The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-01383 " '.. " 'j I , 1 ' " II , '/1 'I,' i' ..-I', " Iii' i, , ili , ill " , ,I'IJ, I ;/~ " , ".f,,!I, i! , ',d~ ',11 J! , , " , " , " " , 'I '; " " , " " ,II , , , , , /,1: .1 I 'I " (~ , , " . " ,II I'j , , " " " , " , , 'I I, '. " i " 'I " , , 'I " , , !, , " , ' , '" 'I " , I, , 1 I, /;/ I' " ,I " , IAWI8, GUIDO, sltUrr II MASLAND 26 W, "11h S"ltl C",U.I'.PA . ' - ttJA . BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff I IN THE COURT or COMMON P~EAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY~VANIA I I I NO, 94-1383 I I I I I CIVIL ACTION LAW I I v, DAVID McGOWAN, MRS, DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL/ Defendl'nts MOTIO. FOR IUMNARY JUDGM..T AND NOW, comes Defendants, David McGowan and Deborah McGowan, by and through their attorneys/ Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and files a Motion for Summary Judgment and represents as follows I 1, On April 6/ '994, Plaintiffs Bruce G. Harris and Nancy Harris filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County against Defendants, David McGowan, Mrs. David McGowan, Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service and Chris Cantrell, A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2, On April 27, 1994/ Defendant David McGowan and Mrs. David McGowan (hereinafter "McGowans" , filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim. A copy of the Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", 3. On June 2, 1994, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the New Matter and Coullterclaim with New Matter. A copy of Plaintifte' Reply to New Matter and Counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". " SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUrr Ie MASLAND 26 w, HlaII 51m1 CIIlI,lt,PA . .. . .' 4. On Juno 22, Plaintiffs' New Matter, 1994, the McGowans filed a Reply to A copy of tho Reply to New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "0", 5. The Plaintiffs allege that the McGowans trespassed on the Plaintiffs' property and cut brush, trees and limbs on the Plaintiffs' side of the property line in the Fall of 1992 and Hey of 1993, Complaint, paragraph 14, 16, and 19, Exhibit "A". 6, Plaintiffs also allege that the Dofendants oversprayed vegetation killer which damaged plan~Lngs on Plaintiffs' property, Complaint, paragraph 19, Exhibit "A", 7. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the McGowans hired a contractor, Dillsburg Septic, to perform work and that the contractor dumped soil and pieces of black top on Plaintiffs' property, Complaint, paragraph 20, Exhibit "A", a, Defendants did not cut any branches, brush or limbs on Plaintiffs' property in the Fall of 1992 or in May of 1993, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 13, attached hereto as Exhibit "E", 9, The McGowans did not overspray any vegetation killer that damaged any vegetation on Plaintiffs' property, Affidavit of HcGowans, paragraph 16, Exhibit "E", 10, The McGowans never directed Dillsburg Septic or any of its employees to dump debrls from their work on Plaintiffs' property. Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 111 Affidavit of Riok Livingston of Dillsburg Septio Service, attached hereto as Exhibit "F", 2 SAlDI8, GUIDO. SHurr II MASLAND 26 w, Hlall Slml CIIII.li,PA . .. . .. 11, The McGowans never directed Defendant Vnion Hall Lawn and Garden Service or Chris Cantrell to conduct any oversprayin9 on Plaintiffs' property or cut or trim limbs, shrubs, bru8h or treas on Plaintiffs' property, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraphs 8 and 15, ~xhibit "E", Affidavit of Chris Cantrell of Vnion Hall Lawn and Garden Service, attached hereto a8 Jlxhibit "G", 12, Vnion Hall Lawn and Garden Service was hired by the McGowans in May of 1993 to conduct landscapiug on the McGowan.' property, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 3, Exhibit "E", Affidavit of Chris Cantrell, ~xhibit "G", 13, After the initial instructions on the scope of the work and the location of the property lins between the McGowan property and the Harris property, the McGowans did not supervise or control the wor.k of Vnion Hall Lawn and Garden Service, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 7, ~xhibit "~", 14, Vnion Hall Lawn and Garden Service was an independent contractor, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph. 3 and 7, Affidavit of Chris Cantrell, Exhibit "G". 15. Prior to the commencement of work by Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service, the Mctlowans surveyed the property line between the McGowan property and the Harris property, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 2, ~xhibit "E", 16, Before Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service began work, David McGowan showed Chris Cantrell the property line and Mr. Cantrell ran a string between the stakea to assist his employees 3 . .,. -, in their awareness of the boundary line, Affidavit of Chr\.1 Cantrell, Exhibit "G", Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paraqraphs 5 and 6, Exhibit "E", 17. If any brush, limbs, shrubs or trees were cut by the employees of Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service, it was done a~ainst the wishes of the McGowans. Affidavit of Chris Cantrell, Exhitlit "G". 