The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-1313LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMaN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002-131~ CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, Defendants 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 a court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Dated: March/-q, 2002 SN~E~MAN & SPARE, P.C. By--~F''~ ~ Ric'~i-~--d"~. Snelbaker Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2002- I'~3 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Wrightstone Electric, Inc., by its attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C., and avers as follows: COUNT I - ACTION ON BOOK ACCOUNT (CONTRACT) 1. The Plaintiff herein is Wrightstone Electric, Inc., a Pennsylvania business corporation, having its principal office and place of business at 100 South Market Street, Borough of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The Defendants herein are Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, adult individuals, husband and wife, who reside at 53 Kelly Drive in the Township of Silver Spring, Carlisle, 17013), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was in the business as an electrical ontractor performing services of an electrician and furnishing materials used in performance of such services. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were the owners of a certain lot of land situate in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania upon which they erected a dwelling house and detached garage building, said premises being known and numbered as 53 Kelly Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKeR, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 5. On or about December 4, 2000, Defendants requested Plaintiff to provide various electrical construction services and required materials for the improvement of Defendants' premises above described. 6. Commencing on December 4, 2000, and ending on December 11,2001, Plaintiff performed electrician services as specified from time to time by Defendants and provided materials as necessary to accomplish the requests of Defendants. The dates of such services and the itemization of materials are set forth in Plaintiffs invoices to Defendants, true copies of which are attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. 7. Defendants accepted said work and materials. 8. Plaintiff sent the above mentioned invoices to Defendants on or about the respective dates thereof. 9. Defendants made no objections to the content of said invoices, and Defendants made payments on account of said invoices. 10. The foregoing charges for electrician services/labor are computed at Plaintiffs standard hourly rate, said rate being fair and reasonable. 11. The foregoing charges for materials are computed at Plaintiffs standard prices, said prices being fair and reasonable. 12. Attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs record of Defendants' account showing all of Defendants' payments on account and various credits allowed by Plaintiff. Said statement indicates an unpaid balance of $8,976.50. -2- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 13. Plaintiff has demanded payment of said sum of $8,976.50 by Defendants, which Defendants have failed and refused to pay. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the sum of $8,976.50, 31us interest from the dates of invoicing and the costs of this action. ALTERNATIVE: COUNT II - QUANTUM MERUIT In the event it is dete~,nined that no contractual basis existed in fact or law as alleged in 2ount I, Plaintiff avers as follows: 14. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 hereinabove are incorporated herein as though set forth at length hereinbelow. 15. Plaintiff's work performed and materials consumed improved and enhanced the value of Defendants' property. 16. Defendants accepted Plaintiff's labor and materials. 17. The fair market value of Plaintiff's labor performed and materials consumed are the values set forth in Plaintiff's invoices ("Exhibit A"). 18. materials. 19. Defendants have failed and refused to pay the fair value of said labor and It is unjust for Defendants to receive the value of Plaintiff's services and materials without payment therefor. -3- LAW OFFICES SnELbAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPAre WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the sum of $8,976.50, )lus interest from the dates of invoicing and the costs of this action. SNEL/~~EMAN & SPARE, P'C' By D~D~ ~-~-~-- ~ir~d C. Snelbaker, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. I.D. No. 06355 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff -4- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE VERIFICATION I, Clyde Wrightstone, hereby verify that I am the Treasurer of Wrightstone Electric, Inc., the Plaintiff herein, that I am authorized by Plaintiff to make this verification on its behalf and that the facts set forth herein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ~__J21yde Wrightst6ne Dated: March ,2002 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRICJNC. · 100 South Market Street.~~ · ~ MECHANICSBURG, PA TO TERMS >'~t Labor for the electrical work at your h0~e-December 4, 2000 to Dec,,mber 13,3000 D~cember 6, ~000 Helper#l - 210.00 December 5, 2000 ~elper #l -7 hours 210.00 , l!eloer #2 - 2 hours 60.00 , ~.~ , ~,, .rmeemher 7, 2000 ~ ~$~per #1 - 7 hours' ' 210.00 - Electrician - 7 hourSs ' 280 O0 .... , - '- Relepr ~2 -,4 hours 120.00 ' .% Electrician - 6 hours 260.00 Electrician - 6 hours 240.00 December 13, 2000 , > t!elper #1 - 6 hours ]g0.00 Helper #3 - 3 hours 80.00 ~' ~3,500,00 ,'~ WRIGHTSTONEELECTRIC INC. ~:*:~: ~'lO0. South Market"St~t'?*-' ~.~ ,MECHANICSBURG, PA 17(2 5! JOB I~E TERMS > ~abor for electrical work at your home'L-Dee~ber 16 th~'u December ~9 2000 Electrician - 36 hours 1,360.00 ~2 - 30 hours 750.00 TSTON E ELECTRIC Mar PA > LABOR C~R~FS - Febmary 3, 2001 thru.~arch 13; 2001 Fobrusry 3, 2001 - Electrician 120.00 ~hr.~wv 27. 2001- Electrician 240.00 ~elper 180. O0 - ~lper 120.00 M.reh 5. 2001 - Elecgr[ciau 320.00 , ,., - Helper. 240.00 , .~, '. March 6. 200l - Electrician 320.00 , ~, ',,'~ _ Helper 2hO.O0 , ~:~X' ~.h 7. 2001 - Eleetrie~pn 160.00 , ~t:* Helper , -90.00 , ~,q M~roh R_ 2OO1 - Electrician 120.00 , : - Sha~ (Helper) . _ 90.00 M~rrh '1 ~_ ~001 - Elaetr{g~fl 320.00 m ' . S2,72q 00 --HANK' YOU: '~ ITSTONEi I until February, · Materials list December 12, 2000 3, 2001 , 4 I Siemans 2100 Breakers . 186.00 3 ] Siemans 250 Breakers &2.84 , 2 I Siemans 230 Breakers 28.56 25 I Siemans 120 Breakers ' 163.75 , 12 I Siemans 115 Breakers 78.80 100 ] Tan w{renuts .. 15.00 , 25 I Green wirenuts . 6.2~ % 20 I Red wirenuts 4.00 ';.~. 20 I Gray wirenuts 8.00 'mx. '\+~,. 60'I #6 THHN , 21.00 eS- ~-% 6 I 3/4" Ra~ex connectors ' 5.'40 , 250'[ 12/2 Romex . .' .50.00 ,. 149.40 , 1 ] Siemans C. 1224MB6060GC Panel . 4 I 1" Romex'connectors 3.80 · ~ :'f 25 I Large Romex staples . .. .50 , .' .,-';,. 200 ! Small Romex staples 2.00 , · 150,{ 14/2 Romex ' . 25.50 , 6/ 4" Square boxes · 9.70 , '6,[ 4" Square box blank c0~ers 5.1.0 180 f/l TRHN . 151.20 41 #2 Bugs 26.60 l/ 12" x 12" x 4" Junction boxes' 16.95 , 60 88 ,~1,07~ 53 To Reordec TERMS 5 6 3 6 2 I 5 ,. 75' · ~,~\~ 100 . 30 Materials Ii. st February 4, 2001 until March 13. 2001 QT2X59/120 IS 8' 1 or 2 tube electric Ballasts F096/735 Lamps QT2X32/120IS-SC 4' 2-tube electric Ballasts F032/735 Lamps 8' 2-tube Strip fixtures 8' 1-tube Strip fixture 3/8" Romex connectors 12/2 Romex Tan wirenuts Blue wlrenuts Oreeniw_wirenuts Almond GFI receptacles' Ground.screws :. 'Iv0rV~FI~receV~les ~. 3 ~ 30' 2 2 £ 1 10 1.0 15 10 Plastic nail-on'boxes ~6 Bare Rround wire Water pipe ground clamps 8' Ground rod Siemans groUnd lug adaptors 2/0 A%/Copper #2 LA/copper bug ~" ¢Orflex %" Carflex connector 1" to 3/4" Donuts 192.00 .54.24 69.24 15.54 90 O0 45.00 15.00 15.00 2.40 .50 48~00 .40 36.00 2.85 9.60 36.00 7.10 3.qO 5.25 7.50 1.45 1.10 l" x #10 PSastic anchors '- 1'.00 8" Ty-raps '. 1.50 3" Drywall scerws .15 8/32 Machine screws .20 $666 44 Tax 39,99 $706 43 TSTONE ELECTRIC INC TERMS > Labor .... March 15, 2001 - Electrician #1 120.00 Electrician #2 120.00 Helper 90.00 Mar¢~ 16, 2001 - Electrician 200.00 Helper 150.00 April 30, 2001 - Electrician 320.00 , Helper 240.00 , ,~. May 1, 2001 - Electrician 120.00 , .~..:.~\ May 3, 2001 - Electrician.#l 240.00 ~.~_~"~ Electrician #2 120.00 , ~ Helper', 120.00 , ~ ~-~ Mav 10, 2001 - Electrician . 240.00 : Helper 150.00 , · '$2,230, O0 Carried; forward from Sheet #1 3381 44 ~ $2,568' 44 TERMS 1 l 7 75' 1 1 1 1 1 40 1 25 15 20' 10' 15' 20 Material list from March .16, 2001 thru 'Ma.y 10,2001 Murray 2199 Breaker Murray 220 Breeker 3/8" Romex connectees 12/2 Rom~ /;" Square box 4" Square box blank c~V~T Plastic old work box Ivory 220 20-amp receptacle Ivory 220 Receptacle cover Ivory sin~le pole Switch Ivory single pole cover Ivorv blank cover /;" Round weatherproof box Green ~irenut Orange virenuts #10 x 1" Plastic anchors 1R/2 T."~p cord Bare fixture wire MoUld brmm~ fixtur~ chain 1¼" Dry~all screws Tax Final Labor - Sheet #2 /;6.50 16.00 1.68 16.50 1.75 .90 1.45 5.95 .9O 3.75 .60 .60 5.95 6.40 .25 2.00 1.50 8.70 1.00 26.89 .201 S149,47 81 97 120, 00 601 O0 Splice kits " 21.0( , Sonatubes 57.0( ' I ', Pl~ood patterns ~ , N/C ~ Progross P87~8-31 16g.0~ ~ ~ Dot D SS-3 ' 8.5: , R Dot 6" Boxos 19.7~ ~ Tax 16~ 46 5 I4'' round W/P Boxes , 42.00 > 3 I Single w/p boxes 3/$K0 deep ' .. 24.57 , 2 ~ Single w/p boxes 3/4" KO regular 17.00 ', 4 I GIF receptacles~ Ivory ~ 55.80 , ! I Ivory receptacle , 2.95 5 ~W/P Receptacle covers . 22.50 4 I 3/4" PVC pull 90's . ~ 16.40 10 I 3/4" PVC sweep 90's .... ~ 15.00 50'J 3/4" PVC pipe ·., 25.08 15 ~ 3/4" PVC couplinss . 6.00 , 13 I 3/4" Male adaptors , ,~ , 10.53 4 I 3/~" PVC 2-hole straps . 1.08 200'[ 14'/3 IJF _ . . 56.00 250'! lZ~/3 Romex ' ' . ' . .. 67.50 , 50'I 12/2 UF. - . 12.00 76'! 12/2 Romex · . . .' 16.50 , 2 [ 4 x 4 Boxes , 4.50 ', 2 [ 4 x~4 Blank covers ' . 1.52 , 10[ 3/8 Romex connectors ' 3.20 .', 2 I Ground .screws ' , .16 , 40[ Tan wirenuts ' · . " 7.20 ,' 5'[ 2" PVC " ' ' 6100 I 2/ 2" Couplings · 3.20 i 15! bars of Redi-Mix concrete . 75.00 , 1 '! 15amp Seimens Breaker (sp) 8.00 > ! Silicone sealer ' 3.65 , 1[ roll Rubber tape " 7.50 1! roll Vinyl tape . 2.10 , 16] Plastic 4ncbors and screws 3.20 ', 1/ 4- Rp%nd weatherproof cover (3 hole) 2.89 25/ , small Romex staples .25 ' / 1.00 ,q52~ 28 PVC glue -- Tax 31, 22 Contlnuied sheet #2 I Carried forward -- , ~ter~als " $520~ Tax 31:22 Labor-- ~cember 5, 2001 - Electrician He}9{r -' 560, O0 December 6, 2001 - Electrician , Helper 560, O0 December 7, 2001 - Electri6ian Helper 560, O0 ~cember 10, 2001 - Electrician December 11, 2001 - Electrician Helper '-- 385~ O0 : $3,1761 50 MECRANICSBURG PA 17050 ~'- -~:~) ~DRES~ CREDff L~ - DATE '-- j ...... m J --~Z,-/J CREDITS J ' '" ~CE FORWARD 12/18/00' 00-777 3,500 00 3,50, O0 ~/03/02 ~00-777-, 3,76c oo ,',;760 oo 3/16/01 '00-777-B 2~720 00 i~980 O0 3/16/01 00-777-C . 1,075 53 6~055 53 3/16/01 ' 00-777-D 706:t3 6,761 96 EXHIBIT B YOUNG & McGILVERY, P.C. BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 SUITE 1710 - SUBURBAN STATION BUILDING 1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 569-4255 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS, MARIA and ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, Maria and Aladar Michalek, h/w, in the above captioned matter. YOUNG & McGILVERY, P.C. BY:_~~ EDVARD L. WILSON I hereby certify that I have served u copy of this paper upon all other parties or their attorneys by: ~ Regular Mail [ ] Certified Mail [ ] Other By: _~ NOTICE TO PLEAD To: ALL PARTIES You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter with twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Attorney for ~f~dant YOUNG & MeGILVERY, P.C. BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 SUITE 1710 - SUBURBAN STATION BUILDING 1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 {215) 569-4255 ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS, MARIA and AL,Ad)AR MICHALEK, h/w WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHAI,EK~ TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes defendants, Aladar Michalek and Mafia Michalek, hereinafter answering defendants, by and through their counsel, Young & McGilvery, P.C., having received notice of plaintiff's Complaint, and wishing to respond to same, hereby aver as follows: .COUNT I 1-2. Admitted. 3. Denied Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c). 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Answering defendant, Mrs. Michalek, did not request that plaintiff, nor any of its' agents and/or workman and/or servants, perform any electrical construction work on said premises. By way of further response, denied as an improper characterization of the course of dealings between plaintiff and/or its', agents and/or workman and/or servants, and answering defendant, Mr. Michalek. 6. It is admitted that the exhibits attached to plaintiff's Complaint purport to represent bills for both the work and materials at issue in the Complaint. By way of further response, the work was performed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner, and failed to adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements. 7. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is require. To the extent a response may be required, answering defendants promptly contested the grossly inflated bills for the work and material at issue in the Complaint. By way of further response, despite the aforementioned actions, plaintiff continued to perform work on said premises and did not heretofore object to its' remunerations until filing suit. 8. Denied. 9. Answering defendants promptly contested the grossly inflated bills for the work and material at issue in the Complaint. By way of further response, despite the aforementioned actions, plaintiff continued to perform work on said premises and did not heretofore object to its' remunerations until filing suit. 10-11. Denied. The charges for the material and labor are grossly excessive and are not in accordance w/th the standard charges for like services and materials in the community. By way of further response, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c), answering defendants deny that the charges were the plaintiff's standard charges. 12. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, the exhibits to plaintiff's Complaint are legal documents which are at issue. Those documents reflect grossly inflated charges for the work and material supplied. Answering defendants were charged for material that was never provided and labor that was never performed. 13. Denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and against plaintiff. COUNT II 14. Answering defendants incorporates its previous responses just as though fully set forth herein. 15. The work at issue in the Complaint modestly enhanced the value of answering defendants' property, when compared to the grossly excessive charges for said work. 16. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is require. To the extent a response may be required, answering defendants promptly contested the grossly inflated bills for the work and material at issue in the Complaint. By way of further response, despite the aforementioned actions, plaintiff continued to perform work on said premises and did not heretofore object to its' remunerations until filing suit. 17-18. Denied. 19. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and against plaintiff. NEW MATTER 20. The losses claimed are at issue and answering defendants demand proof of same by plaintiffas required by law. 21. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statue of frauds. 22. Plaintiff's claims are barred for lack of legal consideration. 23. Plaintiff's claims are barred for lack of an offer and acceptance, and a mutual meeting of the minds. 24. Plaintiff's claims are barred by mutual mistake(s) or plaintiff's unilateral mistake(s). 25. Plaintiff's claims are barred by unclean hands. 26. Plaintiff's claims are barred by laches. 27. The work performed by plaintiff's agents and/or workman and/or servants was defective and performed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner. 28. Plaintiff's agents and/or workman and/or servants failed to accurately and properly account for the time and material used in the work performed. 29. Plaintiff's agents and/or workman and/or servants misrepresented their ability and experience in order to induce answering defendants to permit them to continue performing the work at issue in the Complaint and to pay for the work performed. 30. The work performed failed to adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements. 31. The answering defendants are not responsible for persons, events, circumstances or conditions reasonably beyond their control. 32. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 33. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by any general release it may have executed. 34. Plaintiff's claims are barred by accord and satisfaction. 35. Plaintiff's claims are barred fraud in the inducement and/or execution. 36. All affirmative defense as set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030(e). 37. PA.R.C.P. 238, also referred to as Delay Damages or Pre-Judgment Interest, is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If Rule 238 is found to be constitutional, answering defendant should not be charged for any damages which are not attributable to the conduct of answering defendant, including court delay. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and against plaintiff. Respectfully Submitted: YOUNG & McGILVERY, P.C. L. WILSON Attorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and, Maria Michaiek ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICI-L~r.~.K hereby verify that the statements aade in thc foregoing ANSVCRR with N~W MATTP. R to p~.i~ff'$ Complaint are true and co,,. ~t to thc best of their knowledge, infom~mioa, and t~.lief. Th~ undersmad that any falsc ststem~ ~s mad~ herein are subject to the l~,,-1ties of Iii Pa. ¢.S.A. §4904 misting to ,m.~vcorn ~als[6c~ ion LAW OFFICES SNELbAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIP~ : : NO: 2002 - 1313 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Wrightstone Electric, Inc., by its attorneys, Snelbaker Brermeman & Spare, P.C., and responds to the New Matter as contained in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, as follows: 20. Paragraph 20 of the New Matter contains no averments of facts and, therefore, reply is required. 21. Paragraph 21 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply, it is specifically denied that any statute of frauds is applicable and that Plaintiff's claims are not barred by any such statute. 22. Paragraph 22 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further repl) it is denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred for lack of legal consideration. By way of further reply, the averments contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 23. Paragraph of 23 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which lno reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply, it is denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred for lack of offer and acceptance and for absence of LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE mutual meeting of minds. By way of further reply, the averments contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 24. Paragraph 24 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply,.it is denied that PlaintiWs claims are barred by mistakes of any kind (mutual or unilateral). On the contrary, it is averred that no such mistakes occurred. By way of further reply, the averments contained in PlaintiW s Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 25. Paragraph 25 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply, it is denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred by unclean hands. By way of further reply, it is averred that the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands" is inapplicable in this action at law and the reference thereto should be stricken. 26. Paragraph 26 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, its contents are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply it is denied that PlaintiWs claims are barred by laches. By way of further reply, it is averred tha the equitable doctrine of"laches" is inapplicable in this action at law and the reference theretc should be stricken. 