ofGRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendant, Mal~ltew Lee Hanson's Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of recerd as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GR~'HTH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALK, INS LISA M. DiBEKNARDO, ESQUIRE Atlomey I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 AUom~ for Defendanta, Matthew Lee I-lanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUITS and WILLIAM BD'I-t'S, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MAI I'HEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEI~ENDANTS' R~SPONS~. TO PLAINTIFFS' R~oLrEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. See attached. To the extent any are in existence, see aiiached. 3. See dia~rein attached to Police Accident Report. 4. Objection. The information sou§bt in Request for Production of Documents No. 4 requests the production ofinfonnation/materini otherwise pro~ected under either the attomey-cliant end/or work- product privileges. Without waiving said objection, however, a copy of Defendants' "claim file" otherwise redacted to exclude the mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting ~he value or merit ora claim or defense, as well as slrategy or tacilcs is provided. 5. Defendants have not yet selected an expert. This response will be supplemented if necessary. 6. The information has been requested and will be provided upon receipt. 7. None. 8. Defendants have not yet identified their exhibits, for this response will b.e supplemented. 9. This information has been requested and will be provided upon receipt if in existence. 10. As discovery is ongoing, this response will be supplemented. 11. See response to Request for Production No. 9. 12. See response to Request for Production Bio. 9. 13. See response to Request for Production Bio. 9. By way of additional response, a copy of Defendant Hansun's personnel file is attached hereto. 14. See copy of personnel file of Defendant Hanson stmched hereto. 15. This information has been requested. 16. Objection. The phrase "a~cident r~gistor' is unknown to answering Defendants. 17. Objection. It is not the position of answering Defendants that mechanical difficulties of the vehicle were a factor and, as such, said request seeks hrelcvant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. 18. Unknown, 19. Sec personnel file of Defandant Hanson. 20. Attached. 21. Attached. 22. None. GRll-l-n'l-l, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKIHS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she is counsel for the party or parties indicated on the preceding page as being represented by said counsel, that she has examined the pleadings and the entire investigative file mede on behalf of said party or parties, that she is taking this verification to assure compliance with the pertinent rules pertaining to timely filing of pleadings and other documents described by said rules; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S.A. SECTION 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. This Verification of the attorney is being attached herelo because the Verification of the Defenden~(s) cannot be obtained in the time allowed for filing of the subject pleading with the Court. The executed Verification of the Defendant(s) will be filed as soon as it is ob~alned. Date: // I Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BI3'rrS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CML ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MA'ri'HEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, ~IC., : Defendants. : IURY TRIAL DEMANDED CER'ru~iCATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~///~y of~ 2001, I, Lisa M. DiBeznardo, Esquire, a member of the firm ofORIFFrrH, STRICK. LER, LEP, DIAN, I~OLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby c~'tify that I have this date served a copy of Defendants' Response to Request for Production of Dooumcnts of Plaintiff, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or atwrney of record as follows: Stephen E. C-eduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs G~ STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALK.INS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Tnmsit, Inc. MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLA19D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : V. : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : NO. 01-2975 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2003, upon consideration of an oral motion made by Defendants at a pretrial conference in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captioned case in which Stephen Geduldig, Esquire, and Michael B. Schieb, Esquire, appeared, and it appearing that an outstanding issue exists to the admissibility of testimony of Defendant Hanson in light of a prior history in the case including an order of court dated June 10, 2002, by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Defendant's motion to strike the case from the April 2003 term list is granted and counsel are directed to relist this case for trial as they deem appropriate. By the Court, ~tephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Court Adminstrator For the Plaintiff ~/~ichael B. Scheib, Esquire :lfh For the Defendant 6 MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : V. : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : O ~ MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ¢- ·~.. ~'~ ,' Defendant · NO. 01-2975 CIVIL TERM ~ . . IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE r.