18, In June of 1993, the McGowans contraated with Dillsburq Septic Service to extend the McGowan driveway at 130 Clearview Place, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Affidavit of Rick Livingeton, Exhibit "G", Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 9, Exhibit "E", 19, The employees of Dillsburg Septic Servic~ dumped debris from the excavation on the rear of. the McGowan property and accidentally placed some of the debris on the property of Plaintiffs. Affidavit of Rick Livingston, Exhibit "F", 20, The debris was removed by Dillsburg Septic Service in late spring or early summer of 1994, Livingston, Exhibit "F", 21. The McGowanlJ never directed or authorized the employees Affidavit of Rick IAIDIS. GUIDO, SHurr II of David and Oeborah McGowan, paragraph 11, Exhibit "E", MA8LAND 26W, HlabS,,.., 22, Prior to Dillsburg Septic Company dumping any dirt or CorIl,I"PA debris from the excavation, the McGowans advised Dillsburg Septic company of the location of the property line and advised them not of Dillsburg Septic Service to dump any debris on the Plaintiffs' property, Affidavit of Rick Livingston, Exhibit "F", Affidavit 4 . BAIDIS, GUIDO, BHU.... " MABLAND 26 W, Hl.h S'm' CIIII,II, PA . . to crolll the line, Affidavit of Dllvid Ilnd Deboroh MoGowan, parograph 10, Exhibit" E" , 23, After the initial instruotions on the soope of the work and the looation of the property line, the MoGowllnlll did not control or supervise the work of Dillsburg Septic Company. Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 12, Exhibit "S" t 24. At all times relevant hereto, Dillsburg Septic Servioe waR an independent contractor, Affidavit of David and Deborah MoGowan, paragraph 9 and 12, Exhibit "E" I Affidavit of Riok ~ivingston, Exhibit "G", 25, The McGowans did not trespass on Plaintiffs' property. Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 17, Exhibit "Ell . 26, To the extent that any trespass occurred, the trespass was done by independent contractors of the McGowans and was not done at the direction of the McGowans, 27. Since there is no evidence of any trespass on the part of the McGowans, the McGowans request that the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment, 28, In the alternative, if the Court determines that a cause of action still exists against tho McGowans, then the McGowans request that tho Court enter partial Summary Judgment on punitive damages and the claims against Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service. ~ SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUn" MASLAND 26 W, HI.h SI..'I CllIIlaI"PA . . 29, No evidence exists to support a claim of outrageoul conduct on the part of the McGowana, 30, Any actions by employees of Dillsburg Septic Service or Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service that resulted in trespass on Plaintiffs' proporty was inadvertent and by mistake. Affidavit ot Rick Livingston, Exhibit "F" I Affidavit of Chris Cantrell, Exhibit "G", 31 ,The McGowans retained a surveyor to survey the property line to make sure that a troapaoo did not occur, Aft idavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 2, Exhibit "E", 32, The McGowans advised both Dilloburg Septic Service and Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service of the boundary between the McGowan property and the Harris property and directed them not to Cl."OSB the property line, Affidavit of David and Deborah McGowan, paragraph 6 and 10, Exhibit "E"I Affidavit of Chris Cantrell, Exhibit 'G', and Affidavit of Rick Livingston, Exhibit 'F', 33, There is no evidence of any outrageous conduct on the part of the McGowans, 34, Plaintiffs have entered into a joint tortfeasor release with Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service and Chris Cantrell. A copy of the Release is attached hereto as Exhibit 'H'. 35. Although the McGowans contend that Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service was an independent contractor, to the extent that the Court determines that Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service was an agent of the McGowans, the McGowans ohould be released from eny further liability based on the ~elease. 6 ~ lauc. G. ~IS and NANCY HAJQtIl, plaintiffs v. DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDIN SBRVICE and CHRIS CANTRBLL, Defendants ~ .. ., I IN THB COURT or COMMON PLEAS I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I NO. 94-1383 I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I COMPLAINT 1. plaintiff., Bruoe G. Harris and Nancy Harri. are adult individual. re.idinq at 472 We.t Old York Road, Diokinson Township, carli.le, penn.ylvania 17013. 2. Defendant., Mr. and Mr.. David MoGowan are adult individuals re.idinq at 130 Clearview Place, Dickinson Township, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendant, Union Hall Lawn and Garden servioe i. I bu.ine.. with offioe. at 4322 Enola Road, Newville, Penn.ylvania 11241. 4. Defendant Chril Cantrell is an adult individual and qeneral manaqer of union Hall Lawn and Garden servioe. 15. Pleintifta ow'n property in Dickinson Township, Cumber- land County, Pennsylvania. 6. Defendlnt., Mr. and Mrs. David McGOWin allo own property in Dickin.on Township, cumberland county, Pennsylvania. ~ " . 7. The property ot Detendant. MoGowan lie. immediately north ot . portion ot the property owned by Plaintitt. and the two propertie. ehare a oommon property line. 8. Betore tall 199a, the oommon property line w.. .oreened by bru.h and tree. primarily looated on property ot Plaintitt.. 9. In tall 199a, Detendant. MoGowan hired Union Hall Lawn and Garden Servioe to pertorm land.oaping work on their property. 10. Detendant chri. Cantrell wae in oharge ot the work pertormed by union Hall Lawn and Garden Servioe.. 11. All Detendant. were aware ot the looation ot the property line between the pr.opertie.. 12. Detendant. MaGowan wanted the .creen opened .0 that they would have a view ot the .outh mountain. 13. Detendant. MoGowan alBo wanted the brueh and tree. out to .uit their own land.oaping objeotive.. 