Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-15 (3) ESTATE OF JUNE K. OTTO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DECEASED : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION NO. 21-08-0544 ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S SECOND MO'T'ION FOR SANCTIONS AND NOW this 22"d day of January, 2015, come EDWIN R. OTTO and PATRICK K. MYERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of June K. Otto, by and through their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and respectfully file this Answer to the Second Motion for Order of Sanctions filed by Petitioner Randy L. Cramer,and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. The averments of fact contained in paragraph one (1) of the Motion are admitted. 2. The averments of fact contained in paragraph two (2) are admitted. By way of further answer, while Petitioner may have mailed his requests on October 31, 2014, they were not received by Respondents on that date. Respondents did send correspondence to Petitioner's legal counsel on November 21, 2014, attaching a number of important and relevant documents requested in discovery. Respondents also filed an Answer to the Petition Directing Compliance with Discovery on January 12, 2015, and simultaneously mailed the formal Answer together with responsive discovery answers and documents to Petitioner's legal counsel, even though undoubtedly Petitioner did not receive said documents on that date. 3. The averments of fact contained in paragraph three (3) are admitted. By way of _ M further answer, during the meeting on November 25, 2014, counsel for Petitioned'=azknowledged Grp'-,-, Q receipt of the correspondence and attachments dated November 21, 2014, ar 4xeMor Patrick Myers endeavored to provide further explanation to Petitioner's legal counse�;a oto farm rn rent and real estate taxes. <� ry Y -co .. .. 4. The averments in paragraph four (4) are denied as stated. It is admitted that complete answers to the discovery requests were not provided by December 1, 2014. However, Respondents did send correspondence to Petitioner's legal counsel on November 21, 2014, attaching a number of important and relevant documents requested in discovery. Petitioner has still not provided a response to said correspondence. On November 25, 2014, Respondents also endeavored.to provide further explanation to Petitioner's legal counsel as to farm rent and real estate taxes. The remaining averments in paragraph four (4) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. _ The averments in paragraph five (5) are, denied as stated. It is admitted that complete answers to the discovery requests were not provided by December 11, 2014. However, the remaining averments in paragraph-five (5), including any inference that Petitioner provided terms of a settlement proposal and any inference that Petitioner has made any meaningful attempt to respond to Respondents' settlement proposals, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. The Order of Court referenced in paragraph six (6) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. 7. The averments contained in paragraph seven (7) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition Directing Compliance with Discovery on January 12, 2015, and simultaneously mailed the formal Answer together with responsive discovery answers and documents to Petitioner's legal counsel in compliance with both applicable Order of Court and representations made by Respondents therein. Legal counsel for Respondents signed and attached Certificates of Service dated January 12, 2015, to both the filed Answer, and the responsive discovery answers. 2 8. The averments in paragraph eight (8) are denied as stated. Petitioner admits that on January 14, 2015, his legal counsel received the responsive discovery answers, which given the large number of documents and size of the mailing would not have been possible if not mailed as certified by the undersigned. Furthermore, Petitioner in fact received the responsive discovery answers prior to the undersigned receiving Petitioner's first Motion for Sanctions, which was not received until January 16, 2015. The remaining averments in paragraph eight (8), including the various lists of documents that Petitioner prepared and typed under each discovery request, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the various lists . of document prepared by Petitioner are replete with mistakes, mischaracterizations, and assumptions not included in the formal Answers provided by Respondents.- As an example, contrary to the assertions made by Petitioner, Respondents did provide copies of the Decedent's final federal and state income tax returns filed in 2008. As verified by Respondents, to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief all responsive documents were attached and provided to Petitioners, despite their numerous unsubstantiated and uninformed protestations to the contrary. 9. The averments contained in paragraph nine (9) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Respondents vigorously deny any violation of either the Orders of this Court or the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and request that Petitioner's Second Motion be denied in its entirety. 3 WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the Petitioner's Second Motion for Sanctions as both informal and formal complete responses have been provided to Petitioner and his legal counsel in compliance with all prior directives of this Court. Respectfully Submitted, IRWIN &McKNIGHT, P.C. a Dated: January 22, 2015 By: 4" Douglas G. filler, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Repondents 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by both facsimile and first class United States mail,postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; on the date set forth below: DAVID A. MILLS, ESQUIRE BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & RAUSCH, LLP 17 EAST MARKET STREET YORK, PA 17401 Date: January 22, 2015 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. ,4,6rx' ' ok DougYas d. Miller, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717)249-2353