27. It is denied that the work performed was defective and performed in a negligex~t unworkmanlike manner. On the contrary, it is averred that the work by Plaintiff's employees was performed in a good and workmanlike manner. By way of further reply, the averments of PlaintiWs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARe 28. It is denied that Plaintiff's employees, agents, workman or servants failed to accurately and properly account for the time and material used in the work performed. On the contrary, PlaintiWs employees, accurately and properly accounted for all such time and material. 29. It is denied that Plaintiffs employees, workman, agents or servants m~srepresented their abilities and experience at any time or for any purpose. On the contrary, it!is averred that Plaintiffs employees were fully qualified and experienced to perform the work in[ and to justify the price to be paid for such work. i 30. It is denied that Plaintiff's work failed to "adhere to the applicable regulations and :ode requirements." On the contrary, it is averred that all work performed by Plaintiff complied with all applicable code requirements and that the work was performed in a good and workmanlike manner. 31. Paragraph 31 of the New Matter fails to aver facts and may be interpreted as a conclusion of law. In either event, no reply is required and, therefore, the content of said paragraph is deemed to be denied. 32. Paragraph 32 of the New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, is deemed to be denied. 33. It is denied that Plaintiff executed "any general release." The remainder of Paragraph 33 of the New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, the same is deemed to be denied. 34. It is denied that any "accord and satisfaction" may have occurred. The remain~ler of Paragraph 34 of the New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, the same is deemed to be denied. 35. It is denied that Plaintiff perpetrated fraud in any manner, whether in "inducement and/or execution." The remainder of Paragraph 35 of the New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, the same is deemed to be denied. 36. Paragraph 36 of the New Matter contains no averment of facts and, therefore, nQ reply is required. By way of further response there is no "Pa. R.C.P. 1030(e)" and, therefore, said paragraph should be stricken as impertinent and incompetent. 37. Paragraph 37 of the New Matter contains only conclusions of law to which no reply is required and, therefore, all are deemed to be denied. By way of further reply, it is averred that Pa. R.C.P. 238 is lawful, constitutional and fully enforceable generally and specifically against Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the reasons set foflh in the Complaint, said Complaint being incorporated herein by reference thereto. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE SNEL~~MAN & SPARE, P.C. 'l~-h-al~C. Snelbaker, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. I.D. No. 06355 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inci VERIFICATION I, Clyde Wrightstone, hereby verify that I am the Treasurer of Wrightstone Electric, Inc., the Plaintiff herein, that I am authorized by Plaintiff to make this verification on its behalf and i that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are tree and correct to the best of l~is knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. rightsto~e Dated: May ~t5 , 2002 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNeMAN & SPARE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Reply to New Matter to the attorney for the Defendants by sending the same by first-class mail, postage paid, addressed as follows: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suburban Station Building (Suite 1710) 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorney for Defendants) Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: June 3, 2002 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE Law Office of Edvard L. Wilson BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 834 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 601 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 (215) 715-8828 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ATTORNEY FOR' DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Maria and Aladar Michalek, h/w, in the above-captioned action. YOUNG & McGILVERY, P.C. By: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Maria and Aladar Michalek, h/w, in the above-captioned action. LAW OFFICE OF EDVARD L. WILSON By: ~ EDVAR~ L. WILSON, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO: 2002 - 1313 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO THE HONORBLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., by its attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C., and moves the Court based upon the following background: 1. Plaintiff served written interrogatories on Defendants' counsel on June 3, 2002 (See copy of cover letter attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto.) 2. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the service of the written interrogatories. 3. Defendants have failed to file answers to the written interrogatories as required by Pa. R.C.P. 4006. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to compel Defendants to answer Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendants. Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff SNF1 BAKER., BRENNEMAN 0 ATTORaNIEY$ AT LA~ R.ICHAKD C. SNF. LBAKEK KEITH O. BP. ENlqEMAN PHILIP ]-J. SP,~P.E MECHANICSBUR. G, PENNSYLVANIA 17055 P, O. BOX 318 FACSIMILE (717) 697'7681 June 3, 2002 Edvard L. Wilson, Esquire Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suite 1710 Suburban Station Building 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Wrightstone Electric, Inc., vs. Michalek No: 2002- 1313 Dear Mr. Wilson: Civil Action - Law (Cumberland County) I hereby serve you with the following documents: A duly certified copy of the Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter as filed this date with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. The original and two copies of Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendants which contains the notice to respond within thirty (30) days of service of this material. We expect the responses to the Interrogatories to be received in accordance with the thirty-day provision of the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure. Since you ignored the agreement to extend time for responding to the Complaint as documented by my letter of April 8, 2002, we will not be granting any extension for the response to the Interrogatories. With regard to the second sentence of your letter of May 20, 2002, we respectfully suggest your review of the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure which are cited in our Certificate of Service attached to the Notice of May 14, 2002. Very truly yours, RCS:jjc Enclosures Richard C. Snelbaker Exhibit A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Motion to Compel Answers to Written Interrogatories upon the attorney for the Defendants by sending the same by first-class mail, postage paid, addressed as follows: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNeMAN & SPARE EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE 834 Chesmut Street (Suite 601) Philadelphia, PA 19107 ~~~ire Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: July /g , 2002 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO: 2002 - 1313 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ! ~- '~' day of ~ ,2002, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel Answers to Written Interrogatories as filed by Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C., Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Defendants are hereby ordered and directed to answer Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendants and to file the same within ~ days after service of a certified copy of this Order of Court, service to be made by first-class mail addressed to the Attorney for Defendants. By the Court, LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21s* FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, bJw COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Maria and Aladar Michalek, h/w, in the above-captioned action. LAW OFFICE~VARD L. WILSON By: EDV~L. WILSON, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Maria and Aladar Michalek, h/w, in the above-captioned action. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of my Praecipe to Substitute Appearance, upon counsel as listed below on this date via U. S. First Class Mail, the following matters: No. 2002-1313, Civil Action-Law; No. 02-1312, Mechanic's Lien. Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 By: ED .. WILSON, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants Dated: July 19, 2002 \01_17~LIAB\ELW~LLPG\186659\LDV\15000\00999 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL COMPLETE, RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc., by its attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C. submits this Motion pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(2) and in support thereof states the following: 1. On June 3, 2002 Plaintiff served upon Defendants Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories"), a tree and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit A". 2. Due to Defendants' failure to provide timely answers to the Interrogatories in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(2), this Court by Order dated July 12, 2002 directed Defendants to provide answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories. 3. On July 25, 2002 Defendants served upon Plaintiff "Objections and Answers of Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michaelk [sic], To Plaintiffs Interrogatories" (hereinafter the "Objection and Answers"), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit B". 4. In addition to raising 17 separate "General Objections", Defendants raised specific objections, directly or by incorporation, to 27 of the 32 interrogatories served upon Defendants. 5. The objections raised by Defendants in the Objections and Answers are improper and LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE without basis and the answers provided in the Objections and Answers are incomplete and nonresponsive in the following particulars: A. In response to Interrogatory 2, which asks for a brief summary of each witnesses' proposed testimony, Defendants objected to the Interrogatory as being "overly broad and vague" and on the bases of various inapplicable privileges. Defendants' answer is nonresponsive and the objections raised are baseless. B. Interrogatory 5 requests Defendants, inter alia, to identify applicable regulations and code provisions allegedly violated as well as individuals consulted in making the determination that Plaintiffs' work was defective and violated codes or regulations. Although Paragraph 30 of Defendants' Answer with New Matter alleges that the work Plaintiff performed "failed to adhere to applicable regulations and code requirements", Defendants' Answer to Interrogatory 5 cites no regulatory or code provisions or identifies any individuals consulted in determining that work was defective or violated codes or regulations. C. Although asked in Interrogatory 6 to identify persons'or others who have corrected Plaintiffs work which was alleged by Defendants to have been defective and to describe the corrective actions taken, Defendants in their answer claim they used "self-help" and provide no description of the corrective action that they have taken. They have further failed to identify any documents that pertain to such action. -2- LAW OFFICES SNelBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE D. Although in at least seven separate paragraphs of Defendants' Answer Defendants claim that Plaintiffs bills and charges for work and material were "grossly inflated" and "grossly excessive", when asked to state the basis of such allegations in Interrogatory 7, Defendants object on the basis of inapplicable privileges and that the interrogatory is a "improper attempt to shift Plaintiffs burden of proof'. Further, the answer given to Interrogatory 7 is nonresponsive. E. Although Defendants in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of their Answer allege that Plaintiffs charges were "not in accordance with standard charges for like services in the community", when asked in Interrogatory 8 to state the basis of such allegations and to identify all persons consulted in reaching such a conclusion, Defendants object on the basis of inapplicable privileges and claim the interrogatory was "cumulative and unduly burdensome". Further, Defendants' Answer to Interrogatory 8 is nonresponsive. F. Although in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Defendants' Answer, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs charges were not "standard charges", in response to Interrogatory 9 which asks Defendants to state the basis of that allegation and identify all documents in support thereof, Defendants raise an improper objection based upon a rule of pleading (Pa.R.C.P. I029(c)) and otherwise ignore the Interrogatory in their answer. G. Although in Paragraphs 7, 9 and 16 of Defendants' Answer, Defendants contend they contested Plaintiffs charges, when asked to describe the dates, -3- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENnEMAn & SPARe times, places, methods and persons involved for each contest of charges and to identify all relevant documents relied upon, Defendants raise baseless objections and incorporate by reference their answer to Interrogatory 7 which does not respond to the specific information requested in Interrogatory 10. H. Although in Paragraph 12 of Defendants' Answer Defendants allege that they were "charged for material that was never provided and labor that was never performed", when asked to state the basis of such an allegation in Interrogatory 11, the answer provided is not responsive to the Interrogatory. I. In Interrogatories 12, 13, and 14 Defendants were asked to state the basis of their denial of Plaintiff's averment that Plaintif£s sent the invoices attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as "Exhibit A" to Defendants on or about the dates noted thereon (Interrogatory 12), the basis for Defendants' denial that Plaintiff has demanded payment of the sum of $8,976.50 (Interrogatory 13) and the basis for Defendants' allegation that the Plaintiff's work "modestly enhanced the value of Defendants~ property" (Interrogatory 14). Defendants answered Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14 by incorporating by reference their answers to Interrogatories 5, 6 and 7, which answers are not responsive to the Interrogatories. J. In Paragraph 21 of Defendants' New Matter, Defendants raise the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds. In response to Interrogatory 15 which asks Defendants to state the basis of their reliance on the statute of -4- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE frauds defense, Defendants raise baseless objections and provide no meaningful response. K. In Interrogatories 16 through 20, Defendants were asked to state the basis of and identify all documents in support of various affirmative defenses raised in Paragraphs 22 through 26 of their New Matter. Although in such paragraphs Defendants claim that there is a lack of consideration, a lack of offer, acceptance and a mutual meeting of the minds, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, unclean hands and laches, in response to Interrogatory 16 through 20, inclusive, Defendants incorporate their baseless objections raised in Paragraph 15 and otherwise provide no response in support of the allegations of defense that they have raised and verified in their Answer with New Matter. L. Although Defendants claimed in Paragraph 28 of their New Matter that Plaintiff "failed to accurately and properly account for the time and material used in the work performed", when asked to state the basis of such allegation, Defendants ignore the interrogatory and incorporate by reference answers not responsive to Interrogatory 21. M. Although in Paragraph 29 of Defendants' New Matter, Defendants claim that Plaintiff "misrepresented their ability and experience in order to induce answering Defendants to permit them to continue performing the work at issue in the Complaint and to pay for the work performed", when asked to state the basis of such an allegation, Defendants ignore the Interrogatory LAW OFFICES SNElbAKeR, BRENNEMAN & SPARe and incorporate by reference answers to other Interrogatories that are nonresponsive. N. Although in Paragraph 31 of Defendants' New Matter Defendants allege that they were not responsible for persons, events, circumstance or conditions reasonably beyond they control, when asked to identify such persons, events, circumstances and conditions, Defendants answered by indicating that their "investigation is still continuing". Defendants' answer to Interrogatory 23 is not responsive. If Defendants have no basis to make such a claim in their New Matter, then they should state they have no basis for such an allegation in response to Interrogatory 23, whether or not they purport to be investigating the matter. O. In Paragraph 34 of Defendants' New Matter Defendants assert that Plaintiffs claims are barred by "accord and satisfaction". When asked to state the basis for such a defense in Interrogatory 25, Defendants incorporate their answer to Interrogatory 7 which fails to respond to Interrogatory 25. P. Although Defendants claim in Paragraph 35 of their New Matter that Plaintiffs claims are barred by "fraud in the inducement and/or execution", when asked to state all facts constituting the alleged fraud and identify all documents in support thereof, Defendants answered by indicating that "discovery is still continuing" and by incorporating their answers to Interrogatory 5 through 11 which do not respond to Interrogatory 26. If Defendant asserts fraud in their verified Answer, they should be -6- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE required to state the basis of such an allegation. Q. In Interrogatory 27 Defendants were asked if they ejected Plaintiffs workmen from Defendants' premises at any time. Although Defendants answered the Interrogatory in the affirmative, they failed to indicate the date, time and place of such ejection and each workman so removed as required by Interrogatory 27. R. Interrogatory 28 requests Defendant Aladar Michalek to state any education, training and experience with electrical work and materials. Defendants failed to answer the Interrogatory but instead raised baseless objections; among them, that Defendant cannot be required to produce any "expert knowledge which is the product of his mind". 6. Although Defendants in Answer to Interrogatory 1 identify Defendant Aladar Mechalek as the only fact witness they may call as a witness in this case, Defendant Maria Mechalek and not Defendant Aladar Mechalek verified the Objections and Answers contrary to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(1). 7. As noted above, the majority of Defendants' answers to interrogatories are not responsive to the Interrogatories propounded. Although Defendants raise numerous affirmative defenses, in each case when asked to state the basis of such a defense, they failed to do so. If Defendants have no factual basis for any defense that is raised, Plaintiff is entitled to know that by way of a proper answer to the Interrogatories at this stage, whether or not Defendants, as they claim, are continuing to investigate the matter. -7- LAW OFFICES SnEIBAKER. BRenNEMAN & SPARE WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. requests this Court to issue an Order dismissing the objections raised and requiring complete and responsive answers to Interrogatories 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. Date: August 8, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. -8- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have on the below date, caused a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Edvard L. Wilson, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street 21 st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 Date: August 6, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAW OFFICES SNELBAK£R, BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO: 2002 - 1313 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: PLAINTIFF WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC.'