14. The Detendant., with tull knowledge ot the property line and Plaintitt., property right., in the tall ot 199a tre.- pa.eed onto plaintitt'. property and wrongtully and detiantly out and/or oau.ed and permitted to be out brush, tree., and limb. looated on Plaintitt., .ide ot the property line. 15. When Plaintitt Bruoe G. Harri. discovered the outtin9 in the tall ot 199a, he .poke to the MoGowan. and told the. not to out any other tree. or brush on hie side ot the property line, - a - . . , . without waivinq any olaim. for the wronqful outtinq that took place in the tall ot 1992. 16. Deepite the above in.truotion end demand made in the tall ot 1992, Detendant. in May 1992 aqain wronqtully and deti- antly tre.pa..ed anto Plaintiff'. property and a9ain out and/or cau.ed and permitted to be out tree., limb. and bru.h on Pla- intift.' .ide of the line. 17. A. a re.ult of the wron9ful outtinq on Plaintiff.' .ide ot the property line, there i. now an openinq in the .oreen that previou.~y exi.ted between the two propertie.. The openinq i. approximately 30 yarde lonq. 18. It Defendants had out only on their side of the line, there .till would be a .olid soreen between the two propertie.. 19. After the wronqful outtinq in May 1993, whioh followed th~ wronqful outtinq in the fall of 1992, Detendant. over.prayed with .ome form of veqetation killer. As a result, the .pray went onto the property ot Plaintiff.. A. a re.ult of the over.pray, a number of plantinq. on Plaintiff.' property have been killed. 20. Further, after the wronqful cuttinq in May 1993, Defendante MoGowan hired another contractor, Dill.burq septic, to perform .ome work on the driveway area of their property. Defendant. McGowan either oau.ed or permitted the contractor to dump .oil and piece. of blacktop onto Plaintiff.' property alonq the Harrie/McGOWan property line. - 3 - . . ~ 31. De.pite demand, to date, neither Defendant. McGowan nor the contractor have removed the .oil from Plaintiff.' property. 32. In order. to replaoe the .oreen that previou.ly exi.ted between the Harri./MoGoWan properti.., it i. n.o....ry to pl.o. pl.ntinq. in the area. 33. The total rea.onable co.t of the r.a.onably required plantinq. for that purpo.e i. $1,950. The e.timate of Suncr..t Gard.n. tor .uoh plant1nq. 11 attached hereto a. Ixhibit "A" and inoorporated herein by referenoe. 34. Defendant. MoGoWan, Union Hall Lawn and Garden service, and chri. cantrell are jointly and .everally liable for the co.t. ot the atore.aid plantinq.. 35. In order to remove the dirt and a.phalt dumped over the line it will co.t approximately $330 to hire a oontraotor for that purpo.e. Attached hereto a. Ixhibit "8" 11 the ..tillate for the removal of the dirt. 26. Defendant. McGowan are jointly and .everally li.ble tor the oo.t of removinq the dirt. 27. Plaintiff.' property riqht. have been violated by the aotion. ot Defendant.. 28. All Defendant. have tre.pa..ed on Plaintiff.' property .nd are liable for qeneral damaqe. for tre.pa.. to re.l property. 29. The value of the tree. and bru.h that waG cut on Plaintiff.' property i. at lea.t $1,950. - 4 - . ~ 30. A. a r..ult of the aotionu of D.f.ndant. a. I.t forth above, Plaintiff. have ,uffered and .ndur.d .motional up.et and di.tr... tor whioh plaintiff. d.mand oomp.n.ation in an amount within the juri.diotion of the arbitrators. 31. Th. oonduot of D.fendant. in willfully trespa..inq on Plaintiff.' prop.rty and willfully cuttinq tree. and bru.h d..pite opeoific in.truotion. from Plaintiff. not to do '0, wa. wilful, outraqeoul, wanton, and int.ntional and, ther.fore, Defendant. are liable for punitive dam4qe', WHEREFORE, plaintiff. Bruo. G. Harri. and Nancy Harria d.mand judqm.nt aqainst D.fendant., Mr. and Mr.. McGowan in the amount of $2,270 toqether with qeneral damaq.. and punitive damaq... plaintiff' furth.r d.mand jUdqm.nt aqain.t Union Hall Lawn and Gard~n s.rvic. and Chlil cantrell, jointly and ..v.rally in the amount of $1,950 toqeth.r with qen.ral damaq.. and puni- tiv. damaq... By . ano an I.D. No. 21401 100 pin. str..t P. O. BOX 1166 Harri.burq, PA 17108-1166 (717) 232-8000 Attorney. for Plaintiff. - 5 - " , -SWla'le.1t 0a!u{en~ tho .}Ian'y QJik~ c::Mt, ..:Jf<JL{y .d/Hil'':J~' !P.;;If l'/L16;H9lJl} 13v-v"Q... 6. tf (tN,~. 'I S L(7~- l,U. o(J y o~ f Pc2 , CI4"~ I P4 /7(1/) , " g"':J:J ..dI, gut.kll ('111) 4,,.6 ""F I/O Ii 'I &/~..I,.,) Ji~ u tl"- €4 f, ~ e1 ttt f.J. F~~ ~""",I- c"s! 6 -(J.. ftc.-:""'{, I 5"" ~ .3 5'{), ~ J.'- W,vJ 91f'0 :3 0 (?, ~!i if ~5'!/.(r ill ~tH uj;;~ , 7 1 ~ 2) 6)"S"", " /".t bt-- 6f;~1.ft 6,5" fl/?Q). , " , ~/1t p~ffi,j I ; txh;h,'f ';1" i ! ~ A " BRUCE G, HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiffll IN 'I'HE COURT OF COMMON PI,EAS O~' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYlNANIA v, NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAW AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAYi'; !i , N ....1 , .' _'I:, ".. N , " :J. " ..." '. " c.' "'t .. '.', If ;~: ''''I ~ .I.'I~" :.'! . . .:..~ - '... ~ NOTICE TO Pl..AD TOI Mr. and Mrs. Bruce G. Harris clo Delano M. Lantz, Esquire 100 Pine Street P,O, Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17010 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date I 4/~ '/f'l SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HASLAND BYI ~ Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. I,D. * 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants McGowan , IA1D18, GUIllO ,~ "MASI.ANn 2. w, tII.h 5"", Clllhl., P^ 'lAIDIS, GUlllO , MASl.ANI) 26 W, Hllh 51"" C"U.lr, PA " BRUC~ G, HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, . Plaintiffs IN THF. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAW AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, NO. 94-13113 Defendante CIVIL ACTION LAW AM'WSR WITH HIW HATTIR AND COUHTIRCLAXM AND NOW, come Defendants, David McGowan and Deborah McGowan by and through their attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and answer the Complaint as follows I 1-2, Admitted. 3. Admitted upon information and bellef, 4 , Admitted upon information and ballef, 5-7. Admitted. 8. Denied as stated. It is admitted that a buffer of trees, weeds and brush has existed along the common property line. It is denied that a "screen" exiated, To the contrary, at all relevant times, huge gaps existed in said trees and brush. It is furthsr denied that a majority of the trees and brush were loc~ted on Plaintiffs' property, It is impossible to tell on whose property the majority were located, 9. Denied, To the contrary, Defendants McGowan did not hire Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service to perform any wor~ on their property prior to the spring of 1993, 10, Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, Chris Cantrell was in charge of the work to be " performed by Union Hall, It is denied that Union Hall waij hired to do any work in the fall of 1992, 11, Denied as stated. Prior to January 1993, Defendants McGowan had only a rough approximation of the location of the property line, Because of the apparent pettiness of Plaintiff Bruce Harris, Defendants McGowan hired a surveyor to stake out the property line so that they could properly landscape their own property without causing any confronta~ion with their neighbor who was obviously obsessed with the sanctity of his brush and weeds, 12. Denied, To the contrary/ Defendants McGowan were only interested in clearing and landscaping their own property. They had no intention of "opening the screen" to give a view of the South Mountain. By way of further answer, it is denied that a "screen" existed, By way of further answer/ their landscaping plan called for a row of Arbor Vitaes which would act as a screen, 13. Denied ao stoted, It is admltted that Defendants McGowan wanted some of the brush and trees on their property cleared to suit their landscaping needs, It is denied that they wanted all of the brush and treeB on their property removed, It is specifically denied that they wanted any of the brueh or trees AmIS, CiUmo "MASl.ANI) rQmoved from Plaintiffs' property, To the contrary, some of the J~ w. 111111 Sir'" {'lfll.I.. Pi\ brush and trees were left on Dsfendants' property and all of the brush and trees were left on the Plaintiffs' property, 14, The response to paragraph 11 is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer / it is sped flcally denied Ii AmI!!, OUlJ)O " MA8J.ANll 1ft W, lIi.h S"", Ca,lill" PA '. that Defendants McGowan cut or caused or permitted to be cut nny brush, treeo or limbo loceted on Plaintiffo' property in the fall of 1992, To the contrary, if any bruoh, trees or limbs were cut on Plaintiffs' property in the fall of 1992, said cuttinq was done by other parties without the knowledqe of D~fendants. 1!;, Denied as stated. The response to paragraph 14 is incorporated herein by reference, By way of further answer, it is admitted that Plaintiff Bruce G, Harris confronted the McGowans in the fall of 1992 and told them not to touch anything on his ::>roperty. It is denied that the MCGowans, or anyone acting on t.heir behalf or with their authority had cut anything on the Plaintiffs' property, 16. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant.s McGowan never cut, caused or permitted to be cut any trees, limbs or brush on Plaintiffs' property, 17, Denied. The reoponses to paragraphs 8, 12 and 16 are incorporated herein by reference, By way of further answer, if any new opening exists, which is denied, it was caused by the l/lwful removal of trees, weeds and brush from the McGowan property, 18, Denied. The responses to paragrapha 8, 12, 16 and 17 are incorporated herein by reference, 19 , Denied. The responses to paragraphs 14 and 16 are incorporated herein by reference, By way of further answer, Defendants McGowan never over-sprayed any form of vegetation killer on their property, By way of further answer, it is denied 3 " that any action on McGowans' property resulted in any plantings on Plaintiffs' pr~perty having been killed, lifter reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowlodge or information sufficient to form a belief os to the truth of said averments and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, 20. Admitted in part and denied in part, It is au~itted that Defendants McGowan hired Dillsburg Septic to perform some work on their driveway in 1993, All other averments contained therein are denied, To the contrary, Defendants McGowan neither caused nor permitted nillsburg Septic to dump soil and/or pieces of blacktop on the Plaintiffs' property. Any such material that may have been placed on Plaintiffs' property was done so by Dillsburg Septic without the knowledge, permission, or authority of Defendants McGowan. 21. Denied as stated. Dillsburg Septic has acknowledged their mistake to Plaintiffs and has asked Plaintiff Bruce Harris for the opportunity to remove the soil from Plaintiffs' property at no cost to Plaintiffs. 22, Denied. The rssponses to paragraphs 8, 12, 17 and 18 ars incorporated herein by reference. 