~. .~. A pretrial conference was held in the ct~a~ber~ of..~, Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Wednesday~~A~' 1 ~-< 9, 2003. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire· Present on behalf of Defendants was Michael B. Schieb, Esquire. This is an action for personal injuries to Plaintiff, Mary E. Butts, and for property damage, arising out of a motor vehicle accident in which her vehicle collided with a truck driven by Defendant Hanson and owned by Defendant Midwest Transit, Inc., traveling alongside her on Route 81 near the overpass for State Route 114. Plaintiff William Butts sues for loss of consortium. Defenses include an absence of negligence, contributory negligence, and a challenge to the extent of damages. This will be a jury trial in which each side will have four peremptory challenges for a total of eight, pursuant to an agreement of counsel. The estimated duration of trial is two days. With respect to any deposition testimony to be shown or read to the jury which contains objections being pursued by counsel and requiring rulings by the trial court, counsel are directed to furnish to the court at least five days prior to the commencement of the trial term at which this case is tried copies of the affected depositions with brief memoranda in support of their respective positions on the objections being pursued. An issue which has arisen in the case as a result of a recent disclosure by Defendants that they wish to present testimony of Defendant Hanson is whether Defendants should be permitted to do so in light of a past history in this case which includes an order of June 10, 2002, by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess directing that Defendant Hanson submit himself to a deposition upon 14-days notice or suffer a sanction upon further motion. It appears that Defendant Hanson did not submit himself to such a deposition, and Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he will be filing a motion for a sanction. By separate order of court, this Court will grant a motion to strike the case from the April 2003 trial list. For purposes of delay damages, this continuance shall be charged to the Defendants, and counsel are directed to relist the case for trial at such time as Judge Hess has ruled upon Plaintiff's motion for a sanction. 6 MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : NO. 01-2975 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire. Present on behalf of Defendants was Michael B. Schieb, Esquire. This is an action for personal injuries to Plaintiff, Mary E. Butts, and for property damage, arising out of a motor vehicle accident in which her vehicle collided with a truck driven by Defendant Hanson and owned by Defendant Midwest Transit, Inc., traveling alongside her on Route 81 near the overpass for State Route 114. Plaintiff William Butts sues for loss of consortium. Defenses include an absence of negligence, contributory negligence, and a challenge to the extent of damages. This will be a jury trial in which each side will have four peremptory challenges for a total of eight, pursuant to an agreement of counsel. The estimated duration of trial is two days. With respect to any deposition testimony to be shown or read to the jury which contains objections being pursued by counsel and requiring rulings by the trial court, counsel are directed to furnish to the court at least five days prior to the commencement of the trial term at which this case is tried copies of the affected depositions with brief memoranda in support of their respective positions on the objections being pursued. An issue which has arisen in the case as a result of a recent disclosure by Defendants that they wish to present testimony of Defendant Hanson is whether Defendants should be permitted to do so in light of a past history in this case which includes an order of June 10, 2002, by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess directing that Defendant Hanson submit himself to a deposition upon 14-days notice or suffer a sanction upon further motion. It appears that Defendant Hanson did not submit himself to such a deposition, and Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he will be filing a motion for a sanction. By separate order of court, this Court will grant a motion to strike the case from the April 2003 trial list. For purposes of delay damages, this continuance shall be charged to the Defendants, and counsel are directed to relist the case for trial at such time as Judge Hess has ruled upon Plaintiff's motion for a sanction. Defendants have made a substantial offer with respect to settlement, and Plaintiffs are in the process of evaluating the offer. By the Court, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire For the Plaintiff Michael B. Scheib, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator :lfh IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant, Matthew Hanson certifies that: (1) a notice ofintent to serve the subpoenas with