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT8 ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants and EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suburban Station Building (Suite 1710) 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby requested pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4001, et seq., to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days after service of this Notice, answers in writing and under oath to the following Interrogatories. Xl?dchard C. Snelbaker, Esquire 44. West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. 3ate: June 3, 2002 EXHIBIT A LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS "Defendants", "You" or "your" shall mean and refer to Aladar Michalek and/or Mafia Michalek, his, her and their agents, representatives, accountants, attomeys and any person, firm or entity acting on behalf of or at the request or direction of Aladar Michalek and/or Maria Michalek. "Identify" as used herein with respect to persons, means state the name, last known address, phone number, employer and employment position of the person. When used with respect to businesses, corporations, associations or entities, "Identify" means state the full name, last known address of its principal place of business and phone number of such business, corporation, association or entity. "Identify" as used herein with respect to a document unless otherwise stated, means state a description of the document, identify its author and all other parties involved, the date of preparation and the identity of the person in whose possession it is located. The words "document" or "documents" as herein used include, but are not limited, to any written or graphic matter of any kind whatsoever, however produced or reproduced, any electronically or magnetically recorded matter of any kind or character, however produced or reproduced, and any other matter concerning the recording the recording of data or information upon any tangible thing by any means, including., but not limited to, the original, non-identical rough or final draft of the following (regardless of however or by whomever prepared, or reproduced): books, records, reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, diaries, calendar or diary entries, schedules, maps, graphs, contracts, studies, analyses, instructions, photographs, tape-recordings, computer tapes, computer disks or diskettes, telex or fax transmissions, correspondence, messages, CD-ROM drawings, forms and work paper or any in which any matter is memorialized. When an interrogatory requires you to "describe", to "state the basis of", "state the basis" : all facts" on which you rely to support a particular claim, contention or allegation, state in the answer each and every fact and identify each and every document or communication with supports, refers to, or evidences such claim, contention or allegation. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. Between the time of your answers to these Interrogatories, and the time of hearing and/or trial, if you or anyone acting on your behalf learns of or obtains additional infoi-i~ation requested herein, but not supplied in your answers, then you shall promptly furnish a supplemental answer under oath containing the same. If the space provided for response in the following pages is insufficient for your answers, attach thereto such additional sheets of paper necessary to contain your complete response. /AW OFFICES SNE:LBAKER. BRENNEMAN SPARE LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify each and every fact witness, lay witness and/or expert witness which you intend to offer or call in your case in chief or by way of defense in an effort to prove any of the matters set forth in Defendants' Answer to Complaint and New Matter in said Answer. ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 2. For each witness identified by the Answer to the preceding Interrogatory, briefly state the subject matter of each individual's proposed testimony. ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 3. Identify all documents or other objects which you intend to introduce as exhibits at the trial of this matter, whether in your case in chief or by way of rebuttal or otherwise. ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAK£R, SRENNEMAN ~ SPARE state: (c) A summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify are contained in any written report, memorandum or other document, and if so, identify the name and address of the present custodian of said report, memorandum or other document. (A copy of the expert report may be attached in lieu of answering this Interrogatory.) With regard to each and every expert witness identified by Answer to Interrogatory 1, (a) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify. (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 5. With regard to your averments in paragraph 6 of your Answer to Complaint and in paragraphs 27 and 30 of New Matter alleging that the work performed was "defective", done in a "negligent and unworkmanlike manner" and did not "adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements: (a) Describe and state the basis of your allegations with respect to: (1) Each and every portion of the work which was defective. (2) Each and every portiort, of the work which was performed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner. (3) Each and every portion of the work which did not adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements. (b) Identify the "applicable regulation and code" both by overall title, citation to place of public record and precise parts or sections allegedly violated. (c) Identify each person with whom you consulted in determining that the work was defective, performed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner and violated a regulation or code, in each instance further identifying the precise area of work so challenged. (d) Identify all documents that concems, relates to or in anyway refers to the defective and negligent work and work performed in an unworkrnanlike manner. ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 6. Identify all persons, firms, corporations or other entities you engaged to correct the alleged defective, negligent and unworkmanlike work and work not in compliance with regulations and codes which you have identified in your Answer to Interrogatory 5, and in each case describe the corrective action undertaken, and identify all documents that concern, relate to or in any way · efer to the corrective action. ~NSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. ~RENNEMAN & SPARE 7. State the basis of your allegations in paragraphs 7, 9, 10-11, 12, 15 and 16 of your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's bills and charges for work and materials were "grossly inflated" and "grossly excessive". ANSWER: 10 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~: SPARE 8. State the basis of your allegation in paragraphs 10-11 of your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's charges were "not in accordance with standard charges for like services in the community" and identify all persons with whom you consulted in reaching the alleged conclusion and all documents upon which you rely. ANSWER: 11 ~AW OFFICES SNELBAKER, SRENNEMAN SPARE 9. State the basis of your allegation in paragraphs 10-1 lofyour Answer, and identify all documents in support of your allegation that the Plaintiff's charges were not the Plaintiff's standard charges. ANSWER: 12 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 10. State the dates, times, places, methods and persons involved for each of the contests you allegedly made of Plaintiff's charges as averred in paragraphs 7, 9 and 16 of your Answer to Complaint, and identify all documents upon which you rely in making such allegation. ANSWER: 13 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 1 l. State the basis on which you made the allegation in paragraph 12 of your Answer to Complaint that you were "charged for material that was never provided and labor that was never performed", identifying each and every item so challenged and all documents in support of your allegation. ANSWER: 14 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 12. State the basis for your denial in paragraph 8 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support your denial. ANSWER: 15 LAW OFFIC£$ SNELBAKER. ~RENNEMAN & SPARE 13. State the basis for your denial in paragraph 13 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support your denial. ANSWER: 16 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMA~I 8: SPARE 14. State the basis of your quantification of"modestly" as alleged in paragraph 15 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support such quantification. ANSWER: 17 LAW OF~CES SNELBAK£R, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 15. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 21 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "the statute of frauds" and identify the statute. ANSWER: 18 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENN£MAN & SPARE 16. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 22 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred for "lack of legal consideration." ANSWER: 19 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 17. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 23 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify ail documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred for "lack of an offer and acceptance and a mumai meeting of the minds." ANSWER: 20 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 18. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 24 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "mutual mistake(s) or Plaintiff's unilateral mistake(s)." ANSWER: 21 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 19. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 25 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiffs claims are barred by "unclean hands." ANSWER: 22 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 20. State the basis on which you rely in averting in paragraph 26 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "laches." ANSWER: 23 LAW O~1C£S SNELBAKER, BRENN£MAN ~ SPARE 21. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 28 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's agents, workman and/or servants "failed to accurately and properly account for the time and material used in the work performed" and identify all documents upon which you rely to support such allegation. ANSWER: 24 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 22. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 29 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's agents, workman and/or servants "misrepresented their ability and experience in order to induce answering defendants to permit them to continue performing the work in issue in the Complaint and to pay for the work performed" and identify each'such agent, workman and/or servant. ANSWER: 25 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, E~RENNEMAN ~ SPARE 23. Based upon your allegation in paragraph 31 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint, state the reason for the allegation that you are "not responsible for persons, events, circumstances or conditions reasonably beyond their [your] control", and identify each such person, event, circumstance and condition. ANSWER: 26 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 24. Identify the "general release" averred in paragraph 33 of New Matter in Answer to Complaint and all documents that support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims may be barred by any general release. ANSWER: 27 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 25. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 34 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "accord and satisfaction." ANSWER: 28 LAW OFFICES SNIELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 26. State all facts constituting alleged "fraud" and state the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 35 of New Matter in your _A~,,swer to Complaint that PlaintiWs claims are "barred fraudin the inducement and/or execution and identify all documents so executed and/or support such a contention. ANSWER: 29 & SPARE 27. Did you eject Plaintiff's workmen from your premises at any time? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain in detail the date, time and place of such ejection and identify each workman so removed. ANSWER: 30 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 28. With respect to Defendant Aladar Michalek, state your education, training and experience with electrical work and materials similar to those at issue in this action, identifying all dates, places and other indicia on which you would rely in providing the above information concerning education, training and experience. ANSWER: 31 LAW OFFICES SN ~'LBAKER. BR£NNEMAN & SPARE 29. Identify all contractors, subcontractors, tradesmen and other persons, firms, corporations or other entities providing materials and services in the construction of the dwelling house and garage building at 53 Kelly Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013 (Silver Spring Township) from the beginning of construction to the present time. ANSWER: 32 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, E~RENNEMAN · ~ SPARE 30. With respect to the persons identified in your Answer to Interrogatory 29, identify each such provider with whom you had a dispute over the work performed, materials provided md/or charges billed. ANSWER: 33 LAW OFFIC£$ SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 3 l. Identify each contractor, subcontractor, tradesman and other persons, firms, corporations or other entities providing electrical services and materials during the construction of said dwelling and garage and, in each case, state the reason for their termination of such service and/or providing of materials. ANSWER: 34 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE 32. Identify all plans, drawings, diagrams and specifications provided to Plaintiff for its use in performing its work and providing materials. ANSWER. 35 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RICHARD C. SNELBAKER, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused the original and two (2) true and correct copies of the foregoing Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories directed to Defendants to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suburban Station Building (Suite 1710) 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorney for Defendants) ~lb ak er ,~'~Esqui;e Snelbaker, Brermeman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. Dated: June 3, 2002 \01 _2 l\LIAB~ELW~DISCL345192~LOJ\15000\00999 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 1 845 WALNUT STREET, 21 sT FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHAELK~ TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney/client and work product privileges. Responsive information which is protected by such privileges will be withheld, and all responses herein shall be subject to the objection. 2. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request is overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request is duplicative, unreasonably cumulative, unduly burdensome, oppressive and will cause unnecessary expense. 4. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatories or Requests seek confidential business information and/or proprietary and trade secret information. 5. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request requires answering defendants to make unreasonable investigation at substantial and unnecessary cost. 6. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the information sought is already in the public domain or in the EXHIBIT B possession of the Plaintiff or Third-Party or readily obtainable from a source other than answering defendants in the manner that is more convenient, less burdensome and less expensive. 7. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory a) requires lengthy narrative responses to impermissibly broad and compound questions; b) call for answering defendants to marshal or extract evidence known to date or to be ascertained; c) requires detailed legal or scientific analysis as to such information. 8. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory requires answering defendants to repeat in detailed narrative information contained in documents already produced or to be produced by answering defendants or other parties in this litigation. An undertaking of this nature is not only unnecessary, wasteful and duplicative, but is designed to burden and harass answering defendants and cause it to incur enormous expense in discovery. 9. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request requires answering defendants to repeat facts and/or evidence which are contained in the discovery conducted in this litigation and to which Plaintiff has access. 10. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory requires answering defendants to set forth conclusions of law to alternate issues in this proceeding and/or an application of law to the facts presently known. 11. Answering defendants object to the definition of"identify" as it is overly broad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome, causing unnecessary expense and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, answering defendants object to the definition of "document" as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and insofar as it can be read to require answering defendants to produce documents that are not in its possession and is impossible to comply with. 12. Answering defendants object to the definition of the terms "person" and "you" in the Interrogatories to the extent that term can be interpreted to include the opinions and conclusions of counsel for answering defendants. 13. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent that any particular Interrogatory or Request exceeds the scope of discovery. 14. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent any particular Interrogatories or Request calls for information protected by the attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges. 15. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent that they can be interpreted as calling for information known or held by persons over whom answering defendants have no control. 16. As discovery is not yet complete, answering defendants reserve the right to supplement or amend these answers and responses at a later date. 17. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to the extent they are duplicative of discovery already served by other parties in the matter. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. Answering defendants object to this Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent it seeks to discover information protected By the attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing, defendants anticipate calling Aladar Michalek as a fact witness. By way of further response, defendants have not yet identified any expert witnesses who they anticipate calling at the trial or arbitration of this matter, nor have they identified any other fact witnesses they anticipate calling at the trial or arbitration of this matter. Discovery is still continuing, defendants will provide a witness list in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre- Trial Order(s) governing this action. 2. Objection. Defendants object insofar as the like numbered Interrogatory violates the attorney/client, attorney work product, and/or investigative privileges. By way of further objection, said Interrogatory is overly broad and vague. Plaintiff is only entitled to the deposition of a fact witness by either Interrogatories or oral examination. 