23, Denied, It is denied that the items set forth in ;AlDIS. GUJl)O , MASLANJ) 26 W, Ill,h 51"" Carll II., fA Exhibit "A" are "reasonably required plantings." To the contrary, there ars no plantings roasonably required to r.estore the integt'ity of the brush, tree and weed buffer between the parties' property. By way of further answer, It is denied that the costs set f.orth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable. After 4 t " '. rC/l6onable invlluLig/ltlon, Daflmdantu /lro wit.hout knowledqe or information aufflciont to form a belief as to the truth of that averm~nt and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, 24, Denied, The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary, 25. Denied, To the contrary, said dirt can, and will upon request, be removed by Dillsburg Septic at no ch~rge, 26, Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response i8 necessary, 27, Denied. The avermentB contained therein lire conclusions of law to which no response is necessary, 2B. Denied. The averments contained therein IIro conclusions of law to which no response is necesBary, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Defendants McGowan trespassed on Plaintiffs' property, To the contrary, neither of the McGowans have ever been on Plaintiffs' property, 29. Denied, Defendants McGowans' responses to paragraphs 16 and 23 are incorporated herein by reference. 30. Denied, Some of the averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary, By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendants McGowan are without knowledge or information sufficient to form ,~Jl)IS, GUll)O .. MASI.ANJ) 8 belief as to the truth of the averments 8et forth therein and 16 w, /IIah s"", C"lIllo. "A atrict proof thareof i8 demanded at trial. 31, Denied, The averments contained therein 81'S conclusions of law to which no response is nece88ary, By way of 5 ;AIDl8, GUll>O , MA8LANI) 16 W, llI.h Slrttl C.rllll., rA " further answer, it is specifically deniod that McGowans ever willfully treopa8sod upon the px'operty of Plaintiffs or willfully cut any trees or brush thereon, WHEREFORE, Defandanto McGowan pray this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants McGowan together with costs of this action, ..11f MATTIR 32, In October of 1992, Plaintiff Bruce Harris advised the McGowans that he was adamantly opposed to the housing development in which the McGowans' property is located. 33, At the same timo, Defendant Hruce Harris advised the McGowans that someone had cut a "branch" along the tree line, He further warned them against tOllching any trees or vegetation along their common boundary. 34. SUbsequently, the McGowans became aware of Plaintiff Bruce Harris' reputation in the community for confrontation over seemingly petty property disputes, 35, During the winter and spring of 1992-1993 the McGowano developed a landscaping plan for their proper.ty with the help of Defendants Cantrell and Union Hall, 36, As a result of the statements and warnings of Plaintiff Bruce Harris, as well as Defendant McGowans' knowledge of his reputation, the McGowans hired a surveyor to specifically delineate the property line so as to avoid a confrontation with the Plaintiffs, 6 ,AlDIS, GUll>O , "MASUNI) 1& W, Hllh S"", CorUalt, "^ " 37, In Mlty of 1993, Defendants McGowan contracted with Defendants Cantro~1 and Union hall to begin work on their landscapillg plan. 38, Prior to the commencement of the work, the McGowans specifically instructed Defendants Cantrell and Union Hall not to cut or touch anything on the Plaintiffs' property, 39. Prior to the commencement of the work, at the insistence of the MCGowans, a ~tring was attached between the stakee along the McGowan and Harris property line so the boundary would be clear to the workmen, 40, Shortly after the w()rk commenced, Plaintiff Bruce Harris confronted the workmen in a violent manner and threatened bodily injury to them if they continued working. 41, In June of 1993 Defendants McGowan contracted with Dillsburg Septic to extend their driveway approximatoly three feet, Dillsburg Septic was spocifically ~dvised of the location of the Plaintiffe' property line and told not to piece anything over the line, 42, Dillsburg Septic mistakenly placed a small amount of soil on the Harris side of the woode along the MCGowan/Harris border, 43. Dillsburg Septic has acknowledged its mistake end has apologized to Defendants McGowan and Plaintiffs. 44, Dillsburg Septic has contacted Plaintiffs end offered to remove said soil without charge. 7 ~AIDl8, GUI/)O , MASLAN/) 16 W. llI~h 51"" Carll"., PA P, ., 45. Plaintiff Bruce HarriQ has refused to allow Oillsburg Septic onto his premises to remove the soil. 46. Plaintiff Bruc" Harris has advised the owner of Oillsburq Septic that he would not be mode part of any lawsuit because he has apologized to Plaintiffs for his error. COUNT.ReLAIM 47. The averments of paragraphs 32-45 ore incorporated herein by reference. 46. In May of 1993, within days of the incident referrad to in paragraph 40 above, Defendant Deborah McGowan was in her vehicle stopped in traffic on Old York Rood at the intersection of Old York Road and Route 34. She was accompanied by her 13 year old daughter, when Plaintif f Bruce Harris stopped his vehicle next to hsrs, wound down his window and proceeded to scream, yell and ohake his hand violently at her. 49. During the months of June and July, Plaintiff Bruce Harris would regularly stalk along the MCGowa../Harris property line and store for long periods of time into the McGowan house. This was done for the sole purpose of harassing and frightening Defendant Dsborah McGowan. 50. In August of 1993, Plaintiff Bruce Harris asked the Pennsylvania State Police to arrest Defendant Deborah MClOOwan for criminal trespass. She was contacted by the State Police regarding the complaint of Plaintiff Bruce Harris and no further action was taken. 