copies of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoenas are sought to be served, or the twenty (20) day period has been waived by opposing counsel. (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this certificate, (3) no objections to the subpoenas have been received, and (4) the subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached Date:to the notice of intent to serve the subpoenas. ~/~i~ l~ ~T Michael B. Scheib, Esquire -- Attorney for Defendants Stephen E. Geduldig, Em:luire Attomey I.D. No. 43530 '114OMAS, THOMA~ & HAFER, LIP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 Attomeys for Plaintiffs: E-Mail: seoCQ~tthlaw.com MARY E. BUTI'S end WILLIAM BU'I'I~ MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC. , : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS, MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, FOR BANCTIONS PURSUAITT TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 4019 AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts, by and through their undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and file this Motion for Sanctions, and in support therefore represent as follows: 1. This is a personal injury lawsuit arising from a truck/automobile accident which occurred on June 18, 1999, on Interstate 81 South, near SR 114 (old Exit 18) overpass. 2. On June 4, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Civil Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County; Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Matthew Hanson, driving a tractor trailer for Midwest Transit, Inc., caused the accident. 3. On July 13, 2001, the Plaintiffs served Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, with Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.5. 4. Starting in the Fall of 2001, Plaintiffs attempted to schedule the deposition of Defendant Hanson 5. By way of letter dated October 18, 2001, defense counsel, at that time, Lisa DiBernardo, Esquire, indicated that she had received a message from Defendant Hanson indicating that he was in Iowa. Attached as Exhibit "A". 6. Over the months, defense counsel lost communication with Mr. Hanson and he failed to cooperate in scheduling his deposition. 7. On November 23, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants' counsel requesting to schedule the deposition of Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson. Attached as Exhibit 8. By letter dated December 18, 2001, Plaintiffs proposed taking Defendant's deposition on January 14, 2002. Attached as Exhibit "C". 9. By letter dated January 25, 2002, defense counsel requested more time to try to find the Defendant, as he resided in Iowa at the time. At defense counsel's suggestion, the 2 deposition was scheduled March 12, 2002. Attached as Exhibit 10. On March 11, 2002, a Notice of Deposition was served on defense counsel. 11. No objection was made to the deposition. 12. Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, failed to appear for his deposition. 13. On March 21, 2002, Plaintiffs filed with this Court a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Matthew Lee Hanson. 14. On March 22, 2002, this Honorable Court issued a Rule to Show Cause, ruling Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, show cause why the Motion of Plaintiffs should not be granted. 15. The Rule was returnable 20 days from the date of service. 16. The Rule to Show Cause was served on Defendants' counsel on March 28, 2002. 17. Based on Defendant's failure to respond to the Rule, and his continued failure to present for deposition, a Motion to Make Rule Absolute was filed on May 21, 2002. 18. The specific relief requested was that the Rule be made absolute and that "Defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, is precluded from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challen~in~ liability at the trial of this matter and 3 establishing that liability against Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., is admitted." 19. Defendants filed a response on May 22, 2002, which is attached as Exhibit "E". It is noteworthy that defense counsel specifically acknowledged that the relief requested by Plaintiffs was appropriate, stating of record: 1. "Moreover, counsel for the parties discussed that there would be no opposition to the instant Petition, provided that the Order were fashioned/drafted in such a way so that it indicated that liability only could not be contested, as the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries are very much at issue" (emphasis added); and 2. That "while Defendants do not concur with the filing of the instant Motion, given the inability to locate such a key and crucial witness as Defendant Hanson, it is recognized and acknowledged that Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to prove their case, and that the instant Motion and relief sought as to liability only is werranted."(emphasis added) 20. As of May, 2002, Defendants conceded that entry of an Order providing that liability would not and could not be contested would be appropriate in this matter. 21. The Honorable Kevin Hess issued an Order dated June 10, 2002, which ordered that "defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, shall submit himself to deposition with at least fourteen (14) days' notice to counsel or suffer a sanction upon further motion." 