Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-05 (2) INRE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : No. 21-83-398 IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE OLER. J. ORDER OF THE COURT AND NOW, this 14th day November 2005, upon consideration of Robert M. Mumma, II's Motion for Reconsideration, filed October 24, 2005, and Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan's Answer to Robert M. Mumma, II's Motion for Reconsideration, filed November 8, 2005, the motion is denied. BY THE COURT, ,Y: Taylor P. Andrews, Esq. t/7 Andrews & Johnson Law Offices d- "2 () 78 West Pomfret Street V1 Carlisle, P A 17013 :; ill t: Auditor 0 $- , J1 -i Robert M. Mumma, II -"" Ai I -r BoxE ;- ") At' ~ ~ Bowmansdale, P A 17008 '\ J) f Petitioner, pro Se 0' ,i) ~ Brady L. Green, Esq. ?~ ." Michael J. Riffitts, Esq. ~7 () ". Morgan, Lewis & Brockius, LLP .- 0' 7 "" 1701 Market Street c", .Y ,/ Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (,)Y v (l - ~ Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma '7 >' } and Lisa M Morgan rY V1 W pt Ivo V. Otto, III, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M Morgan Ralph A. Jacobs, Esq. Ralph A. Jacobs & Associates, LLC 215 South Broad Street, 10th Floor Philadelphia, P A 19107 Kirk S. Sohonage, Esq. P.O. Box 480 Camp Hill, P A 17001 v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOV 0 8 2005(1 rti IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased. NO. 21-86-398 ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of ,2005, upon consideration of the Answer of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to the Motion of Robert M. Mumma, II for Reconsideration of the Court's Discovery Order, it is hereby ordered that Robert M Mumma, II's Motiont for Reconsideration is Denied. 1. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased. NO. 21-86-398 ANSWER OF BARBARA McK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO MOTION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, executrices of and trustees under the will of Robert M. Mumma, Sr., respond as follows to the motion of Robert M. Mumma, II for reconsideration of the Court's October 10,2005 discovery order in these proceedings: 1. Admitted. By way of further response, in a September 26, 2005 letter to counsel and Mr. Mumma, II and copied to the Court, Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire stated: Since our last meeting, I have also received a letter from counsel for the Executrices/Trustees regarding the revocation of the disclaimer by Robert M. Mumma, II. I believe there is support for their concern that the validity of the revocation has not been fully litigated. I will be evaluating this further. In the meantime, I ask that Mr. Mumma provide me with the name, address, and birth date of each of his children. I am also interested to know if there should be agreement by all that it would be desirable to have a final review of this issue before a final adjudication in this audit. A copy of the letter referenced by Mr. Andrews is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Admitted. c' 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not know what is meant by the term "commingled" as Mr. Mumma, II uses it in this paragraph. All documents that have been produced to Mr. Mumma, II as part of the audit proceeding and in response to the Court's discovery order dated May 19,2005 are in numbered boxes. The content of the boxes has not been altered in any way. It is admitted that the production includes a large number of documents that have been produced previously (in some cases 15 or more years ago). However, those documents are distinct from any newly-produced materials. To the extent the documents were Bates numbered when previously produced, they appear in the production with those numbers. The only change in the make-up of the documents in the production is that one box of previously-produced materials was removed from the production at Mr. Mumma, II's request, with notice to counsel for Barbara Mann Mumma. A copy of an October 28, 2005 letter regarding the box in question is attached as Exhibit B. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the size of the production is extensive. This is unavoidable in light of, inter alia, Mr. Mumma, II's demands that he be permitted to review "absolutely everything related to" the Estate of Mr. Mumma, Sr. and the Marital and Residuary Trusts established under his will. It is denied that any documents have been commingled or that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have done anything to hinder or delay Mr. Mumma, II's review of the records. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the documents are located at and have been made available for review and inspection at the offices of Morgan Lewis in Philadelphia. It is denied that that necessitates a daily four-hour drive for Mr. Mumma, II. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Morgan Lewis has an office Harrisburg. However, that office lacks the physical space to accommodate the document production due to its size and the anticipated duration of the production. There is neither conference room space nor storage space for the 90+ boxes comprising the production. In addition, there are no personnel in the Harrisburg office who are familiar with the documents or the Mumma family litigation. Moreover, personnel in the Philadelphia office who are handling the litigation need access to many of the records during the lengthy periods during which they also are available for inspection by Mr. Mumma, II. 8. Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan lack any knowledge or Mr. Mumma, II's scheduling or responsibilities. However, he has chosen to proceed as a pro se litigant in this matter, and has demanded production of tens, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan also understand that Mr. Mumma, II has retained the services of an individual named Mr. Daryl Hewitt to assist in the review of the documents. Mr. Hewitt has been described as a "paralegal" or "assistant" to Mr. Mumma, II. By way of further response, in accordance with the Court's May 19,2005 discovery order, counsel for Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan advised Mr. Mumma, II by letter dated July 28, 2005 that documents would be available for his inspection. However, it was not until September 19, 2005 that Mr. Mumma, II wrote to counsel for Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan to schedule an opportunity to review the documents. Despite the fact that he has never been denied access when requested, Mr. Mumma, II and Mr.Hewitt have inspected the documents only during the following times: (a) October 5, 2005 from approximately 11 am to 4:10 pm; (b) October 6, 2005 from approximately 10 am to 4:20 pm; (c) October 7, 2005 from approximately 11: 15 am to 4:00 pm; and (d) October 10, 2005 from approximately 10 pm to 4:00 pm. 9. Denied. There is nothing unreasonable about the deadline recommended by Mr. Andrews and reflected in the Court's October 10,2005 discovery order. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have gone to extraordinary lengths (and expense) to accommodate Mr. Mumma, II's repeated requests for enormous numbers of documents (many of which they believe to be utterly irrelevant to either Mr. Mumma, II's objections to the accounts they have filed or to the audit process generally) in an effort to at last bring this matter to conclusion. Despite his repeated protestations that he wants to have his various allegations heard, Mr. Mumma, II has made virtually no effort to review the 90+ boxes of material that have been available to him for nearly four months. This dilatoriness in terms of proceeding with the discovery process he claims to want has been accompanied by serial motions, interlocutory appeals and other actions that can only slow down the process, and now Mr. Mumma, II now seeks an extension of his time to review the documents for "not less than" another four months. WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respectfully request that the Court deny Mr. Mumma, II's motion to reconsider the October 10,2005 discovery order. . ' Should the Court believe that some extension of the deadline for Mr. Mumma, II to review the documents that are available for inspection is warranted, any such extension should be for at most 30 days, so that the audit process can move forward expeditiously. Dated: November 7, 2005 ~~S-. Brady L. Green Michael J. Riffitts LD. Nos. 56450. 93578 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 215.963.5079/5418 Ivo V. Otto, III Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 717.243.3341 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan EXHIBIT A Morgan. Lewis 81 Bockius lLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103.2921 Tel: 215.963.5000 Fax: 215.963.5001 www.morganlewis.com Morgan Lewis COUNSELORS AT LA.W Brady L. Green Partner 215.963.5079 bgreen@morganlewls.com October 28, 2005 VIA FAX AND REGULAR MAIL Jon A. Bauglunan, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Re: Robert M. Mumma. II Dear Mr. Baughman: We are in receipt of your letter dated October 21,2005. We have reviewed the materials in Box 93 of the document production currently being made in connection with In re Estate of Robert M Mumma, Deceased, No. 21-86-398 (O.C. Cumberland). We have confirmed that the materials as to which your letter appears to refer were among documents produced by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in January 1989 in Barbara McK Mumma, et al. v. Robert M Mumma. II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988 (C.P. Cumberland), in response to a third-party subpoena and notice of deposition. A copy of the notice of deposition is enclosed. As these materials previously were produced in that context, we do not believe that any privilege attaches to the documents. Nonetheless, as a courtesy, we have removed Box 93 from the materials available for review in the Orphans' Court proceeding. By copy of this letter, with which we are enclosing a copy of your letter as well, we are notifying other counsel of record of this step so that they are aware of the removal of Box 93 from the production. No copies of documents from Box 93 have been' requested by or provided to any other party as part of the ongoing document production in the Orphans' Court proceeding. , Jon A. Baughman, Esquire October 28, 2005 Page 2 Morgan Lewis COUlI/SaLOIlS AT LAW Please contact me should you have any questions. Enclosures cc: Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire (w/encl.) I EXHIBIT B .. ~r HamiJ!I!..Y! 