8 .AIDlS, GUI/)() , MASLAN/) 16 W. ftl.h Sf"" C.,Ii.II:,IIA " 51. One night in October 1993 Plaintiff Brucc Harris drove his vehicle into .,the fiClld abutting thc McGowans px'operty and parked it in such 1\ way that the headlights ohone directly into the McGowan home. Thio was c10nc for the Qole purpose of harassing and/or frightening the McGowan family. 52. On or about Sunday, April 17, 1994 Defendants McGowan were in their vehicle on Old York Rood procoeding within 5 milea per hour of the speed limit when Plaintiff Bruce Harris operated his vehicle within inches of their bumper and continuously blew his horn. 53. As 0 direct and proximate reQU 1 t of the extreme and outrageouQ conduct set forth above, DefendantQ McGowan have Quffered, and continuo to suffer emotional distress, including, but not limited to fright, horror, Qhame, humiliation, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry. 54. As a direct and proximate reQult of said extreme and outrageous conduct, DefendantQ McGowan have incurred substantial expense for the purchase and installation of special blinds and a privacy fence. $5,300.00. 55. As a direct and proximate result of said extreme and The cost of said Heme are approximately outrag~ous conduct, Defendant Deborah McGowan has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for stress-related maladies, inClUding, but not limited to anxiety, headaches and heart palpitations, 9 to I, VIRI'IClATIO, I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED I C~.iJ; trr i , , " 1 I I ,'.," I AlDIS, GUI/)O , MASLAND 16 W, III.h Sir'" Carlllla, PA , , , I I II' " I' .J I. " " t; t, " , Crr:RTU'ICATI or SERVICE I, Edward E. Guido, Eaquire certify that on the 27th day of April, 1994, I scr'vllcl a true and correct copy of the within Anawer with New M~ttlJr and Counterclaim upon counsel for Pll\intiffs in this matter by dep~siting same in the United States mail, firot Class, pOBtage prepaid addressed as followSI Delano M. Lantz, Esquire MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17106 DATED I 4/'J7I'U SAIDIS, GUIOO & HASLAND BYI ~ , Edward E, Guido, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants McGowan , , AI/)/S, GUmO , MA8LAN/) 16 W, Ill.h S".., Carllll., PA j! , ,11 " ;1' .1, , " " " " " ., III I,ll " " 'I ., " " I , " " , " ., ' , , 'I I, 1,1; I, I, 'i 1 I' , , " I, tRUCS G. HARRIS and NANCY HAIlRIS, plaintiff. v. DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND G~IH SDVICI and CHRIS CANTRILL, Detendant. " .. I IN THE COURT or COMMOIf PLIAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I NO, 94-1313 I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I NOTIC~ TO PLDD TOI David MClOowan and Mra, David McGowan c/o Edward I, Guido, Eaquire 26 Weat Hi9h street P.O. Box 560 Carli.le, pA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclo.ed New Matter within twenty (20) daya from .ervice hereof or a default jUdqaent .ay be entered a9ainat you, June 2, 1914 .1 , I I II I 'I I I ! I I I , ii, i I I t I !' I ano . I,D, No. 21401 100 pine Straet p, O. Box 1166 Harriabur9, PA 17101-1166 (717) 232-8000 Att~rn.y. for Plaintiff. BRUCI G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, plaintiff. v. DAVID MCGOWAN, KRS, DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDIN SIRVICI and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendant. " .. I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLBAS I CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I NO, 94-1383 I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO-HIH MATTER ~ND COUNT~RCLAIM OF DAVID McGOWAN , MRS, DAVID McGOW~ AND NOW COM! pltintiffa, by their attorneys, McNee., Wallace , Nurick and make the following reply to the new matter and counterclaim of Defendant.. REPLY TO NEW MATTER 32, Admitted only that Plaintiff Harri. would have pre- ferred that the hou.ing development had not taken place, 33, Admitted in part and denied 1n part, It i. admitted that Dr. Harri. told the McGowan'. that tree. and tree limbs had been cut on hi. .ide of the property line and that he warned the McGowan'. aqain.t tro.pa..ing on hi. property or cutting any tree. or vegetation on hi. .ide of the property line. It i. denied that he .aid 34. Denied. that only a It i. denied "branch" had been cut. that Dr, Harrl. ha. .uch . reputation. Further, after rea.onable inve.tiqatlon, plaintiff i. without knowledge or information .Ufficilnt to form a belief '. . , as to what awareness the McGowan's may have had at any particular period ot time and proof thereof is demanded, if relevant, 35, Denied, After reaQonable investigation, PlaintiffS are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in this paraqraph, The averment is thereforu denied and proof thereof demanded, 36, Admitted in part and 4enied in port, It is admitted that the MoGowan's had a surveyor survey the boundary line and that the McGQwan's knew where the line was located, It is denied that tha MoGowan's have at any time taken action to ovoid a oonfrontation with plaintiffS, but, on the contrary, have under- taken actions to violate PlaintiffS' property rights to make a oonfrontation inevitable. As to the remaining averments of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in this paragraph, The averment is therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, 37, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that the MoGowan's at some point had cantrell and union Hall do work on their property. ~s to the remaininq averments of this paraqraphs, atter reasonable investigation, Plaintitfs are without knowledge or infor~ation SUfficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in this paragraph, The averment 1s therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. - 2 - , , 38. After reaeonable lnvestlqatlon, p1alntlffe are ~ithout knowledqe or information euffiolent to form a belief ae to the truth of the avermente eet forth ln this paraqraph, The averment ie therefore denied and proof thereQf demanded, 39. After reaeonable investiqatlon, plalntiffe are without knowledqe or informatlon euftiolent to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. eet forth in thle paragraph, The averment le therefore den led and proof thereof demanded. 