4 23. In approximately June, 2002, new defense counsel, Michael Schieb, Esquire, entered an appearance for Defendants, because Attorney DiBernardo went to work with another law firm. 24. Plaintiffs were ready to try this case during the March, 2003, trial term, and in fact listed the matter for trial on or about January 7, 2003. 25. It is important to note that until this time, Defendants did not indicate in any way that they were looking for Hanson. 26. Defendants objected to the trial listing, on t~e sole basis that additional damage discovery needed to be conducted. After initially indicating that Plaintiffs would not agree to allow the case to be stricken, Plaintiffs reconsidered and allowed the matter to be stricken from the list, at Defendants' request, by not calling it for trial, in the hopes that allowing additional discovery would foster some settlement discussions. 27. Still Defendants gave no indication that they were looking for Defendant Hanson or that they intended to produce him for deposition. 28. The matter was again listed for the April 28, 2003, trial term on February 11, 2003. 29. It was only after Defendants had made a fairly significant settlement offer, and only after the case was listed for trial for the second time, and then, only at the Call of the 5 List on April 1, 2003, that defense counsel represented that miraculously Mr. Hanson had been found. 30. At no time prior to the call of the list on April 1, 2003, did Defendants indicate that they were still looking for Mr. Hanson, that they intended to produce him for deposition, or that they intended to defend the case. 31. Furthermore, Defendants have offered no reasonable explanation as to when they located Defendant Hanson, or why they allegedly could not locate him until now, in the state in which they knew as early as October, 2001, that he was residing. 32. Plaintiffs have been ready to try this case since at least December, 2002 on the damages issue, and have done no liability discovery, since relying on the representations of defense counsel that, practically speaking, liability was not an issue. 33. The case was pre-tried before The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. on April 9, 2003, at which time Defendants made an oral motion to again strike the matter from the trial list, but this time based on the representation that Defendants now intend to produce Mr. Hanson for deposition and contest liability in this matter. 34. Plaintiffs have been led to believe that liability was not an issue in the matter, deferred liability discovery on this basis, prepared their damages case for trial, and allowed 6 Defendants additional time to conduct damage discovery. At no time prior to the call of the list on April 1, 2003, did Defendants do or say anything to disabuse Plaintiffs of this notion. 35. If Defendants are now allowed, at the eleventh hour, to raise a liability defense, where they essentially relinquished this aspect of the case, Plaintiffs will be severely prejudiced by the misleading conduct of Defendants in that trial will be substantially delayed if Plaintiffs must now secure all liability documentation from Hanson and Midwest, hire a liability accident reconstructionist to address any such expert retained by Defendants, depose alleged fact witnesses and the police officer, and do other liability discovery which all parties deferred on the basis of Defendants' prior conduct and representations. 36. Moreover, it would be manifestly unfair to Plaintiffs to allow Defendants to profit from their misleading conduct. Were Plaintiffs aware that Defendants would be challenging liability in this matter, or still looking for Defendant Hanson, Plaintiffs would not have allowed the matter to lapse from the March Trial Term, and would have already filed the appropriate Motion with respect to the liability issue. 7 37. Therefore, Defendants are estopped from challenging liability based on previous representations in the pleadings in this matter, and their course of conduct in this matter. 38. Appropriate sanctions should be entered pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 4019 in order to prevent the Defendants from profiting from their protraction of this litigation and their misleading course of conduct in this case, and specifically, sanctions should be entered in the form acknowledged by Defendants in May, 2002. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Mary E. Butts and William Butts, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order imposing sanctions in the nature of precluding Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challenging liability at the trial of this matter. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARY E. BUTT~ and WILLIAM BUTT~ 8 Exhibit A LAW OFFICES GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 S. NORTHERN WAY YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17402-3737 October I 8, 2001 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 RE: Butts v. Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas No. 01-2975 Dear Steve: ! received a cryptic message from Mr. Hanson that he has filed for bankruotcv in his native Iowa. At this juncture, I do not know the status of his filing or, more importantly, whether this litigation appears on his Petition. As soon as I have spoken with Mr. Hanson and received the pertinent documents, I will forward a copy to you and, therea~er, if appropriate, Petition the Court for a stay. ! remain, Very truly yours, LISA M. DiBERNARDO vd;/hanson.ltt (7'~7) 237-7~,1 E-Maih bao@tthlaw, com November ~$, ~oo~. Lisa M. DiBernardo, F_~quire ORll~l.'t'll-l, STR.ICI~.~.~ ~, SOL, OS & ~S ~xo ~u~ No'em W~ Yor~ Pen~l~ ~74o~-3737 Bu~ v. H~u~n ~d Midw~t ~=it. ~mb~l~d ~W No. 01'2975 ~ Dear ~a: Enclos~ piece ~d o~ ~ W hte~W~ ~d R~po~ W ~qu~ ~r Pwdu~on of ~cm~. You ~ m~ ~at ~mu~ ~ ~ had ~dy p~d~ ~u ~ ~e ~rker's ~mp~fion Ben ~e, we ~ not dupB~d ~e ~m of ~ose ~cumen~ at ~ ~e. Please ~l ~ to ~nm~ me shoed ~u ~ any qu~o~ ~n~$ ~e doc~en~. We wo~d ~e W m~ ~h ma~er fo~ ~ de~sifio~. P]~e con~ ~ur ~su~ to see what ~nEemen~ ~ be made w pwduce ~ ~r for deposition pu~. V~ ~ ~u~, ~O~, ~O~ & ~ L~ Barbara Onorato, Lelal Assistant SEG/bao Enclosure Exhibit C (717] :!37-7141 E-Mail: bao@tthlaw, com December 18, 2oo~ Lisa M. DiBernardo, Esquire GRIl"l-'l-l'i-I, ~-I'iIICI~.~-R, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 11o South Northern Way York, Pen~ylw~i~ 17402-3737 Re-' Butts v. Hanson and Midwest Tl-anslt. Inc. Cumberland County No. oi-z975 Civil Dear Lisa: I would like to move thi~ case forward and take the deposition of your client, Matthew Hanson, as well as Pierce Morrison and Fr~nl~. Morrison, your independent witnesses. I propose that we take these depositions on January 14, 2002, in my office startin~ at 9:00. If I do not hear to the contrary from you by.lanuary 2, I ~ill send out the deposition notice and schedule the court reporter. Ver~ truly yours, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, Stephen Il. Geduldi~, Esquire SEG/bao Exhibit LAW OFFICES GRIFFI'I'H, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 S. NORTHERN WAY YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17402-3,737 u~. o~° ROSE~ ~ ~ January 25, 2002 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAl:ER 305 North Front Street p. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Cumberland County Court of Common pleas No. 01-2975 Dear Steve: submitting herself to a deposition, ! know ! received your most recent letter in the above case today. While ! ~ that the Court would agree that Plaintiff is "entitled" to depose Mr. Hanson before for a deposition. (given his c°urse °f c°nduct) that Mr' Hans°n will n-~°t sh°w She will speak with her supervis°r and' As such, I spoke with my carrier today and laid out for her the pros and cons of admitting liability now. rather than wasting time and money on various Motions. hopefully, advise me by ~ as to whether I am authorized to admit liability. As an aside, scheduling Defendant's deposition for the first week of February as you suggest, is n.~_~ ., . .... s.~ ,~,;ae~ tresided9} in Iowa and, we are already at the end according me a reasoname opponum~y, a~, ,, ........._.- It was for that reason that I suggested you notice his deposition for March 12, 2002, as we of January. depositions. I do not, however, think that we will have to go will already be convened for Plaintiffs' that far, as I have recommended to my carrier that we stipulate. pa~e 2 January 25, 2002 · , t's deoosition until [ have confirmed In ally evelt% '- 7--ier's aesir[on on [talDlllty- · promptly contact you. Very truly yo~rS, LISA Irt. DiBERNARDO vds/hanson.ltr Dictated Bat Not Reviewed. Exhibit E IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : AJRY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS. MATfHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT. INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTHrFS' MOTION TO MAK~ RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., by and through their attorneys, Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, and file the instant Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule Absolute and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admiued. The document speaks for itself. 3. AdmiRed. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part; denied in parL It is admitted that upon r~ceipt of Plaintiffs' Rule to Show Cause, counsel for Defendant~ did not to file a formal response with the Court. It is denied, however, that no response to the Rule was given, as counsel for the Defendants telephoned Plaintiffs' counsel and, explained what was already well known to Plaintiffs' attorney; that is, Defendant Matthew Hanson, a resident oflowa at the time of this incident, could not, despite the best efforts of defense counsel, her office and, an investigator, locate the Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant could not be produced for a deposition. Moreover, counsel for the parties discussed that there would be no opposition to the instant Petition, provided that the Order were fashioned/drafted in such a wey so that it indicated that liability only could not be contested, as the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries are very much at issue. 6. While Defendants do not concur with thc filing of the instant Motion, given the inabili~ to Iocam such a key and crucial witness as Defendant Hanson, it is recognized and acknowledged that Plaintiffs are deprived of~he ability to prove their case and, that the instant Motion and rel iefsought as to liability only is warranted. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LER_MAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS BY: ~b.~A~IvlT. ~ S QU i RE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are tree and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S.A. SECTION 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. LI~'A M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 22na day of May, 2002, I, Lisa M. DiBemardo, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule Absolute, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS LISA M. DiBERNARDO, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 56684 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 Attorney for Defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the (~fL day of April, 2003, addressed as follows, postage prepaid: Michael B. Scheib, Esquire ~RIFFITH, ETRICKLER, LERMAN, EOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Attorneys for Defendants THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire :132534.3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BUTTS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 : MA'I-rHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS MATrHEW LEE HANSON and MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC.'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR FOR CERTIFICATION THAT ISSUE INVOLVED IS CONTROLLING QUESTION OF LAW COME NOW, Defendants Matthew Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., by and through their attorney, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire, of Gdffith, Stdckler Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, and file this Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Certification That Issue Involved Is Controlling Question of Law, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. Movants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., are the Defendants in the above captioned lawsuit. 2. This lawsuit adses out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred June 18, 1999, in the southbound lane of Interstate 81. The accident occurred near exit 18 and/or mile marker 57. Defendants have always disputed liability for this accident. 3. In discovery, Defendants produced statements to Plaintiffs. These statements cleady indicated that Defendants disputed liability. 4. Dudng discovery, Plaintiffs' counsel wished to depose the Defendant. Plaintiffs' counsel did file a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Hanson with this Court on or about March 21, 2002. 5. By order dated June 10, 2002 this Honorable Court provided that Defendant, Matthew Hanson shall submit himself to a deposition with at least fourteen (14) days notice to counsel or suffer a sanction upon further motion. The Court's Order does not mention the other witnesses who could testify regarding liability. (A copy of the Order of June 10, 2002, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 6. Discovery revealed several witnesses who could testify about the motor vehicle accident. These witnesses were favorable to Defendants' position. 7. The independent witnesses were identified in the police accident report. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel had the statements of the independent witnesses. Thus Plaintiffs' counsel knew or should have known the whereabouts of the individuals and the substance of their testimony. Despite this knowledge Plaintiffs' counsel did not take any steps to arrange for their depositions. 8. The witnesses (Pierce and Frank Morrison) are not employees of Defendant, Midwest Transit. Thus Plaintiffs' counsel could communicate with them or subpoena them for depositions. Plaintiffs' counsel did neither. Plaintiffs' counsel did not schedule the deposition of the witnesses. 9. For several months, Defense counsel was unable to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. During that period, Plaintiffs' counsel did not file any motion for sanctions. Defense counsel subsequently became able to produce Mr. Hanson for a deposition. 10. On April 1, 2003, counsel for defendants requested a continuance advising that Defendant Hanson was available for deposition. Counsel for Defendants offered Defendant Hanson for a deposition. Plaintiffs' counsel did not take any steps to schedule the deposition. 11. Defense counsel reiterated in his Pre-Trial Conference Memorandum that Defendant Hanson was available for deposition. He also listed Pierce and Frank Morrison as trial witnesses. 12. On or about April 9, 2003, this Honorable Court held a pretrial Conference for the above captioned matter, at which time Defense counsel reiterated that Defendant Hanson was available for deposition. 13. On or about April 10, 2003, approximately ten (10) months following this Honorable Court's Order dated June 10, 2002, Plaintiffs filed their motion for sanctions knowing that Defendant Hanson was available for deposition. Plaintiffs' counsel did not allege that defense counsel prevented him from deposing the witnesses. 14. This Honorable Court scheduled and heard oral argument on Plaintiff's motion for sanctions on May 28, 2003. 