3. Defendants have not yet identified any documents or objects that they intend to introduce into evidence at the trial or arbitration of this matter. By way of further response, plaintiff will be provided a list of same in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or the Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 4. Answering defendants object to this Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent it seeks to discover information protected by the attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges. Subject to the foregoing objection, defendants have not yet identified any expert witnesses who are anticipated to testify at the trial or arbitration of this matter. Plaintiff will be provided any defense expert reports in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 5. (a) as Exhibit "A." (1)-(3) See a true and correct copy of the inspection report attached hereto (i) the outdoor light on the northwest side of the garage was mounted in the wrong location, close to the fascia, thereby requiring remounting. Plaintiff did the remounting, causing damage to the defendant property. (ii) the lighting fixtures above the mirror were mounted in a sloppy and unprofessional manner, and not level. Moreover, the mirror was broken during the mounting process. (iii) the smoke detectors were improperly installed and/or of the wrong type, and not functioning. This causing the house to fail general inspection twice. (b) (iv) numerous switches and receptacles were left uncovered. (v.) Investigation is still continuing. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory violates Pa. RCP 4006(b). Without waiver the foregoing objection, see #5 (a) (1)- (3). By way of further response, investigation is continuing. (c) Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory violates Pa. RCP 4003.4 and 4003.5(a)(3). Without waiver of the foregoing objection, see #5(a) - (b). (d) See #5 (a)-(c). 6. None other than plaintiff, and self-help. 7. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory is an improper attempt to shift plaintiffs burden of proof. By way of further objection, the Interrogatory is objectionable insofar as it violates the attorney-client, attorney work product, and investigative privileges. On several occasions, Clyde Wrightstone asked for more money from Mr. Michalek. Mr. Michalek informed him that he was not entitled to any more money. Notwithstanding, plaintiff continued to perform work on the residence and at no time issued the defendants any statements for overdue accounts receivable. In or about the end of the year 2001 or the begi~ming of 2002, Clyde Wrightstone again approached Mr. Michalek and asked for more money. It was also at that time that Clyde Wrightstone informed Mr. Michalek that he had not been paid by a commercial client. Clyde Wrightstone was again informed that he was not entitled to any more money. Further, Mr. Michalek on two occasions requested from Clyde Wrightstone an itemized bill for the labor charges, but was refused same twice. By way of further response, after inspecting the proposed job, but prior to beginning work, Clyde Wrightstone assured Mr. Michalek that the electrical work on the house and the garage would be performed for between $5,000.00 and $6,500.00. See a true and correct copy of the December 20, 2001 letter of Clyde Wrightstone, attached hereto as Exhibit "B." He also assured Mr. Michalek that the electrical work in the front of the dwelling house would be perfo~xxied for $2,000.00. See also Exhibits "C" and "D." 8. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory is cumulative and unduly burdensome. 'By way of further objection, the like numbered Interrogatory seeks information subject to the attorney-client, attorney work product and investigative privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing objections, see # 7. 9. Objection. See Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c). W~ithout waiver of the foregoing objection, investigation is still continuing, the information sought is in the control or possession of plaintiff. 10. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory is cumulative and unduly burdensome. By way of further objection the Interrogatory is designed to harass defendants. Without waiver of the foregoing objection, see # 7. 11. Plaintiff refused to provide defendants with an itemized accounting of the labor charges allegedly incurred. Plaintiffs workmen were frequently present on the job site and not working. They frequently worked irregular schedules and half days, and were typically unprepared with the proper equipment. Plaintiffs workmen left the job site early on many occasions, but billed for their time. See calendar note of Mr. Michalek, a true and correct of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E." Upon information and belief, defendants were not provided all the materials on the invoices attached to the Complaint, whether or not they were installed, nor did they receive a credit for same. Investigation is still continuing. 12-14. See # 5-7. 15. Objection. The Answer with New Matter is a legal document which speaks for itself. By way of further objection, as stated, the like numbered Interrogatory is overly broad and, therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of a foregoing objection, investigation is still continuing. 16-20. See #15. 21. See #7 and 11. The invoices attached to the Complaint purport to charge approximately $18,000.00 for same. 22. See # 5-11, and # 21. 23. Investigation is still continuing. 24. At this time, defendants are not aware of what General Release(s) may have been executed on behalf of plaintiff regarding this action. Investigation and document discovery is still continuing. 25. See #7. By way of further response, investigation is still continuing. 26. See # 5-11. Discovery is still continuing. 27. Objection. As stated, the Interrogatory is overly broad and vague. Defendants object to the term "eject" as calling for a legal conclusion and because it is undefined. Subject to the foregoing objection, yes. Mr. Michalek on several occasions directed plaintiffs workers to leave the site because they were not duly engaged in a constructive work effort. See # 11. 28. Objection. Mr. Michalek cannot be required to produce any expert knowledge which is the product of his mind. Subject to the foregoing objection, should the defendants offer Mr. Michalek as an expert in electrical contracting, defendants will supplement their answer to the like numbered Interrogatory in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 29. Objection. This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory is designed to harass the defendants. The subject dwelling house and garage were constructed over a period of several years. See Exhibit "F." 30. Objection. This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory is designed to harass the defendants. Without waiver of the foregoing objection, WEB Construction and Boyer Construction. 31. Objection. Defendants object to the term "termination" as vague and undefined. Subject to the foregoing objection, the two prior electricians were Unruh Electric and Rittener's Electric. 32. Objection. The Interrogatory as stated is unduly vague. Defendants are not aware of what plans, drawings, diagrams, and specifications were provided to plaintiff or its workmen from any persons or sources other than defendants. Defendants did not provide any plans, drawings, diagrams, and/or specifications to plaintiff or its workmen. Investigation is continuing. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w MAIUA MICHAm,K, TO pLAmTn~S ]N'l'iil~OO~~ --- . of my knowledge, infl:n.b, atio~ and beti~ This v,,ri~csticmis subject to the peualfl~ of 18 Pa- C.g_. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Edvard L. Wilson, hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of the OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHAELK,-TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES upon counsel as listed below on the 'hday of July, 2002 via U. S. First Class Mail. Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants 11 Service .~' Bucket Truck Service 102 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone (717) 76~4788 Z~ecember 20, 2001 ;omm~ill Industrial Resldent~ ge gave you a price of $6,500.O0...Extr~ vhieh you never si~ned-so we ho t to ~ork t~e and ~ateriels. ".. (1) Change--We needed to alter viring to p~epare for a future generator, ~hich included a ney panel and wiring. (2) (3) (5) (6) (7) (8) Additional outside lights vere added, Repaired damaged pipe for P~er liSh~s. We added addltloual vires for outside .lights;, ~e installed outside receptacles. , We changed all fluorescent tight ballasts to electronic ballasts. '~e h~d. to trace ally ires to ~iud bo~es that vere covered v[th dryvfll. ~ had to change fixtures we installed one day and s~itched them ar(~nd the next day. These are extfe~ch~n~as ~ha~ vets'needed for you to be able to secu! s a Certificat'~ --- Wbrking for hours to ~aka the mirror £ir~ and secur~ is not listed above --- vorking many hours to tr~ to secure the electrical Certificate, ~hich included many lon~ dletance telephone calls,, als~ vork[ng to correct the hallvay motion s~itch. · Clyde WriEhtstone O*TC. DEc6m e 7 /99 Contact: We hereby submit specifications and estimate for: ~e hercb~Rro~ose to fu~h labor & mate~h in complete ~ccor~nce ~th thc above specification, for thc sum ~f:$ ~ ~0 0~ Pa~ent to be made ~ follows: ~ ~q~T O~ ~te charges 1.5% per month. No portal pa~en~ ~1 be accepted, ls~ ~o~ ~ Co~.~ ~ ~ ~11 material ~ ~a~ntced to bt ~ spe~ficd. ~1 work w be completed tn a wor~nltke manner acco~g to ;~n~rd prac~c~ of ~e na~o~l elec~c code. Any alte~on or d~on ~om above spe~cattons invol~g :x~afnot coS~,accepted, ll.~inbecome~an~vs.e.m cha~c over and above ~c ~d~ate... Note:~~~a~ by us ~~ ~ ~uthon~ed Si~mre: Acceptance of Proposal rhe above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted· You are authorized to do he work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined i~bove. /], ~ ~ ~ ~. Signature: /ILf,~.~t~ ! ~,~ ~ )ate of acceptanc,ltl/ O/~'~t~ $igna, ,~r,: .... ~ ' · - Proposal must be signed and ¢ ~ ."rs Electric before work can be started. ~~' ?/22/2002 MON 07:40 [TX/RX NC 6aos! Residential, Commercial, Industrial J. D. Kohr filectri¢, West Shoro 6475 Wert~vJlle Rd. · EnoI~a',,~PA 17025 J. D. KOHR .. (717) 732-7168 IADDRESS ~o.~ 777-- ~/ ~e hereby submit specifications and estimates for: c~lc~ ~L.~.~.'~, ~;~. o~ ',' ' '~. ~.-~' .-.'... :... :~' ','w. :.:::...'."./.. -, ..' .':.., '.... :-',,-. ":.. ,.~,, ~o~ ~'" !..:".:,'?-:. :.!.{.'.":.!:'...'~ .:..).:~i~..'~;~'t~,~ ~,"~ r~o~ '. :-" '".' .':' ~"":'. ~'2i:~'0~ :...:'."-:'.'.."'":'..{.:'.':~.~;~~:~...'~'~~:.' ~:~::'~,. ':~-,' :": ', ~. -.' ' ' '::,' ' "t~' ' ~'"~ ~'"'~ .... -'"" - '.' '::~"~ ....... "::""-: -'~-': '~'. "'" ..... '~'"'"': ' ::"' ' " ~ ~.~- ~.~ ~.~. ~ ..~.-.': ,-~.~:~ :',.-." ..:~ .' ...: ~:.:..- ~ ~t~'~a~ ~ ~ .~'s~ A~. ~k'~ ~ ~m~ in a.~e ~ ~co~g w.~d~ p~t~ A~ ~on ~fi~.~m able s~o~.in~lvi~ ~tm co~ ~D be ~ oid~._~'~n ~ ~d wiB ~co~ ~ e~ c~ over aha ao~e me~ti~ AH ~nm ~ting~t u~ ~kez, a~ or d~ ~ .eont~.~ ~bj~t ~ accep~e above ~e~, s~fi~om and eon~ am he~7 ~eep~ ~ou m au~hor~ ~ do ~e w~-k ~ ~p~ed. ~7~nB will be made ou~lia~ abow ~CCEP~D: 7/22/2002 ~0N 07:40 [TZ/~ N0 6305] Page 1/2 Subcontracts: By Design Consultants, Inc Iay Blackwell Architect Johnson Imaging System/blueprint Aladar Michalek 53 Kelly Drive Cadisle, Pa 17013 Cumberland Valley Land Clearing, Inc 6820 W~e Rd, Enola Pa 170250250 R.F. Excavating, New Bloomfield, Pa 17068 717 789z4584 Advanced Concrete Systems, Inc. Middleburg, Pa 17842 717-837-3955 Eberty Lumber Company, Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055-0965 717-776-4773 Allied Building Produ¢~ Corp. Lancastex, Pa 17520 717-581-5855 Collin.~ Construction Inc, Loewen W'mdows Fork Lifts lnc 3925 Trindle Road, Camp Hill. Pa 17011 717..761-8700 Residential Technology Systems, Inc 5300 Deny SWeet, Harrisburg, Pa 17111 Dill.~burg Septic & Excavating 516 Range End Road, Dill~n~rg, Pa 17019 717-432-9704 W R Stansfield Construction 3672 Spring Road. Carlisle Pa 17013 Heidler Roofin~ 1377 Spahn Ave York. Pa 17403 717- 843-99986 Cumberland Masonry Inc, ?O box 678 New Cumberland 17070 71%74-6565 Glen-Gery Corporation, Harrisburg Brick Ceca. er Harrisburg Pa 17104 717.561-2651 Rittner's Ele~ialc 14 Furman Road Dillsburg, Pa 17019 717-432-962 Unmh Electric, Shippensburg, Pa 717-530-8602 " Ban- Plumbing Inc 47 W'mdsor Way Camp ITdl, 17011 Walters Services Inc, Oorantville, Pa 17028 717-732-2523 80O-690-5756 07/22/2002 M0N 07:40 [TX/RX NO 63051 Page 2/2 Boyer Con~i~ action & Pool Service 183 Moore Street, lVi~lersburg, Pa 17061 717-692- 3280 Premier Pninters, Ino 232 South 3~ Str-,~ Lemoyne, Pa 717-730-0707 Jackson Services, Harrisburg, Pa Kaminek Nursery, Ino. Etters~ Pa 17319 800-646-6120 717-938-1113 Hempt Bros., Ino. P.O. Box 9-78 Camp I-Tall, Pa 17001-02278 717-737-3411 The Home Depot 6000 Carlisle Pike, Pa 17055 717- 795-9602 Lowe's Home Center, Inc 6520 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Yale Ele~hi¢ 2207 Paxton Street, Harrisburg. Pa 17111 717-233-8401 Morrison Ino 63 Gnmbers Comer Rond, Duncannon, Pa 17020 717-834-5667 Charles Loose & Sons, Inc. P.O. Box 437 Mye~-siown Pa 17067-0437 Jamsewsid Overhead Door Service, In¢ P.O. Box 652 Carlisle, pa 170113 T17~243- 07122 T & S Millwork Corporation. P.O. Box 456 !New Kingstown, Pa 17072 Chris Papoutris Masonry, Shipp~sburg, Pa Kenneth Smith l~arror and C-lass 3004 Market~i~eet Road, Harrisburg 17109 Krall Richard, Ine Roseville, Pa 717- 432-4179 Brougher WM Contracting/nc Enola, Pa 732-4665 S & K - Brown Flooring, 240 North 67~ Street, Harrisburg Pa I7211 717-56~. 6614 Hardwood Warehouse 6195 Allentown Blvd,/-Iarri'sburg, Pa 17012 ~17-54~-5454 -: 07/22/2002 ~ON 07:40 [TX/RZ NO 6305] WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff Mo ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEN~SY/LVANIA NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL i~0~1 0 ? 2[}0~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE ORDER AND NOW, this ~+~ day of August, 2002 upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Objections and to Compel Complete, Responsive Answers to Interrogatories, it is hereby ORDERED that argument on the foregoing Motion will held on the ,~g'-6f day of ~d.t~ , 2002 at ~: ~O o'clock/~ .m. in Courtroom No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. BY THE COURT: K~. Hess, J. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21 sv FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS~ ALADAR MICHAI,EK AND MARIA MICHAI,EK~ TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL COMPI,ETE, RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES~ AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS I. Answer of Defendants~ Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek~ to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Obiections and to Compel Complete~ Responsive Answers to Interroeatories 1. Admitted. 2. Denied as stated. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. Plaintif?s served over forty (40) interrogatories upon defendants, Drs. Maria and Aladar Michalek, in violation of Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. A cursory reading of said interrogatories clearly reveals that the interrogatories arc compound in nature and repeatedly make multiple references to the defendants' Answer with New Matter. Said interrogatories, including their subparts and compound references, are by their very form overly broad, cumulative, and unduly burdensome. Subject to proper objections, defendants provided proper answers to said interrogatories. 5. Denied, including each and every subpart of the like numbered averment. A. Plaintiffs assignment of error is baseless. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #2 improperly attempts to have the defendant, Dr. Aladar Michalek, "...stated the subject matter of [his] proposed testimony." See a true and correct copy of plaintiffs interrogatories and defendants' objection and answers (and exhibits) thereto attached hereto as Exhibit "A". As stated said interrogatory amounts to a fishing expedition and attempts to have Dr. Michalek depose himself. In propoundinR such an interrogatory, plaintiff comoletel~ i~nores the fact that "[i]t is settled law that interrogatories must be tailored to the case and proper practice cannot include the filin~ of broad, generalized 'shot gun' type interroeatories." See Stitt v. Murray & Barbetti, 35 Beaver 29 (1975) (emphasis added); see also, Goodrich Amram 2d § 401 l(b):2. B. Plaintiffs assignment of error is groundless. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #5 requests, in part, that defendants identify the applicable codes and regulations, "both by overall title [and] citation to place of public record..." that plaintiffs electrical work violated. Defendants answer fairly met the substance of said interrogatory by identifying the defects they have discovered to date and by attaching the electrical housing inspection report, wherein the inspector identified thirteen (13) electrical code violations. See a true and correct copy of plaintiffs interrogatories and defendants' objection and answers (and exhibits) thereto attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Defendants answers to said interrogatory is both proper in common practice and specifically authorized by Pa.R.C.P. 4006(b)which provides in part: ...where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained fi:om the records of the party upon whom upon whom the interrogatory has been served.., and the burden of deriving the answer would be substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, a sufficient answer to the interrogatory shall be to specify the records fi:om which the answer may be derived or ascertained... See Pa.R.C.P.4006(b). "The purpose of this subdivision is to place the burden of discovel~, upon the par ,ty to be benefited where the burden is substantially the same for both parties." Northampton Borough Municipal Authority v. Remsco Assoc., 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 541, 544 (1981) (emphasis added). Incredibly, plaintiff's counsel would have defendants' counsel perform his legal research and reveal privileged work product, notwithstanding plaintiff has been provided the electrical housing inspection report, wherein the inspector identified thirteen (13) electrical code violations. C. Plaintiff again asserts a baseless assignment of error and would seek to try this matter through interrogatories. Interrogatory #6 requests plaintiff to identify all persons or entities that were engaged to correct the allegedly negligent electrical work performed by plaintiff. Defendants answer fairly met the substance of said interrogatory by identifying that plaintiff corrected some of its' negligent work, albeit charging plaintiff for the work to correct its' own negligence, and that defendants engaged in self-help in taking corrective action. Clearly the answer provided was sufficient. Discovery is designed to "avoid unfair surprise" and nothing more. McGovem v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n of Northeastern Pa., 2001 PA Super 304; 785 A.2d 1012 (2001). D. Defendants have provided full and complete answers to interrogatory #7, subject to the attorney-client, work product, and investigative privileges. Plaintiff's assignment of error is vexatious. Said interrogatory requests all information regarding defendants contention that the plaintiffs charges for its' electrical work were "grossly excessive." As phrased said interrogatory, in part, requests privileged information and defendants, therefore, properly objected to preserve their privilege. The case law is clear that such objections are proper because "Ia] distinction must be drawn between those objections based on technicalities or forms of objections and those which relate to the content of the interrogatory." Northampton Borough Municipal Authority v. Remsco Assoc., 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 541,544 (1981) (citing Carney v. Brillson, 68 D. & C. 2d 764 (1975)). Furthermore defendants provided almost a one (1) pa~e answer to said interrogatory and attached two (2) bids from electrical contractors~ in addition to a letter from plaintiff's employee~ Clyde Wrightstone, advising defendant~ Dr. Aladar Michalek~ that the electrical work would be performed for $6~500. See a true and correct copy of plaintiffs