40, Admltted in part and denied ln part, It ie admitted that, ae eet forth in the complaint, P1aintlff Bruce Harrie dlecovered that hi. property rlghts had been violated by the cutting of treee, brush and branches on his side of the property llne, In order to mitiqate the harm and avoid further cuttlnge ln violation of his property rights, lt is further admitted that Dr. Harrie confronted the workmen and made lt clear to them that they ehould not cut any tree., limbs or brush on his side ot the property line, plaintiff Bruoe Harrle wae merely acting to proteClt his property riqhtl from being further violated by Defendante. It is denied that plaintiff Bruce Harris' action. were in any way inappropriate under the clrcumotancel, 41, Admitted in part and denied ln part, It il admltted that at lome point Dilllburg septic dld lome work on the McGowan property. Ae to the remaininq avermente, after rea.onable inve.tiqation, plaintiffe are without knowledge or information - 3 - " . I euffioient to form a belief ae to the truth of the averment. .et forth in thi. paraqraph. The averment i. therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, 42, Admitted in part, denied in part. It i. admitted that a ,Ub.tantial .mount of .oil .. well ae other driveway debri. wa. dumped on plaintitfe' .ide of the property line in further violation ot hi. property riqhte. Denied that it wa. a "emall" amount ot ,oil. A. to the remaininq averments of thi, paragraph, after realonable inve,tiqation, plaintiff. are without knowledge or information lutfioient to form a belief a. to the truth of the avermentl .et forth in thi' paraqraph, The averment i, therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, 43, Admitted in part and donied in part, It i. admitted that Dill,burg septio has acknow1edqed that it violated plain- tiff" property riqht', To date, however, it ha. failed to remove the loil and other material from Plaintiff" property, ^' to the remaininq averment. of thi. paraqraph', after reaeonable inve.tiqation, plaintiff' are without know1edqe or information ,Uffioient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. .et forth in thie paraqraph, The averment i. therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, 44. Denied a. .tated, Plaintiff Bruoe Harri. oontaoted Dill.burq septic to demand the removal of the loil and debri.. - 4 - " Althouqh oil1.burg septio haa indic~ted it would remove the .oil and debri., it hal not yet done 10, 45. D.ni.d. Plaintiff.' have given oilleburq s.ptio p.rmi.aion to oro.. the boundary line to the .xtent n.o....ry to remove the .oil .nd debri. from Plaintiff.' property, 46. Admitted th.t plaintiff did not join oill.burq septio a. a party to thi. law.uit on oill.burq septio'. reple.entatioll that it would promptly r.move the .oil an~ debri. at no exp.n.e to plaintiff and wiChout any further damage to Plaintiffa' property. To date, however, Dill.burq septio ha. failed to make qood on it. promi.e, REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM 47. The replie. to paragraphs 32 to 46 are incorporated herein by reference, 48. Denied, It i. denied that plaintiff Bruce Herril atopped hil vehicle next to Mr.. MoGowan'. and .aid or did the thinql C11.imed in paraqraph 48. such event never took place, 49. Denied al Itated, It i. admitted that Plaintiff Bruoe Harria oooaaionally walk. on hi. property, inoludinq the property that i. to the louth of the McGowan/Harri. property line. It il denied that hi. walkinq on the property at any time ha. been for the lole purpo.e of hara.aing and friqhteninq Defendant, Debre - 5 - MoGowan, On the oontrary, Plaintiff hae at all time. aoted within hi. property riqht., &0. Admitted that in Auqu.t of 1993, plaintiff Bruoe Harri. went to the Di.triot Maqi.trate regardinq Defendants' violation . of Plaintiff.' property riqhts and their tre.pa.. onto Plaintiff.' property, The Dietriot Maqistrate .uqgeated that Plaintiff report the inoident to the pennsylvania state polioe, &1. Denied, From time to time, Plaintiff Bruoe Harris ha. driven hi. vehiole on his property as he is entitled to do al the owner of euoh property, It ie denied that he ever pointed hi. headliqhts direotly into the MoGowan home for the 801e purpo.e of haraaeinq and/or friqhteninq the MoGowan family, &2, Denied, plaintiff Bruoe Harris never enqaged in .uoh oonduot. &3. Denied, At no time has Plaintiff engaqed in extreme or outraqeou. oonduot of any type, and at all times plaintiff.' aotion. have been appropriate in view of the violation. of hi. property riqht. by Defendant, It i. further denied that Defen- dant. MoGowan have suffered any legally cognizable injury, 54. Denied, It i. denied that any such expen.ee were inourred a. a reault of any extreme or outrageous oonduot of Plaintiff, all of whioh i. denied. Plaintiff.' oonduot ha. at all time. been appropriate under the C1iroumatanoe.. A. to the remaininq averment., after rea.onable inveatiqation, Plaintiff. - 6 - , , are without knowledge or information *uffioient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. .et forth in thi. pa~agraph, The ave~ent i. therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, e5, Denied. It i. denied that plaintiff engaged in any extreme and/or outrageou. oonduot and at all time. Plaintiff.' oonduot ha. been appropriate under the