15. On June 18, 2003, the Court entered an order precluding the Defendants from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challenging liability at the trial of this matter. (A copy of the Order of June 18, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). 16. Defendants respectfully request this Court reconsider its position and issue an Order allowing Defendants to offer testimony or other evidence on the issue of liability. 17. This Order precludes Defendants' from calling Frank and Pierce Morrison to testify at the trial of this mater. This Order punishes Defendants simply because Plaintiffs failed to question the witnesses about the motor vehicle accident. 18. In addition, Defendants complied with the Court's Order dated June 10, 2002 before Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Sanctions dated April 10, 2003. 19. Because Defendants had complied with the Court's Order dated June 10, 2002, there was no basis for Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. 20. At the beginning of this case, Plaintiffs had the burden to prove liability against Defendants. As of April 2003, Plaintiffs still had the burden of proving liability. Nothing has changed. The Court's ruling of June 18, 2003 results in substantial prejudice to Defendants who had complied with the Court's prior Orders. 21. Defendants are now prejudiced because it appears that they have failed to cooperate in the defense of this matter. Defendants, however, did cooperate in the defense and were ready, willing and able to appear for a deposition. 22. Alternatively, Defendants request, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 702 (b), the Order entered June 18, 2003, be amended to reflect the issue involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter. WHEREFORE, Defendants', Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., respectfully request this Honorable Court reconsider its Order or in the alternative, amend the Order of June 19, 2003 to include the statements specified by 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 702(b) to allow an interlocutory appeal. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFITH, STRICtKLER, LERMA~I,/~ ! i SOLY~, ,(~S &/~ALK/II~IS ~ / / / MIC AEL B. SCHEIB, ~SQUIRrE I Attorney for Defendants Supreme Court I.D. No. 63868 110 S. Northem Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: 717-757-7602 MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COONTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : 01-2975 CIVIL : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTF ORDER AND NOW, this / o ' day of June, 2002, upon consideration ofthe attached motion to make absolute this court's rule to show cause of March 11,2002. it is ordered that said rule is made absolute and that the defendant, Matthew Lee Hanson, shall submit himself to deposition with at least fourteen (14) days' notice to counsel or suffer a sanction upon further motion. BY THE COURT, Stephen E. Ocduldig, Esquire Ke~A'~HHess' J'~ For the Plaintiffs Lisa DiBemardo, Esquire For the Defendants :rim tRUE C aP'¢ R CO O ~i~ ,;,~ -.,... ~--~ ....... '~' MARY E. BUTTS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : 01-2975 CIVIL : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ORDER AND NOW, this /8" day of June, 2003, the court being satisfied that the defendants have admitted in the pleadings that liability would not be contested, the current attempt to reopen the issue should be disallowed. Accordingly, the defendants, Matthew Lee Hanson and Midwest Transit, Inc., are precluded from offering any testimony or presenting any evidence challenging liability at the trial of this matter and that liability, only, against defendants, MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : 01-2975 CIVIL : MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ORDER AND NOW, this 9 ,/- day of April, 2003, argument on the within motion for sanctions is set for Wednesday, May 28, 2003. at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, ~tePhen E. Geduldig, Esquire Kevi~' Hess' J~'~ F.or the Plaintiffs ~ ~er~.ta 1~~~ · ~Miehael B. Scheib, Esquire For the Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. BUTTS and WILLIAM BU'I-I'S, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs, : : v. : NO. 01-2975 MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR FOR CERTIFICATION THAT ISSUE INVOLVED IS CONTROLLING QUESTION OF LAW was served upon counsel of record listed below by U.S. Mail this ~ ~'~lay of July, 2003, addressed as follows: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, so ,Mos c /q< NS MICHAEL B. SCHEIB, ESQ'0'IRI Attorney for Defendants Supreme Court I.D. No. 63868 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: 717-757-7602 MARY E. BUTTS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM BUTTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. : No. 01-2975 Civil MATTHEW LEE HANSON and : MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP S E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARY E. BUTTS ancl WILLIAM BUTTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the ~v~ day of March, 2004, addressed as follows, 9ostage prepaid: Michael B. Scheib, Esquire ~RIFFITH, STRICKLER, LEP~AN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 Attorneys for Defendants THOMAS, THONAS & HAFER, LLP :132534.3