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Alc.h. Srreehl Philadelphia. PA 19103-2799 215.981.4000 Fax 215.981.4750 Jon A, Baughman direct diaJ: 215.981.4069 baughmanj@pcppe:law.com October 21, 2005 BY FAX AND BY MAI~ Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, P A 19103-2921 Re: Robert M. Mumma. If Dear Mr. Green: On behalf of oW' client. Robert M. Mumma, IT, I am writing to request that you immediately withdraw from availability for review (in connection with the Estate of Robert M. Mumma) the contents of Box 93, which contains not only information confidential to Mr. Mumma but also privileged documents pertaining to the representation of Robert M. MumJ118, II, by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. We are continuing to review this matter and may weJJ have further requests. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, J9::.i~fk JAB:ptc PhiJadeJp~ Ik..,. WuJt.illlfOa. D.C. Dcrroir He. York PirubW'p Huriallura Orllll' Couat)' Pria_. wu.iapa (' ,. ro, '" " IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COON'J.'Y BARBARA. MCl(. MOHHA and LISA M. MORGAN, individually and as executrixes o~ the Estate o~ Robert: M. Mumma, deceased, CIVIL ACTION EQUITY AND DBCLARATORY JUDGMENT No. 66 BQUITY 1988 Plainti.t~s, v. : ROBBRT M. MO'HMA, II, De.tendant. NOTICE OF DBPOSITION TO: William Zeiter, ESquire 2000 One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 PLEASE TAX.! NOTICE that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rule. o~ Civil Procedure, de.tendant, by hi. attorneys, will take the deposition o~ Arthur L. Klein, 2000 One Logan Square, Philadelphia, PA, be.tore a person duly authorized to administer oaths, on January 20, 1989, commencing at 10:00 a.m. and to oontinue ~rom day to day until 'OOmpleted, at 3000 Two Logan ,. c Square, 18th' Arch Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Hr. Klein will be expected to bring with him the documents listed in "Schedule A." You are invited to attend and partiCipate. Jon A. Baughman Anthony Vale PBPPER, HAH2LTON , SCHEETZ 3000 Two Logan Square 18th , Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 981-4000 ( John B. FOwler, III FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHOGHA!lT, , RUNDLE 28 South Pi CarliSle, (717) 249 BY: Attorneys DATED: January 17, 1989. " ( c- SCHEDULE A The documents requested are limited in this subpoena to those created be~ore April 15, 1987. 1. All correspondence to or from Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mr. MUmma"); 2. all notes reflecting communications between Morgan, Lewis , Bockius and Mr. Mumma; 3. all timesheet entries for work per:tormed on behalt o~ Mr. Mumma or retlecting communications with or about him; 4. all documents created in connection with the dratting ot the Disclaimer on behalf ot Mr. Mumma with respect to his tather's estate; 5. all documents relating to any advice given by Morgan, Lewis , Bockius to Mr. Mumma on the subject ot a Possible di sClaimer; 6. all documents relating to any advice given to anyone other than Mr. Mumma on the subject ot the Possible ettect o~ Mr. MUmma's disclaimer o~ hi. ability to participate with regard to anything involving his tather's estate; 7. all documents created in connection with the dra:tting o:t the MUmma Realty Associates Agreements Among T~nants-in-Common, including all dratts and correspondence in connection with the two agreements, including documents relating to communication by anyone with Mr. Mumma on these agreements or dra:tts ot the same or the proposed or actual transfer ot assets pursuant to such agreements; ,f r , / ~ . ' 8. all documents relating to any advice given by Morgan, Lewis , Bockius to Mr. MUmma or any ot the other tenants-in-common concerning the dissolution ot Kim Company or Pennsylvania Supply Company, the distribution of the assets ot either ot these companies, the subject of proposals for the contents ot tenants-in-common agreements, or the subject of the interpretation of these agreements; 9. all documents relating to any advice given by Morgan, Lewis , Bockius to anyone other than Hr. Mumma on the subject ot Mr. Mumma's rights and obligations under the tenants- in-oommon agreements or any powers of attorney related thereto; 10. all powers ot attorney dratted on behalt of the MRA tenants-in-common in connection with MRA, and all oorrespondence and other documents relating to these powers ot attorney; 11. all documents relating to whether Mr. Mumma should be or should have been given an opportunity to purchase pennsy Supply, Inc. or any related business or bUSinesses, whether or not the dooument was written or created atter April 15, 1987; 12. all documents relating to advice given by Morgan, Levis , Bockius to anyone other than Mr. MUmma on the subject of whether Mr. Mumma had any rights to have the opportunity to p~rchase Penney Supply, Inc. or any related business or businesse., whether or not the document was written or created after April 15, 1987. -2- ~ ., .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Supplemental Responses of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Discovery Served by Robert M. Mumma, II and Appendix thereto by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons: Taylor Putney Andrews, Esquire Andrews & Johnson 78 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3216 Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 McCormick Road Bowmansdale, P A 17008 Robert M. Mumma, II 6880 SE Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 Kirk S. Sohonage, Esquire P.O. Box 480 Camp Hill, P A 17001 Ralph A. Jacobs, Esq. Ralph A. Jacobs & Associates LLC 215 South Broad Street, 10th Floor Philadelphia, P A 19107 Dated: November 7, 2005 ~~ Ivo V. Otto, III