interrogatories and defendants' objection and answers (and exhibits) thereto attached hereto as Exhibit "A". It is incomprehensible how plaintiffs counsel can in good faith contend that defendant's answer to interrogatory/17 is nonresponsive. Defendants have clearly stated the basis for their contention that the plaintiffs charges for the electrical work at issue~ which amounted to approximately $18~000~ were grossly excessive. E. Plaintiffs assignment of error is baseless. As stated, interrogatory #8 is overly broad and thereby necessarily requests privileged information. Nevertheless, defendants answered said interrogatory by referring plaintiff to defendants' answer to interrogatory #7. For all the reasons stated in subsection D, supra, defendants have provided full and complete answers to interrogatory #8. Moreover, plaintiff is not entitled to discover the identity or opinions of experts who defendants' have consulted in evaluating this case and who are not anticipated to be called at trial. See Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(3). F. Defendants objection was proper. Defendants cannot possibly provide a more complete answer to this interrogatory at this time because plaintiff has not provided answers to defendants' discovery. Defendants have served Requests for Productions and Requests for Admissions seeking this information. See a tree and correct copy of said discovery attached hereto as Exhibit "B". G. Plaintiffs assignment of error is without merit. Interrogatory 10 did not ask whether plaintiff contested charges for said bills and is merely attempts to have defendants re-plead their Answer with New Matter to the Complaint. Further, defendants fully and completely answered said interrogatories by making reference to their previous response to interrogatory #7. Even a cursory reading of that response reveals a full and complete narrative spanning almost one page in length. See a true and correct copy of plaintiffs interrogatories and defendants' objection and answers (and exhibits) thereto attached hereto as Exhibit "A". H. Plaintiffs assignment of error lacks any good faith basis whatsoever. As per plaintiffs own definition of the phrase "state the basis of' (contained in the preamble of plaintiffs interrogatories), defendants have fully answered interrogatory #11. Moreover, plaintiffs counsel is fully aware that he has to date failed to answer defendants' discovery, which requests among other things: (1) receipts, purchase orders or invoices for all the materials allegedly provided to defendants; (2) plaintiff's time keeping policies; and, (3) time sheets, time logs or punch cards related to the labor hours that justify the charges for same. See a true and correct copy of said discovery attached hereto as Exhibit "B". I. Plaintiffs assignment of error is without merit. Interrogatory 10 did not ask whether plaintiff sent invoices to defendants and merely attempts to have defendants re-plead their Answer with New Matter to the Complaint. Further, defendants fully and completely answered said interrogatories by making reference to their previous responses to interrogatories #5, 6, and 7. Even a cursory reading of those responses reveals that defendants state that plaintiff's accepted payment for their work, continued to perform electrical work on said residence, and never issued any statements to defendants for allegedly overdue accounts receivable. J. The assignment of error by plaintiff is spurious. Plaintiffs counsel has failed to cite any legal authority as to why defendant' response to interrogatory #15 is improper. If plaintiff believed that the assertion of the Statute of Frauds defense was improper, then it should have filed Preliminary Objections to the defendants' Answer with New Matter. K. The assignment of error by plaintiff is without good faith and plaintiff cites no legal authority for its' position. Defendants cannot at this point provide a more complete application of law to facts while discovery is still continuing. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that no depositions have yet taken place in this case and plaintiff has not provided answers to defendants discovery. Discovery supports the "policy of not forcing a party to be chained into a specific legal theory prematurely." Northampton Borough Municipal Authority v. Remsco Assoc., 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 541, 544 (1981). L. Plaintiffs position is in error and without good faith. Plaintiff's counsel is fully aware that he has to date failed to answer defendants' discovery, which requests amon~ other things: (1) receipts, purchase orders or invoices for all the materials allegedly provided to defendants~ (2) plaintiff's time keeoinl! oolicies~ and, (3) time sheets, time logs or punch cards related to the labor hours that iustifv the char~es for same. See a true and correct copy of said discovery attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Moreover, the invoices attached to the Complaint fail to meaningful itemize the charges for the work allegedly provided defendants. M. Denied. Plaintiff fails reference the interrogatory that defendants have alleged failed to properly answer. N. Plaintiffs assignment of error is absurd. Defendants have a good faith basis for pleading such a charge. For example, in defendants' response to interrogatory #11, defendants have answered that plaintiffs workmen "were typically unprepared with the proper equipment." O. Plaintiff again brings an improper assignment of error. Defendants cannot at this point provide a more complete application of law to facts while discovery is still continuing. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that no depositions have yet taken place in this case and plaintiff has not provided answers to defendants discovery. P. Plaintiffs assignment of error is vexatious. Defendants properly answered interrogatory #26, which includes a reference to defendants' response to interrogatory #11, wherein defendant, Dr. Aladar Michalek, avers that he witnessed the plaintiffs workmen leave the job sight early, but bill for their time. Q. Plaintiffs assignment of error is baseless. Without further discovery, including plaintiffs answers to defendants' discovery, defendants are unable to give a more complete response. R. Plaintiffs assignment of error is improper, harassing, and cites no legal authority whatsoever. Defendants does not intend to call defendant, Dr. Aladar Michalek, as an expert in the field of electrical contracting, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to discover his "education, training, and experience" with regard to electrical work and materials. Said request is neither relevant nor sought in good faith. "[Tlhe private litigant has no more right to compel a citizen to give up the product of hi~ brain~ than he has to compel the giving up of material things." Evans v. Otis Elevator Co., 403 Pa. 13, 168 A.2d 573 (1961)(quoting Pennsylvania Company for Insurances, etc., Trustee v. Philadelphia~ 262 Pa. 439, 442, 105 A. 630 (1918)) (emphasis added). 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that defendants inadvertently failed to attach the Verification of defendant, Dr. Aladar Michalek, to the defendant' response to plaintiffs interrogatories. By way of further response, defendants attach hereto as Exhibit "C" a tree and correct copy of said Verification. It is denied that defendants may only call Aladar Michalek as a fact witness. 7. Denied. Plaintiffs counsel has prosecuted this matter in a vexatious manner and has filed the instant motion without any good faith basis. II. Motion of Defendants~ Aladar Michalek and Maria Miehalek~ for Sanction,~ 1. Plaintiff instituted the above captioned matter seeking to recover monies allegedly due for electrical work performed at the residence of defendants, Drs. Maria and Aladar Michalek, hereinafter moving defendants. 2. From the outset plaintiffs counsel has prosecuted this action in a vexatious and unprofessional manner. 3. On June 3, 2002, plaintiffs counsel served over forty (40) interrogatories upon defendants, Drs. Maria and Aladar Michalek, in violation of Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. See a tree and correct copy of plaintiffs interrogatories and defendants' objection and answers (and exhibits) thereto attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. On July 12, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a Motion to Compel Answers to said interrogatories, without even having the courtesy to notify defense counsel of his intention to file SaBle. Plaintiffs interrogatories are improper in form. For example, Interrogatory//7 reads as follows: "[s]tate the basis of your allegations in paragraphs 7, 9, 10-11, 12, 15 and 16 of your Answer with New Matter..." Id. Such an interrogatory is overly broad, compound in nature, necessarily containing seven (7) subparts. 6. Plaintiffs interrogatories are designed to harass moving defendants. For example, interrogatory #29 requested moving defendants to "[I]dentify all contractor, subcontractors, tradesmen and other persons, firms, corporations or other entities providing material and services in the construction of the dwelling house and garage building at 53 Kelly Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013 (Silver Spring Township) t~om the beginning of construction to the present time." Moving defendants answered said interrogatory, subject to objections, and attached a list of the names and addresses of thirty-seven (37) business that assisted in the construction of moving defendants dwelling house and garage, which occurred over a period of several years. 7. Ineredibly~ plaintiff now bring the instant motion to dismiss defendant~ objections to said interrogatories and eompel~ complete answers. That being doing without providing answers to defendants discovery. 8. Plaintiffs counsel has made no good faith basis to resolve his purported disputes which are the subject of said motion and, in fact, once again lacked the courtesy and professionalism to contact counsel prior seeking judicial redress. In doing so, plaintiffs counsel violated Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 206-2(c). 9. Moreover~ defendants provided responsive answers to virtually all interrogatories~ subject to objections. 9. Pa.R.C.P. 4019(h) provides for sanction a~.alnst party for filin~ a discovery motion in bad faith. Specifically, that rule provides, in part, that "II]f the filing ora motion or the making of an application under this chapter is for the purpose of delay or in bad faith, the court may impose on thc party making the motion or application the reasonable costs, including attorneys fee's, actually incurred by the opposing party by reason of such delay or bad faith." 10. Moreover, "Pennsylvania courts have always possessed the inherent authority to punish those who abuse court process. The countless rules (and statutes) conferrinv sanction authority, such as Pa.R.C.P. 4019 (discovery) or Pa.R.A.P. 2744 (frivolous aooeals), merely 'clarify' the authori ,ty to punish in different settings." Lawrgsh v. United Van Lines, 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 270 (1990)(emphasis added). 10 11. It is respectfully suggested that the Court dispose of the instant motion of plaintiff and defendants without oral argument. What's more, a heating is not a necessary prerequisite to the imposition of sanctions. See Hein v. Hein, 717 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1998). 12. By cover letter for the instant submission, the undersigned has attempted to engage in a meaningful resolution of the instant discovery dispute with plaintiffs counsel. See a tree and correct copy of that letter attached hereto as Exhibit "D". WHEREFORE, moving defendants respectfully request that this Court enter the proposed attached order denying plaintiffs motion and granting defendants' motion for sanctions. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: ~, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21 sT FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 11 SNELBAKER. E~RENNEMAN SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, D~fendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO: 2002 - 1313 CIVIL :" CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: PLAINTIFF WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC.'S FIRST SET OF IN'IERROGATORIE.q DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants and EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suburban Station Building (Suite 1710) 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby requested pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4001, et seq., to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days after service of this Notice, answers in writing and under oath to the following Interrogatories. ~Pd~hard C. Snelbaker, Esquire 4~.,. West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 69%8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. Date: June 3, 2002 'LAW OF~CE$ ~NELBAKER, ~RENNEMAN ~ 5PARE DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS "Defendants", "You" or "your" shall mean and refer to Aladar Michalek and/or Maria Michalek, his, her and their agents, representatives, accountants, attorneys and any person, firm or entity acting on behalf of or at. the request or direction of Aladar Michalek and/or Maria Michalek. .- ''Identify'' as used herein with respect to persons, means state the name, last known address, phone number, employer and employment position of the person. When used with respect to businesses, corporations, associations or entities, "Identify" means state the full name, last known address of its principal place of business and phone number of such business, corporation, association or entity. "Identify" as used herein with respect to a document unless otherwise stated, means state a description of the document, identify its author and all other parties involved, the date of preparation and the identity of the person in whose possession it is located. The words "document" or "documents" as herein used include, but are not limited, to any written or graphic matter of any kind whatsoever, however produced or reproduced, any electronically or magnetically recorded matter of any kind or character, however produced or reproduced, and any other matter concerning the recording the recording of data or information upon any tangible thing by any means, including.., but not limited to, the original, non-identical copy, rough or final draft of the following (regardless of however or by whomever prepared, ~roduced or reproduced): books, records, reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, 2 SNEI..BAK£R, BR£NN£MAN ,R, SPARE: diaries, calendar or diary entries, schedules, maps, graphs, contracts, studies, analyses, instructions, photographs, tape-recordings, computer tapes, computer disks or diskettes, telex or fax transmissions, correspondence, messages, CD-ROM drawings, forms and work paper or any other thing in which any matter iS memorialized. When an interrogatory requires you to "describe", to "state the basis of", "state the basis" .- or to "state all facts" on which you rely to support a particular claim, contention or allegation, state in the answer each and every fact and identify each and every document or communication with supports, refers to, or evidences such claim, contention or allegation. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. Between the time of your answers to these Interrogatories, and the time of hearing and/or trial, if you or anyone acting on your behalf learns of or obtains additional information requested herein, but not supplied in your answers, then you shall promptly furnish a supplemental answer under oath Containing the same. If the space provided for response in the following pages is insufficient for your answers, attach thereto such additional sheets of paper necessary to contain your complete response. SNELBAK£E. ~RENNEMAN INTERROGATORIE~ 1. Identify each and every fact witness, lay witness and/or expert witness which you intend to offer or call in your ease in chief or by way of defense in an effort to prove any of the matters set forth in Defendants' Answer to Complaint and New Matter in said Answer. ANSWER: ~N£LBAKER, B RE:NN E:MAN 2. For each witness identified by the Answer to the preceding Interrogatory, briefly state the subject matter of each individual's proposed testimony. ANSWER: LAW OFFICES S N E:LBAKER. BRE:NNEMAN I~ SPARE 3. Identify all documents or other objects which you intend to introduce as exhibits at the trial of this matter, whether in your case in chief or by way of rebuttal or otherwise. ANSWER: SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN SPARE state: (c) A summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify are contained in any written report, memorandum or other document, and if so, identify the name and address of the present custodian of said report, memorandum or other document. (A copy of the expert report may be attached in lieu of answering this Interrogatory.) With regard to each and every expert witness identified by Answer to Interrogatory 1, (a) The subject matter on which the expert'is expected to testify. Co) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; ANSWER: LAW OFFICE~S SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 5. With regard to your averments in paragraph 6 of your Answer to Complaint and in paragraphs 27 and 30 of New Matter alleging that the work performed was "defective", done in a "negligent and unworkmanlike manner" and did not "adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements: (a) Describe and state the basis of your allegations with respect to: (1) Each and every portion of the work which was defective. (2) Each and every portior} of the work which was perfmmed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner. (3) Each and every portion of the work which did not adhere to the applicable regulation and code requirements. Co) Identify the "applicable regulation and code" both by overall title, citation to place of public record and precise parts or sections allegedly violated. (c) Identify each person with whom you consulted in determining that the work was defective, performed in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner and violated a regulation or code, in each instance further identifying the precise area of work so challenged. (d) Identify ail documents that concerns, relates to or in anyway refers to the defective and negligent work and work performed in an unworkmanlike manner. ANSWER: 6. Identify all persons, firms, corporations or other entities you engaged to correct the alleged defective, negligent and unworkmanlike work and work not in compliance with regulations and codes which you have identified in your Answer to Interrogatory 5, and in each case describe the corrective action undertaken, and identify all documents that concern, relate to or in any way 'to the corrective action. ,WER: ~NELBAYKER. BRENNEMAN LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BR£NNEMAN ~ SPARE 7. State the basis of your allegations in paragraphs 7, 9, 10-11, 12, 15 and 16 of your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's bills and charges for work and materials were "grossly inflated" and "grossly excessive". ANSWER: 10 SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN SPARE 8. State the basis of your allegation in paragraphs 10-11 of your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's charges were "not in accordance with standard charges for like services in the community" and identify all persons with whom you consulted in reaching the alleged conclusion and all documents upon which you rely. ANSWER: ll SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN SPARE 9. State the basis of your allegation in paragraphs 10-I lofyour Answer, and identify all documents in support of your allegation that the Plaintiff's charges were not the Plaintiff's standard charges. ANSWER: 12 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. E~R£NNEMAN ~ SPARE 10. State the dates, times, places, methods and persons involved for each of the contests you allegedly made of Plaintiff's charges as averred in paragraphs 7, 9 and 16 of your Answer to Complaint, and identify all documents upon which you rely in making such allegation. ANSWER: "' 13 LAW OFFICES SN~='LBAKER, BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 11. State the basis on which you made the allegation in paragraph 12 of your Answer to Complaint that you were "charged for material that was never provided and labor that was never perfoin~ed", identifying each and every item S0 challenged and all documents in support of your allegation. ANSWER: 14 12. State the basis for your denial in paragraph 8 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support your denial. WER: SN£LBAKER. BR£NNEMAN SPARE 15 SNELBAKER. BRENNE~MAN SPARE 13. State the basis for your denial in paragraph 13 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support your denial. ANSWER: 16 LAW OFFlCES ~N£LBAKER. ~t R/N N/MA~I 14. State the basis of your quantification of "modestly" as alleged in paragraph 15 of your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents that support such quantification. ANSWER:' 17 LAW OFFICES SN£LBAKER. BRENN£MAN ~ SPARE 15. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 21 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's claims are barred by '~the statute of frauds" and identify the statute. ANSWER: 18 LAW OFFICES SNE~LBAK~R, I~RENNEMAN 16. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 22 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred for "lack of legal consideration." ANSWER: 19 LAW OFFICES ~RENNEMAN ~ SPARE 17. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 23 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify ail documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred for "lack of an offer and acceptance and a mutual meeting of the minds." ANSWER: 2O LAW OFFICES SNELBAK£R. BRENN£MAN ~ SPARE 18. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 24 of New Matter in your AnsWer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "mutual mistake(s) or Plaintiff's unilateral mistake(s)." ANSWER: ,. 21 19. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 25 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "unclean hands." ANSWER: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BR£NNEMAN ~ SPARE 22 LAW OFFICES ~NELBAKER. BRENNI~MAN ~f, SPARE ,20. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 26 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "laches." ANSWER: 23 LAW OFFICES ~;NELBAKER. BRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 21. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 28 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's agems, workman and/or servants "failed to accurately and properly account for the time and material used in the work performed" and identify all documents upon which you rely to support such allegation. ANSWER: 24 22. State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 29 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's agents, workman and/or servants "misrepresented their ability and experience in order to induce answering defendants to permit them to continue perfoi~xfing the work in issue in the Complaint and to pay for the work performed" and identify each'such agent, workman and/or servant. ANSWER: 25 SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN SPARE 23. Based upon your allegation in paragraph 31 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint, state the reason for the allegation that you are "not responsible for persons, events, circumstances or conditions reasonably beyond their [your] control", and identify each such person, event, circumstance and condition. ANSWER: 26 LAW OFFICES BR£NNEMAN ~ SPARE 24. Identify the "general release" averred in paragraph 33 of New Matter in Answer to Complaint and all documents that support of your contention that Plaintiff's claims may be barred by any general release. ANSWER: 27 SN£LBAK£R. BR£NNEMAN a[ SPARE 25. -State the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 34 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint and identify all documents in support of your comention that Plaintiff's claims are barred by "accord and satisfaction." ANSWER: 28 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, SRENNEMAN ~ SPARE 26. State all facts constituting alleged "fraud" and state the basis on which you rely in averring in paragraph 35 of New Matter in your Answer to Complaint that Plaintiff's claims are "barred fraud'in the inducement and/or execution" and identify all documents so executed and/or support ' such a contention. ANSWER: 29 SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN SPARE 27. Did you eject Plaintiff's workmen from your premises at any time? . If your answer is in the affinnative, explain in detail the date, time and place of such ejection and identify each workman so removed. ANSWER: 30 [.AW OFFICES SNE:LBAK/R, E~R£NN£MAN 28. With respect to Defendant Aladar Michalek, state your education, training and experience with electrical work and materials similar to those at issue in this action, identifying all dates, places and other indicia on which you would rely in providing the above information concerning education, training and experience. ANSWER: 31 LAW OFFICES SNELBAK~:'R, ~RENNEMAN ~ SPARE 29. Identify all contractors, subcontractors, tradesmen and other persons, ill'ms, corporations or other entities providing materials and services in the construction of the dwelling house and garage building at 53 Kelly Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013 (Silver Spring Township) from the beginning of construction to the present time... ANSWER: 32 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. I=IRENNEMAN ~: SPARE 30. With respect to the persons identified in your Answer to Interrogatory 29, identify each such provider with whom you had a dispute over the work performed, materials provided and/or charges billed. ANSWER: 33 SN£LBAKER. BR£NN£MAN SPARE 31. Identify each contractor, subcontractor, tradesman and other persons, firms, corporations or other entities providing electrical services and materials during the construction of said dwelling and garage and, in each case, state the reason for their termination of such service and/or providing of materials. ANSWER: 34 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 32. Identify all plans, drawings, diagrams and specifications provided to Plaintiff for its use in performing its work and providing materials. 35 SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN SPARE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RICHARD C. SNELBAKER, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused the original and two (2) true and correct copies of the foregoing Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories directed to Defendants to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Young and McGilvery, P.C. Suburban Station Building (Suite 1710) 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorney for Defendants) · ard C Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker, Brermeman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. Dated: June 3, 2002 \01 __2 BLIAB\ELW~D1SCX345192kLOJ~ 15000\00999 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21st FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHAELK~ TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney/client and work product privileges. Responsive information which is protected by such privileges will be withheld, and all responses herein shall be subject to the objection. 2. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request is overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request is duplicative, unreasonably cumulative, unduly burdensome, oppressive and will cause unnecessary expense. 4. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for. Documents to the extent that the Interrogatories or Requests seek confidential business information and/or proprietary and trade secret information. 5. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrog~itory or Request requires answering defendants to make unreasonable investigation at substantial and unnecessary cost. 6. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the information sought is already in the public domain or in the EXHIBIT B possession of the Plaintiff or Third-Party or readily obtainable from a source other than answering defendants in the manner that is more convenient, less burdensome and less expensive. 7. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory a) requires lengthy narrative responses to impermissibly broad and compound questions; b) call for answering defendants to marshal or extract evidence known to date or to be ascertained; c) requires detailed legal or scientific anals)sis as to such information. 8. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory requires answering defendants to repeat in detailed narrative infomsation contained in documents already produced or to be produced by answering defendants or other parties in this litigation. An undertaking of this nature is not only unnecessary, wasteful and duplicative, but is designed to burden and harass answering defendants and cause it to incur enom~ous expense in discovery. 9. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent that the Interrogatory or Request requires answering defendants to repeat facts and/or evidence which are contained in the discovery conducted in this litigation and to which Plaintiff has access. 10. Answering defendants object to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory requires answering defendants to set forth conclusions of law to alternate issues in this proceeding and/or an application of law to the facts presently known. 11. Answering defendants object to the definition of"identify" as it is overly broad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome, causing unnecessary expense and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, answering defendants object to the definition of "document" as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and insofar as it can be read to require answering defendants to produce documents that are not in its possession and is impossible to comply with. 12. Answering defendants object to the definition of the terms "person" and "you" in the Interrogatories to the extent that teim can be interpreted to include the opinions and conclusions of counsel for answering defendants. 13. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent that any particular Interrogatory or Request exceeds the scope of discovery. 14. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent any particular Interrogatories or Request calls for information protected by the attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges. 15. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the extent that they can be interpreted as calling for information known or held by persons over whom answering defendants have no control. 16. As discovery is not yet complete, answering defendants reserve the right to supplement or amend these answers and responses at a later date. 17. Answering defendants object to the Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to the extent they are duplicative of discovery already served by other parties in the matter. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSVOgR~ 1. Answering defendants object to this Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent it seeks to discover information protected by the attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing, defendants anticipate calling Aladar Michalek as a fact witness. By way of further response, defendants have not yet identified any expert witnesses who they anticipate calling at the trial or arbitration of this matter, nor have they identified any other fact witnesses they anticipate calling at the trial or arbitration of this matter. Discovery is still continuing, defendants will provide a witness list in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre- Trial Order(s) governing this action. 2. Objection. Defendants object insofar as the like numbered Interrogatory violates the attorney/client, attorney work product, and/or investigative privileges. By way of further objection, said Interrogatory is overly broad and vague2 Plaintiff is only entitled to the deposition of a fact witness by either InterrOgatories or oral examination. 3. Defendants have not yet identified any documents or objects that they intend to introduce into evidence at the trial or arbitration of this matter. By way of further response, plaintiff will be provided a list of same in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules'of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or the Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 4. Answering defendants object to this Interrogatory and Request for Documents to the extent it seeks to discover information protected bythe attorney/client, work product, joint defense or expert investigative privileges:.. Subject to the foregoing objection, defendants have not yet identified any expert witnesses who are anticipated to testify at the trial or arbitration of this matter. Plaintiffwill be provided any defense expert reports in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 5. (a) (1)-(3) See a tree and correct copy of the inspection report attached hereto as Exhibit "A." (i) the outdoor light on the northwest side of the garage was mounted in the wrong location, close to the fascia, thereby requiring remounting. Plaintiff did the remounting, causing damage to the defendant property. (ii) the lighting fixtures above the mirror were mounted in a sloppy and unprofessional manner, and not level. Moreover, the mirror was broken during the mounting process. (iii) the smoke detectors were improperly installed. and/or of the wrong type, and not functioning. This causing the house to fail general inspection twice. (iv) numerous switches and receptacles were left uncovered. (v.) Investigation is still continuing. (b) Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory violates Pa. RCP 4006(b). Without waiver the foregoing objection, see #5 (a) (1)- (3). By way of further response, investigation is continuing. (c) Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory violates Pa. RCP 4003.4 and 4003.5(a)(3). Without waiver of the foregoing objection, see #5(a) - (b). (d) See #5 (a)-(c). 6. None other than plaintiff, and self-help. 7. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory ~s an improper attemp to shift plaintiffs burden of proof. By way of further objection, the Interrogatory is objectionable insofar as it violates the attorney-client, attorney work product, and investigative privileges. On several occasions, Clyde Wrightstone asked for more money from Mr. Michalek. Mr. Michalek informed him that he was not entitled to any more money. Notwithstanding, plaintiff continued to perform work on the residence and at no time issued the defendants any statements for overdue accounts receivable. In or about the end of the year 2001 or the beginning of 2002, Clyde Wrightstone again approached Mr. Michalek and asked for more money. It was also at that time that Clyde Wrightstone informed Mr. Michalek that he had not been paid by a commercial client. Clyde Wrightstone was again informed that he was not entitled to any more money. Further, Mr. Michalek on two occasions requested from Clyde Wrightstone an itemized bill for the labor charges, but was refused same twice. By way of further response, after inspecting the proposed job, but prior to beginning work, Clyde Wrightstone assured Mr. Michalek that the electrical work on the house and the garage would be performed for between $5,000.00 and $6,500.00. See a true and correct copy of the December 20, 2001 letter of Clyde Wrightstone, attached hereto as Exhibit "B." He also assured Mr. Michalek that the electrical work in the front of the dwelling house would be perfomied for $2,000.00. See also Exhibits "C" and "D." 8. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory is cumulative and unduly burdensome. 'By way of further objection, the like numbered Interrogatory seeks infm'mation subject to the attorney-client, attorney w.,ork product and investigative privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing objections, see # 7. 9. Objection. See Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c). Without waiver of the foregoing objection, investigation is still continuing, the infom~ation sought is in the control or possession of plaintiff. 10. Objection. The like numbered Interrogatory is cumulative and unduly burdensome. By way of further objection the Interrogatory is designed to harass defendants. Without waiver of the foregoing objection, see # 7. 11. Plaintiff refused to provide defendants with an itemized accounting of the labor charges allegedly incurred. Plaintiffs workmen were frequently present on the job site and not working. They frequently worked irregular schedules and half days, and were typically unprepared with the proper equipment. Plaintiffs workmen left the job site early on many occasions, but billed for their time. See calendar note of Mr. Michalek, a true and correct of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ,'E." Upon information and belief, defendants were not provided all the materials on the invoices attached to the Complaint, whether or not they were installed, nor did they receive a credit for same. Investigation is still continuing. 12-14. See # 5-7. 15. Obi ection. The Answer with New Matter is a legal document whiCh speaks for itself. By way of further objection, as stated, the like numbered Interrogatory is overly broad and, therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of a foregoing objection, investigation is still continuing. 16-20. See #15. 21. ' See #7 and 11. The invoices attached to the Complaint purport to charge approximately $18,000.00 for same. 22. 23. 24. See # 5-11, and # 21. Investigation is still continuing. At this time, defendants are not aware of what General Release(s) may have been executed on behalfofplaintiffregarding this action. Investigation and document discovery is still continuing. 25. See #7. By way of further response, investigation is still continuing. 26. See # 5-11. Discovery is still continuing. 27. Objection. As stated, the Interrogatory is overly broad and vague. Defendants object to the term "eject" as calling for a legal conclusion and because it is undefined. Subject to the foregoing objection, yes. Mr. Michalek on several occasions directed plaintiffs workers to leave the site because they were not duly engaged in a constructive work effort. See # 11. 28. Objection. Mr. Michalek cannot be required to produce any expert knowledge which is the product of his mind. Subject to the foregoing objection, should the defendants offer Mr. Michalek as an expert in electrical contracting, defendants will supplement their answer to the like numbered Interrogatory in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Case Management Order(s) and/or Pre-Trial Order(s) governing this action. 29. Objection. This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory is designed to harass the defendants. The subject dwelling house and garage were constructed over a period of several years. See Exhibit."F." 30. Objection. This Interroga.t,0rY is unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory is designed to harass the defendants. Without waiver of the foregoing objection, WEB Construction and Boyer Construction. 31. Objection. Defendants object to the tetxa "termination" as vague and undefined. Subject to the foregoing objection, the two prior electricians were Unruh Electric and Rittener's Electric. 32. Objection. The Interrogatory as stated is unduly vague. Defendants are not aware of what plans, drawings, diagrams, and specifications were provided to plaintiff or its workmen from any persons or sources other than defendants. Defendants did not provide any plans, drawings, diagrams, and/or specifications to plaintiff or its workmen. Investigation is continuing. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF. I, Edvard L. Wilson, hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of the OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHAELK,-TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES upon counsel as listed below on the 'hday of July, 2002 via U. S. First Clags Mail. Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants 11 102 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone (717) 766-4768 ~ecenber 20, 2001 :ommer~ial Indu~lflal - Fiesidentlai ge gave you a price of $6,500.O0.,.Extr~ vhieh you never si~ned-so we ho I to vork time and materials. .. (1) Chanse~e needed to alter viring to p~epare for a future generator, vhich imcluded a ney panel and viring. (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) Additional outside lights were added, Repaired damaged pipe £or P.[er lights. ~e added additioual vires for outside .lig~ts~ ~e installed outside rec.eptacles. ~e changed ell fluorescent tight ballasts to electronic ballasts. '~e had. to trace all vires to ~ind bo~es that were covered vtth dryv! 11. ~ had to change fixtures we installed one day and eL-itched them arc ~nd the next day. (9) These are ex'tta-ch~nkes .~hat vere'need.~d tot"you to be able to seem e a Certificat'~ --- ~brktng for hours to make the mirror firm and secur( is not listed above --- workiu8 many hours to t~. to secure the electg: cal Certificate, ~hieh included many long distance telephone calls,, als( ~orking to correct the hallway motion svitch. Clyde Rrt~htstone DEc6mB, 7 /99 lame: ~ .ddress: ~'~ ~ / :ity' State- ~_~p.'. , ,. --. '..~ hone: Home '~ {~l- J ~ ~ ! W~rk ~0 O Contact: Ve hereby submit specifications and estimate for: · ,9'q ov 5": oo ~o ,qPPLI~t~C~ Ow4/¢l? ~.f? /')'l,~.r/fd Co,UTtZ~CT-~ I 7DO. OO ;e hereby Rropose w ~h labor & mate~ in complete acco~ce ~ th~ above ~e~fiom, for the sum ii IO~O-O0 Pa~entto~made~fo~o~: ~ ~qag~7 O~ ~q~5.00 ~te ~ 1.5% per mort&. No pa~l pa~en~ ~11 be accepted. Is~ ~¢~ ~ Oa~%~ ~ ed 11 matc~ ~ ~tced to bc ~ ~c~. AU work to be completed tn a wor~an~e ~ner acco~g to an~ pracdc~ of &c ~do~l elec~c code. Any alt~don or d~don ~om above ~e~Cadom invol~g c~ cos~, ~1 become an e~ c~c over and above ~c ~atc. Note: . /_ Th~ropo~y bc ~th~ by us not acceptea ~th!~ 6~ ~. " /~ // ~ . . Acceptance of Proposal' ac above prices, specffications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do .e work as specffied. Payment will be m~de as outlined~~ ~. ~ ~ · ' Proposal must be sigr~d ami ~ Ekctric befor~ ~ork can be starttd. ...... .~.,~r,/22/2oo2 liON 07:40 [TX/RI NC 6305] ; , Res~lential, Comme~-..lal, Indust.-tal J. D. Kohr Electric, West Shore 6475 WellZ~ll. Rd. · Enol~a~PA 17025 $, D. KOHR -. (717) 732-7168 IADDRESS [CITY I STAT~ I ZIP We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: ' -.., ....... ......-,-, ,,,._.-.,._..-,;( . ~-..~ ~.._.,,._ ...~ ..-.... ,:......-:.-.:. ..... _ ...,.,,. -.--.,':- ..... ';~-.~.:;.'" . .'...~',... .... :,'-. .- .... ..~.,.. ..'. ~,.'.,~,'......::.,'..-,...,, ... ..... ,:..-:-:,. ~-,: .- ' ; · '.'. ..... :I:"-.':.~: '~:.-.:'..,;. '....:" '":.'-.''....:.,'.'.'v,~, ...":..'~ .... ?.." .*',:. '::" "'.;-.. '-. ' "' ...'. ~":'~4 .'~ ,... ,,.-,. ,. ,,..~...:......~.,:...~.......-.J.,,..- .... . .... · ..-...,.,.....~...~ ~.~, .. I ~-~.-,, . ,,,..., ...:~ ..... .-.. - ..... , . .. ..... ..:~-. :. . ..... :., . .... .... .,, ...:~. ..-'..,~ ... .. ..b. ~. ~ ..../~.~./. ~. e~.. ,: :.. ~.~.~,,/~,~.,.. :~ , ~,,~....~7/,,.~ ... '...- - !o~.. . - ~. "',~-r..~l-" ....,,...... .... . ...... . .... ,...,.,, ..... :.. .... · ...... . .......... :.... ..... .....~_ ' ' ' ; ""' "",":' "~',' ' '", ",";,' "," ':' '.' ";. '"7":" .":'-;".' :':;',~'.'.:": ';. ........ ',':.."~':.', ::':'"""':" V" ," ~ ~ ~ '":.:7 '..:. -.: ":' :.'-" - :>.- ~:~ ~',."-':*'~ ~ '.~...'~ :'. .~. .~.~W~",~ ~..~.. .~.. "~.~~ ~o~ ~' ~,',.~. : .. --~ .....:..... ':>.-',.'.... , ,.- .. , .'., ' .-',,. : ,..:.- % ~;,,::..,..,~. ':.'...::;.. , '- .';';- .z .;"- < ,,', ~' ' .. '. ': '.... :'.:. -,.. '., ..v'." ..... ,. :.:.: ,. ,: :. -,,....: .: .-:,d.a~,:~._ ~....: ,._.>,.:,......-::-....~....~.~:~t~~r~ .... t~.l~' 0 -" ' '. -. ......... ,'- .... "'-:.".': "-~-':~:";. '. - '. , ..... . ...... _ .p......: .. _ .., .. ~i - /I,/ - ~. ~' ~-.(.> . · .., - ~ .,,.! .... ...;-_ .... - ~- ,: ,. -., :.., .... . -....,.,, , -....: .. .. :'~eouumea'a~)" ve.p~ie.' e%aoove, spedflcaflons and conditior~ are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made CCEPTED: "' a '7/?.2/2002 ~O~T 07:40 [TX/]~T N0 6305] Pase 1/2 Subco,,'- ~Ctors: By Design Consultapts. Ino lay Black'well Architect Iohnson Imaging System/blueprint .Aladar Michalek 53 Kelly I)rive Car~e, Pa 17013 Ctunbedand Valley Land Clearing, Ino 6820 We~t~viile Rd, Enola Pa 170250250 R.F. Excavating, New Bloomfield, Pa 17068 717 789-'45S4 Advanced Concreie Systems, Inc. Middlebur~ Pa 17842 717=837-3955 Hberly Lumber Company, Mechanicsburs, Pa 17055-0965 717-776-4773 Allied Building Products Corp. Lancaster, Pa 17520 717-581-5855 Collins Constntction Inc., Loewesl V~"mdows Fork ~ Ino 3925 Trindle P,~_4. Camp I-lill. Pa 17011 717-761-8700 Residential Technolol~ Systems, Inc 5300 Derry SWeet, Harrisburg, Pa 17111 D~ll~ur~ Septic & Hxcavagng 516 Range End Road, Dillsburg, Pa 17019 717-432-9704 W R Stansfield Constm~on 3672 Sprln~ Road. Carlisle.Pa 17013 Heldler Roofing, 1377 Spahn Ave York, Pa 17403 717- 843-99986 Cumberland Masonry Inc., PO box 678 Hew Cumberland 17070 717-74-6565 Gten-Gery Corpor~__t~on, Harrisb~r8 Brick Center Harrisbu~ Pa 17104 717-561-2651 Rii~uer's Hle~io 14 Fth,,,~n Road Dill-qburs, Pa 17019 717-432-962 Unruhl~.l~t~i¢, Shippensburg, Pa 717-530-8602 Ban- Plumbin~ Inc 47 ~rmdsor Way C~mp l-llll~ 17011 717-732-2523 Walters Services Inc, Grantviile~ Pa 17028 800-690-5756 07/22/2002 MON 07:40 [TX/RX N0 6305] Page 2/2 Boyer Con~haction & Pool Service 183 Moore Sh- .=et, lVlillea-/Imrg, Pa 17061 717-692- 3280 Premier Painters, Ino 232 South 3~a SI~ Lemoyne, Pa 717-730-0707 iackson Services, Harrisburg, Pa KnmlnekNursery, Ino. Etters, Pa 17319 800-646-6120 717-938-1113 Hempt Bros., Ino. P.O. Box 278 Camp yll]l. Pa 17001-02278 717-737-3411 The Home Depot 6000 Carlisle Pike, Pa 17055 717- 795-9602 Lowe's Home Center, In¢ 6520 Carlisle Pike, Meohnnlcsburg, Pa 17055 Yale Eleuh'i¢ 2207 Paxton Street, Harrisburg,. Pa 17111 717-233-8401 Morrison Ino 63 Gambers Comer Road, Duncannon, Pa 17020 717-834-5667 Charles Loose & Sons, Inc. P.O. Box 437 Myerstown Pa 170674)437 larusewski Overhead Door Service, Ino P.O. Box 652 Carlisle, pa 170113 717-243- 07122 T & S l~_glwork Corpol~tion, P.O. Box 456 Near Kingstown, Pa 17072 Chris Papoutris l~nronry, Shipp~sburg, Pa Kenneth Smith l~trror and Glass 3004 Marketstreet Road, Harrisburg 17109 Krall Richard, Ino Roseville, Pa 717- 432-4179 Brougher WM Conh acting hm F-nola, Pa 732-4665 S & K- BroWn Floor/ng, 240 North 67~ Sh,~t, ttmisburg Pa 17211 717-56~ 5614 Hardwood Warehouse 6195 Allentown. Bird, Han'hinu~ Pa 17012 717-548-5454 .: 07/22/2002 MON 07:40 [TX/RX NO 6305] A REGIONAL DEFENSE LITIGATION wssmm, C, oc m I 1845 Walnut Street- Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2600' Fax (215) 575-0856 Direct Dial: 215-575-2592 Emaii: ewilson~mdwcg.com July 19, 2002 Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C. 44 West Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Re.' Wrightstone Electric, Inc. v. Michalek No. 2002-1313, Civil Action-Law No. 02-1312, Mechanics' Lien LAW FIRM ll'll'e Vllam~ Omo Dear Mr. Snelbaker: Please find enclosed one (1) original and one (1) copy of the following documents addressed to your client: 1. Defendants' Request for Production of Documents; 2. Defendants' Request for Admissions; and 3. Defendants' Expert Interrogatories and Expert Request for Production of Documents. Kindly respond to same in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Very truly yours, EDVARD L. WILSON ELW/ldv Enclosures Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 86760 . 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21 s~- FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 7 -2 92 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Attorney for: DE~ND~rrS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION DEFENDANTS', ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHALEK, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF, WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. Pursuant to Pa.R. Civ. P. 4009, defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, request that plaintiff, Wrightstone Electric, Inc., produce the following documents for inspection and copying on August 19, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 1845 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or forward correct copies thereof to the undersigned counsel at his offices within thirty (30) days after service of this request. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to and incorporated by reference into each request: (A) The terms "you" and "your" refer to the plaintiff and any of your representatives. 03) The term "person" means any natural person, partnership, corporation or other business entity and all present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, partners, venturers, owners, attorneys and other acting or purporting to act on behalf of such natural person, partnership, corporation or other business entity. (C) The term "representative" means any past or present member, officer, director, employee, attorney, agent, workman, servant or other person or entity which has acted on any person's behalf. (D) The term "document" means any original, written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, and any tapes or disks and copies or transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for purposes of illustration, "document" includes any letter, memorandum, note, log book, note book, contract, agreement, workpaper, audit paper, spread sheet, study, report record, calendar, notice, deposition, minutes of meetings of board of directors or of shareholders ora corporation, job minutes, program, computation, accounting sheet, workpad, diary, legal opinion, message, telegram, brochure, computer printout, invoice, billing, graph, projection, · financial statement, balance sheet, journal entry, confirmation, photograph, blueprint, architectural drawing, advice or other items, whether in manuscript, handwritten, typewritten, primed, electronic, magnetic or other forms of recordation of any kind, and whether in original or in copy fonm (E) The term "communication" includes, but is not limited to, all inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, conferences, interviews, telephone conversations correspondence, notes, minutes, memoranda, telegrams, telexes, advertisements or other fomis of oral or written intercourse, however transmitted. (F) The term "relates to" means constitutes, refers, reflects, concerns, pertains to, or in any way logically or factually connects with the matter described. (G) With respect to document(s), the term "identify" means to give the date, title, author and addressee; identify with respect to documents further means: (I) To describe a document sufficiently well to enable the interrogator to know what such document is and to retrieve it from a file or wherever it may be located; (ID To describe it in a manner suitable for use as a description in a subpoena; 010 To give the name, address, position or title of the person(s) who has/have custody of the document and/or copies thereof. (I-1) The term "statement" is an all-inclusive term referring to any written utterance whether or not it is signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it and any oral utterance which has been contemporaneously recorded by stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or any other means or had been transcribed from such a recording so as to be a substantially verbatim recital of the verbal expression of the person making it. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION In construing these Requests: (A) The singular shall include the plural and plural shall include the singular. (B) A masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun shall not exclude the other genders. (C) Unless otherwise specified in the Request, each Request shall extend to all information and documents which have been available to you, in your possession or subject to your control up to the date of your response to these Requests. This paragraph does not limit your duty to supplement your responses. (D) These Requests are continuing, and any infom~ation secured subsequent to the filing of your answers which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, are to be supplied by supplemental answers. INSTRUCTIONS A. All documents shall be produced in their original file folders, or, in lieu of such production, you shall identify the file in which each document was located. In addition, each document produced shall be organized or marked to correspond to the numbered paragraph and subparagraph in response to which it is being produced. All original and non-identical copies of each responsive document shall be produced. B. Any document withheld under a claim of privilege shall be identified by its: (1) author; (2) addressee; (3) copy recipient; (4) type of document; (5) subject matter; (6) date; (7) file source; (8) type of privilege claimed; (9) the position and capacity of each person named in (1), (2) or (3) above; and (10) the facts on which you rely to support the claim of privilege. C. These Requests are continuing in nature, and any infomiation secured subsequent to the filing of your answers which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, are to be supplied by supplemental answers. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All ledgers, journals, canceled checks, invoices, cash books, credit memos, vouchers, and checkbook stubs relating to any transaction between you and defendants; 2. All communications between you and defendants; 3. All statements of account receivable which relate to you and defendants; 4. All receipts, purchase orders or invoices that relate to the materials lists attached to the Complaint; 5. All documents that related to your time keeping policies in effect during the preceding five (5) years. 6. All time sheets, time logs or punch cards which relate to your invoices attached to the Complaint; 7. All documents and billing policies, in effect during the preceding five (5) years, that relate to your hourly charges for the invoices attached to the Complaint; 5. All other memoranda, documents, diagrams or papers that relate to the subject of the Complaint. 6. All statements obtained relating to the subject of the Complaint. Dated: July 19, 2002 ~}I_I7kLIAB~ELW~DISC~186987~LDV~15000~00999 BY: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Mafia Miehalek Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDENTIIqCATION NO. 86760 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21n' FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION DEFENDANTS', ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHALEK, EXPERT INTERROGATORIES AND EXPERT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS~ ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF~ WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. Pursuant to Pa.R. Civ. P. 4003.5, defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, request that plaintiff, Wrightstone Electric, Inc., answer the within discovery within thirty (30) days after service of this request and in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All documents shall be produced for inspection and copying on August 19, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 1845 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or forward correct copies thereof to the undersigned counsel at his offices within thirty (30) days after service of this request. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to and incorporated by reference into each request: (A) The t~mis "you" and "your" refer to the plaintiff and any of your representatives. 03) The t~m~ "person" means any natural person, pmhlership, corporation or other business entity and all present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, partners, venturers, owners, attorneys and other acting or purporting to act on behalf of such natural person, pmh~ership, corporation or other business entity. (C) The term "document" means any original, written, typewfitten~ handwritten, printed or recorded material, and any tapes or disks and copies or transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for purposes of illustration, "document" includes any letter, memorandum, note, log book, note book, contract, agreement, workpaper, audit paper, spread sheet, study, report record, calendar, notice, deposition, minutes of meetings of board of directors or of shareholders of a corporation, job minutes, program, computation, accounting sheet, workpad, diary, legal . opinion, message, telegram, brochure, computer printout, invoice, billing, graph, projection, financial statement, balance sheet, journal entry, confirmation, photograph, blueprint, architectural drawing, advice or other items, whether in manuscript, handwritten, typewritten, printed, electronic, magnetic or other fom~s of recordation of any kind, and. whether in original or in copy form. (D) The term "relates to" means constitutes, refers, reflects, concerns, pertains to, or in any way logically or factually connects with the matter described. (E) With respect to document(s), the terns "identify" means to give the date, title, author and addressee; identify with respect to documents further means: (I) To describe a document sufficiently well to enable the interrogator to know what such document is and to retrieve it bom a file or wherever it may be located; (1I) To describe it in a manner suitable for use as a description in a subpoena; (lid To give the name, address, position or title of the person(s) who has/have custody of the document and/or copies thereof. (F) The term "statement" is an all-inclusive tem~ referring to any written utterance whether or not it is signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it and any oral utterance which has been contemporaneously recorded by stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or any other means or had been transcribed from such a recording so as to be a substantially verbatim recital of the verbal expression of the person making it. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION In construing the within discovery: (A) The singular shall include the plural and plural shall include the singular. (B) A masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun shall not exclude the other genders. (C) Unless otherwise specified in the Request, each Request shall extend to all information and documents which have been available to you, in your possession or subject to your control up to the date of your response to these Requests. This paragraph does not limit your duty to supplement your responses. (D) This discovery is continuing, and any infom~ation secured subsequent to the filing of your answers which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, are to be supplied by supplemental answers. INSTRUCTIONS A. All documents shall be produced in their original file folders, or, in lieu of such production, you shall identify the file in which each document was located. In addition, each document produced shall be organized or marked to correspond to the numbered paragraph and subparagraph in response to which it is being produced. All original and non-identical copies of each responsive document shall be produced. B. Any document withheld under a claim of privilege shall be identified by its: (1) author; (2) addressee; (3) copy recipient; (4) type of document; (5) subject matter; (6) date; (7) file source; (8) type of privilege claimed; (9) the position and capacity of each person named in (I), (2) or (3) above; and (10) the facts on which you rely to support the claim of privilege. C. These Requests are continuing in nature, and any information secured subsequent to the filing of your answers which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, are to be supplied by supplemental answers. EXPERT INTERROGATORIES AND EXPERT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. State the names and home and business addresses of all persons whom you expect to call as expert witnesses at the time oft'rial or arbitration. ANSWER: 2. For all those persons named in answer #1, state their occupations and if they specialize in any pa~icular field, set forth their areas of specialization. ANSWER: 3. Set forth the qualifications of those persons listed in answer #1. In doing so, list: (a) the schools each has attended, including years in attendance and degrees or certificates received; Co) experience in particular fields, including names and addresses of employers with inclusive years of employment; (c) a list of all publications authored by said persons, including the title of the work, the name of the periodical or book in which it was printed and the date of its printing; (d) list all professional associates and memberships of said persons, and the requirements for same; (e) list all honors and awards of said persons; and, (f) list all professional licensures and certifications. ANSWER: 4. Set forth the facts to which each such expert is expected to testify. ANSWER: 7 5. Set forth the opinion to which each such expert is expected to testify. ANSWER: 6. Set forth in detail the factual information supplied to each such expert which was used as a basis for his opinion, include all documents and statements used in preparation for said opinions. Produce copies of all such documentation. ANSWER: 7. Set forth a summary of the grounds (other than the facts requested in interrogatory #4) for each such opinion, including any text material, manuals, journals, trade papers, brochures, and price lists, upon which the expert witness will rely. Identify and produce all such documents. ANSWER: 10 7. As to all persons listed in answer #1, state the full captions of all cases in which that p~t~on has testified in the past ten (10) years. If the full captions are unavailable, give the names of the cases, names of attorneys, and state the names of each Court in which they were tried or arbitrated, as well as the approximate date of trial. ANSWER: 11 9. Set forth the date and time of each interview conducted by the persons identified in the answer to #1 in preparation for rendering their opinion. In doing so state the name and address of the persons interviewed and state the factual subject of the interview. ANSWER: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Dated: July 19, 2002 ~01_17~LIABkELWXDISC~186987~LDVM 5000X00999 BY: ~V~~.L. ~ON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek 12 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin BY: EOVAgO L. WILSON, ESQUIRE IDL~'n~'iCAT~ON NO. 86760 1845 WALNUT STREET, 21 s-r FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2592 WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK Attorney for: DEFENDANTS MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION DEFENDANTS', ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHALEK, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF, WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC. You are hereby requested to admit, for the purposes of this action only, the troth of the below listed factual statements and/or the genuineness of the below listed documents, by responding, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of these requests upon you, either admissions or sworn denials meeting the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014: 1. That the documents attached herewith reflect labor charges that are at least 5.5 times greater than the charges for the materials. BY: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN EDVARD L. WILSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek Dated: July 19, 2002 ~01_I7XLIAB~ELW~DISC~186987XLDV~15000~999 Imbo~ for the electrical work at you£.h.o.me-December &, 2000 to Dec,~mbe~ ~elpe~l - , ~cember 5, 2000 60-00 I Helper ~1 -7 ho~rs 210.00 ~cember 7, 2000 . , ~a&per ~1 - 7 hours' , , Electrician - 7 hour~s '280 O0 --:-~ ..... Helepr ~2 - '6 hours . 120.00 Electrician -. 6 hours 240.00 Electrician - 6 hours .240.00 Decenber 13, 2000 , t!~lper ~1 r 6 hours Helper ~3 - 3 hours " 80. O0 ' $~, 500,09 I I I ~ I ~TRTT A ~' ,._. .. .~ . ~.. for elect£ical york at your home' :--Deo~ber 14 th: Electrician - 34 hours -. ~2 - 30 hours December I 75O 2000 $3~760i00 - Helper. March 6. 2001 - Electrician' - Helper --- . .... - Helper : - Sha~,, (Helper) g~rrh'l~. ~001 - Eleetrleiafi .. 240.00 · 320.00 .2~o.oo 160.00 ._ 90.00 120.00 .... 90.00. 320.00 I I I I I I I I ' 25 2O 2o 60' 50 6 Naterials'list December 12, 2000 until"February 3, 2003 $ienans 2100 Breakers .. $iemaus 250 Breakers 2 $ienans 230 Breakers 25 siemans 120 Breakers 12 Siemans 115 Breakers 100 Tan wlrenuts Creen virenuts Red wirennts Cray vitenuts 250' 1 6 3/8" Romex connectors - 3/6" Rc~ex connectors 12/2 Rdnex Siemens G12241tB6060GC Panel 4 1 1 1" Romex'connectors LarRe Romex staples Snail Romex staples 14/2'Romex 6" Square boxes &" Sauare box blank c0~ers t2 l~uRs 12" x 12" x 4" Junction boxes" 2" ~ '. I 2" Locknuts .-. Tax ·!86.00 42.84 28.56 163.75 78.80 15.00 6.25 4.00 · R.O0 21.00 12.00 5.'40 ... 50.00. · 169.40 3.80 .50 2.00 25.50 9.70 5.10 Sl,01l 6~ 60 8s 151.20 26.60 16.95 1.20 1.10 ! 2 1 5 75' 30 Lamps. 8' 2-tube Strip fixtures 8' 1-tube Strip fixture 3/8" £o~x connectors . 12/2 Romex Tan virenuts 69.24 15.54 90 O0 45.00 1.20 15.00 15.00 Blue virenuts 2.60 Creeuiw_virenuts Almond CFI receptacles: Ground .scre~ . ~v~ :'~l~'I' ~e[~ 1 es · ' Plasti~ nail-on 'boxes #6 Bare ~round vlre ~ater pipe ground clamps 8~ ground rod Siemans grom~d' lug adaptors 2/0 AL/corner lugs t2 LA/copper bug ~" CarfI~l ~" Carflex connector 1" t9 3[~" Don~ts 1" x #10 P~astic anchors --- 8" Ty-ravs 3" Dry~all scerw~ 8/32 ~chine screvs ..50 · . -.= .... &O · ': ...... 36.b0 2.85 9.60 36.00 7.10 .. 6.32 3.90 30' 9 1 2 2 f 10' 1 2 10 10 15 10 5.25 7.50 1.45 1.10 1:oo 1.50 .15 .20 39*99 $706:43 lqarch 15, 2001 - Electrician Helper Electrician Helper Ymy 3, 2001 Helper* lO ~0o~ - Helper Carried: fo~ard from.Sheet - Electrician - Electrician,fl 120 90.00 150.00 240.00 120.00 2&O 120.( 150 I ! I ! ! ! ! - ! I I' I O0 I ~Hurray 2199 Breaker 7 75' 1 l 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 15 10' -, I~' 20 3/8" Ro~,~x connectoea 4" Square box i" Souar~boz blank ~ov~r Plastic old york box Ivor~ 220 '20-~mp receptacle Ivory 220 Receptacle cove£ Z~ry slngle ~le cover Tvnrv blsn~ cover l~ ~o~ veatherp~oof box G=een~irenut ~10 x 1~ Plastic anchors ~are ~$xture ~ire 1~~ D~I~all screvs Final Labor - Sheet #2 1.75 · .90 l.&5 5.95 .90 3.75 .60 .60 5.95 6.40 .25 2.00 1.50 8.70 1.00 26.89 .~0 I - I $149, 47 81 97 12(~ O0 2 8 kits' $onatubes Progress P8748-31 R Dot 4' F~oxes Tsx 21 57 168 8.5: 19.7~ I ! ! ;274~ 32 a6 $290~ 78 ! ! I 50' 15 4 200' 250' 50' 76' 2 2 10 2 40 5 4# round W/P Boxes 3 boxes 3/4K0 deep 2 Single w/pboxes 3/4" KO reLmlar 4 GIF receptaclest Ivory -. I Ivory receptacle 5 covers 4 3/4" FVC pull 90'e 10 3/4" PVC sweep 90's 3/4" PVC pipe 3/4" I~C couplings Hale adaptors PUC 2-hole straps UF .... Romex ; 15 1 16 14'/3 12/2 ur. 4 x 4 Boxes 4 x44 Blank covers 3/8" R~x connectors Ground .screws Tan virenuts 2" PVC -- 2" Couplings bags of Redi-Hix concrete 15amp Se!hens Breaker (sp) Sit!cone sealer roll Rubber tape 1 25 PUC glue Tax roll Vinyl tape ~. Plastic anchors and screws 4" Rpind weatheroroof cover (3 hole) small Romex staples 42.00 24.57. !7.00 55.80 2.95 22.50 16.40 15.00 25.08 6.00 1o.53 56.00 67.50 12.00 16.50 4.50 3.20 7.20 6~00 3.20 75.00 8.00 3.65 ' 7.50 2.10 3.20 2.89 Contlnuled sheet #2 .25 1.O0 $52( 28 3b 22 I' I I Labor-- December 5, 2001 December 6, 2001 December 7, 2001 - Electrician - Electrician Helper - ElectriCian Helper December 10, 2001 - I~cembe~ 11,. 2001 - Electrician Helner Elecgrician Helper 520~ 28 31 22 I $60~ O0 560~ O0 I 560~ O0 ...... 560~ O0 38~ O0 3116/0t 3/16/01 7/12/01 8/28/01' ra ' JLE--2~4-2~3 ......... 04: 42P F~: ~EL~DLO~f ~ 717~-~ TO: 121~5-2~B8~6 p: 2x~ 1~00~/018 oi:m~,li~ow~ intmnsti~ imdbdi~ Tlis ~ is subject to th~ pmaltics ofl8 Pa. C.S. 07/24/2002 WED 16:46 [TX/RX NO 6684] A REGIONAL DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM / co,...,,.. I 1845 Walnut Street- Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 (215) 575-2600 · Fax (215) 575-0856 Direct Dial: 215-575-2592 Emafl: ewilson~mdwcg, com August 9, 2002 Richard Snelbaker, Esquire SNELBAKER, BI~NNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 W. Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Re,* Wrightstone Electric, Inc. vs. Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek C.C.P., Cumberland County, Civil Action Number: 2002-1313 Our File Number: 15635-00107 Dear Mr. Snelbaker: Please find enclosed the Answer of Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Objections and to Compel Complete, Responsive Answers to Interrogatories, and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. I am available at your convenience to resolve the above referenced discovery dispute without judicial intervention. I will of course withdraw defendants' Motion for Sanctions should you be willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue and resolution of same. ELW/vrc Enclosure \01 _21 ~LIAB~ELW~CORR~348830\VRC\15635'~00107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Edvard L. Wilson, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, ALADAR MICHALEK AND MARIA MICHALEK, TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL COMPLETE, RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS upon counsel as listed below on the 9th day of August, 2002 via U. S. First Class Mail. Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN WILSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants \01 _21 ~LIAB~ELW~LLPG~348778WRC\15635\00107 C.~) c~-~ C~ (..) LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' .MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff Wfightstone Electric, Inc., by its attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C. submits this Response to Defendants' Motion For Sanctions as follows: 1. Admitted with the qualification that the Complaint is this matter, being in writing, speaks for itself. 2. Denied. It is denied that this action has been prosecuted in a vexatious and unprofessional manner. To the contrary, Plaintiff has only taken steps necessary to obtain timely and complete answers to discovery requests, which steps are permissible under applicable Rules of Civil Procedure where in this case, neither timely nor complete responses were provided by the Defendants. 3. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs counsel served over 40 interrogatories upon Defendants. To the contrary, only 32 interrogatories were served. By way of further response, Defendants have waived this objection by failing timely to raise it. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs counsel filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. It is denied, to the extent it is implied, that prior notice of filing of the Motion was required. The filing of the Motion was proper and the procedure for doing so was in compliance with applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Defense counsel was served with the Interrogatories and was aware of the obligation to provide timely responses, but failed even to request an extension of time to respond when apparently it was needed. 5. Denied. It is denied that interrogatories that request a party to state the factual basis of a contention are improper in form. By way of further response, Defendants have waived such objection. 6. Denied. It is denied that the Interrogatories served on Defendants are designed to harass the Defendants. To the contrary, they are designed to obtain factual information for the bases of numerous defenses and contentions raised by the Defendants in their Answer With New Matter, which defenses and contentions if raised, must have a reasonable basis in fact and law. By way of further response, Interrogatory 29 which Defendants cite as being an example of an Interrogatory designed to "harass" them, was answered by Defendants and not the subject of Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Objections. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted a Motion to Dismiss Objections was filed; it is denied that such a Motion is incredible due to the responses Defendants submitted. By way of example, Defendants raise 17 "General Objections" and numerous specific objections to the Interrogatories and failed to provide the factual basis for numerous defenses and contentions raised in their pleadings. It is denied that Plaintiff's answers to Defendants discovery have any bearing on the factual bases, or lack thereof, of Defendants' contentions and defenses. 8. Denied. It is denied that there has been a violation of C.C.L.R. 206-2(c). By way of further response, the Motion to Dismiss Objections was proper given the Interrogatory responses provided by Defendants. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNeMaN & SPARE 9. Denied. It is denied that Defendants provided "responsive answers to virtually all" Interrogatories for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Objections, the -2- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE averments of which are incorporated by reference herein. 9. [sic] Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Pa.R.C.P. 4019(h) provides for discovery sanctions. It is denied any motion was filed by Plaintiff for purpose of delay or bad faith. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss was filed due to the incomplete and non-responsive answers that were cloaked by Defendants under numerous inapplicable objections. Plaintiff seeks and continues to seek the factual basis for the numerous defenses and contentions raised by the Defendants in the most economic means available in a case that claims damages of less than $9,000.00. As the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in ~, 49 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1987) noted: An interrogatory that obliges a party to provide any information known to that party which supports a specific allegation within a pleading seeks only discoverable information. And a candid response merely places the moving party on the same footing with the responding party. If the latter has no information concerning a specific allegation, he or she should simply say so. There is absolutely nothing to fear from such a response in the early stages of litigation. Frisby, sunra., at 115-116. (footnote omitted) Defendants have failed to state the basis of their defenses and contentions in numerous interrogatory responses, apparently out of fear that they have no information in support of them. 10. Paragraph 10 of Defendants' Motion contains a series of conclusions of 1aw not applicable to the matter before this Court; therefore, same are denied. 11. Paragraph 11 of Defendants' Motion contains statements of suggestion by Defendants and legal conclusions to which no response is required by this party. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the letter attached to the Motion as Exhibit D was sent to Attorney Snelbaker, but only in conjunction with Defendants' -3- Motion for Sanctions. It is denied the Defendants' counsel has attempted in any meaningful way to resolve the discovery dispute. On August 9, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman, counsel for Plaintiff, received a telephone call from Defendants' counsel, Edvard Wilson. The only effort Defendants' counsel made to resolve the discovery dispute after his filing of a Motion for Sanctions was to request that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Objections be withdrawn, which request was denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrequests this Court to deny Defendants' Motion For Sanctions. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. Date: August 20, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. LAW OFFICES SNELbaKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE -4- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Response to Defendants' Motion For Sanctions are tree and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4909 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: August 20, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE _CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have on the below date, caused a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion For Sanctions to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Edvard L. Wilson, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street 21 st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 Date: August 20, 2002 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff VS. ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-1313 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEl, ORDER AND NOW, this ~- q * day of August, 2002, the motion of the plaintiffto compel answers to written interrogatories is GRANTED. The defendant shall file discrete answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories, contention interrogatories or otherwise, within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. Following the expiration of said sixty-day period, the plaintiffmay seek an order precluding the defendants from adducing evidence with respect to any contention or other matter which was the subject of an unanswered interrogatory. fKeith O. Brenneman, Esquire For the Plaintiff '~dvard L. Wilson, Esquire For the Defendants BY THE COURT, :rim COYNE AND COYNE BY: Lisa Coyne, Esquire ATTORNEY ID # O"~7t$~ 3901 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for DEFENDANTS, MARIA AND ALADAR MICHALEK, h/w WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, 1NC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, in the above-captioned matter. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: Edvard L. Wilson, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek, in the above-captioned matter. COYNE AND COYNE A isa Coyne, Esq~ /' J .6'-$ ttorney for Defendants, Aladar Michalek and Maria Michalek WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff V. ALADARMICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF C0~ON PLEAS OF CL%IBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-1313CIVIL ~ RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantialiv in the following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Keith 0. Brenneman , counsel for the plaintiff/4~-~ in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $ 8~976.50 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is 0 The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are other- wise disqualified to sit as arbitral_ors: Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare,P~C. Coyne & Coyne, P.C. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) ar~itrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Date: January 9, 2004 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, , 19_ , foregoing petition, Esq., Esq., an4 Re~mit:ed, Keith O. Brenneman in consideration of ~he ,Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. By the Court, Po Jo C WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF C0~[MON PLF~%S OF CL%~BERLAND COUNTY , PENIqSYLVA/~IA NO. 2002-1313CIVIL ~ RULE 1312-1. The Petitio~ for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially i~ the following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Keith O. Brenneman , counsel for the plaintiff/dafendant in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue- 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $ 8,976.50 ~e counterclaim of the defendant in the action is 0 The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are other- wise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare,P.C Coyne & Coyne, P.C. WHEP. EFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Date: January 9, 2004 Re__mitred, Keith O. Brenneman ORDER OF COURT Esq., an4 ,~/ ~~ ,Esq., are appointed arbitrators in ~he above-captiOned action (or actions) as prayed for. By th~ IN THE COURT OF coMMoN PLEAS OF. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. OO TZ , 1313 T P.U We do solemnly swear (or affmxa) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. ~~l~_t4,~2.~.(~' AwARD'~ We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated) Date of Award: ~ [~[o q C~.,.~~ NOTICE OF ENVY OF AW~ Now, the ~&~y of~~ . 2~, at I :~, ~ .M., the above awed was entered upon the docket ~d notice th~eof given ~ mail to t~e pa~ies or t~ a~omeys. ~ibi~ators'compensafion to be ~~ ~.~_ Paid upon appeal: Pro~onom~ ~ ' ~ ~e.~. 1AW OFfICeS SNELBaKEr. BrENNeMAN & SPAre WRIGHTSTONE ELECTRIC, 1NC., Plaintiff ALADAR MICHALEK and MARIA MICHALEK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-1313 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action discontinued and ended upon your docket and indices. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. Date: October 19, 2004 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Wrightstone Electric, Inc.