oircum.tance., It 1. further denied that Defendant McGowan inourred any med10al expen.e. or medical problem. a. a re.ult of any conduct of plaintiff, 56, Denied, It is d~nied that plaintiff Bruce Harri. engaged in any inappropriate oonduot at any time under the ciroum.tance., Further, it is denied that he ever engaged in any wilful, wanton, intentional or ~utrageou. oonduot that would under any circumstance, subjeot him to any liability for punitive damage., WHEREFORE, Plaintiff.' demand that the new matter and counterclaim of the Defendant.' McGowan be dismissed and judqment entered in favor of Plaintiff. in aocordance with the demand. Of the complaint. NEW MATTER 57. To the extent Defendant. have .uatained any damage of the nature .et forth in their oounterclaim, all of Which i. denied, Defendant. a..umad the ri.k of .uch damage. by violating - 1 - " Plaintitt., prop.rty riqht. and tr..pa..inq or oau.inq oth.r. to tr.'P.'. on Plaintitt., property and oau.inq damaqe to their prop.rty, and D.f.ndant., olaim. are barred under the dootrin. ot a..umption ot ri.k. e.. D.t.ndant. have been oontributorily ne91i9.nt and any olaim. .et forth by Det.ndants in their count.rolaim ar. barr.d a. a re.ult ot suoh neqliqence in trespa..inq on Plaintitt.' property and oau.in9 damage to their property, 59, Beoau.. ot Detendants' wiltul trespa.. on Plaintift., property, D.f.ndants are estopped from olaiminq any harm a. a re.ult ot the di.pute. that have arisen becau.e ot .uoh wilful/ intentional tre.pa.. on Plaintiffs' property, 60, Plaintitt Bruce Harris' oonduct was ~t all times ju.titied a. a r..ult of the wiltul, wanton tre.pa.... by oet.n- dant. on plaintiff.' property. 61, TO the extent Defendant. oomplain about Plaintiff.' aotivitie. on hi. own property, plaintiff., aotivitie. are privileged beoau.e ot Plaintiffs' status as the landowner of .uch property. I . .' lit. ," . , YJ:JUnCATIOlf I ve~1ty t~at t~e etatemente .ade in the tO~.9oinq ~.ply and Count.~olaim are true and oo~~.ot to the beat ot my knowledql, intor.ation and belLet. I underetand that talee etatemante a~e mad. eubjeot to the penalti.e ot 18 Pa, C.B, 54904, ~Ilatinq to unaworn taleitioatLon to autho~iti. r ....... v' Dated, June , 1994 p,';"....( J , } ~ S' ~, 1,,1 I , I. .. , , , ' , ' , , , , ,I' " ',I IAIDIS, GUIDO, BIIUW " MAS LAND 16 W. llllh 81m' Carll.la,PA ., ., . . BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, pF.NNSYLVANIA v. DAVID McGOWAN and DEBORAH McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELl", No, 94-1383 ,-. I:;' '" 1-'.. Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAI'/' C::. 1./1 I:> h: :i RlpLY TO HIN MATTIR " I' , ,< AND NOW, comes Defendants, McGowan by and through their attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and reply to the New Matter raised in Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim as follows I 57, Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of low to which no responso is necesoary. To the extent that a response is necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendants McGowan trespassed or caused others to trespass on Plaintiffs' property. To thfl contrary, Defendants McGowan actually went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf trespassed on Plaintiffs I property, 58. Denied, The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendants McGowan traspassed or caused others to trespass lion Plaintiffs' property. To the contrary, Defendants McGowan !~ actually went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor . anyone acting on thelr behalf trespassed on Plaintiffs' properly. SAlOIS, G VIOO, SHUFF" MASLAND 16 W. ftl.h 5"'.. Caril,I.,PA t, ., 59. Denied. 'l'he IIvennont.1l cont/llned therein are onclusiollD of law to which 110 response iB necessary. To the xtent that 0 reBponse is necessary, it is specifically denied hat Defendants McGowall trespaBsed or caused others to trespaBs n Plaintiffs' prl,lperty. To the contrary, Defendants McGowan ctually went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf trespassed on Plaintiffs I property. 60. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, Plaintiff, Bruce Harris' neurotic obsesoion with his property rights and his confrontational attitude toward any perceived violation thereof (OS evidenced by his Reply to this particular paragraph) are the reasons why the Defendants McGowan took extra precautions and incurred extra expense to make sure that no one violated those property rights. 61. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response io necessary, WHEREFORE, Defendants McGowan demand that New Matter be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of Defendants McGowan in accordance with the demands of the counterclaim. DATED I ~/,Hltj" Respectfully submitted, & HASLAND BAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF ~--') ~.-~.- / ..... ,. - - .:'.--1('/ BYI, Edward E. GUido, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants II " ,I '. I, VIRI'ICATIQN I verify that the statementB made l.n this Reply are true and correct, I undarstand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalticB of 18 Pa.C.S.A, S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated I (# (~o/fl{ ~ David McGowan 1 ' 'I ,1.1 ., I iAlDlS, GUIDO, SHUrr II MASLAND i 16 W, 1II1~ Srml Carllll., 'A 'I I, 3 I Iii r I SAlms, GUIDO, SHun' .. MAS LAND 26 W, ftlth 8u'w Cull,I., PA I, " BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I NO. 94-1383 I I I I I CIVIL hCTION LAW r I v, DAVID MCGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Petendants ~"IDAVI'J' 1, We jointly own property located at 130 Clearview Place, C~rlisle, Cumberland County, PennBylvania. 2, In the Spring of 1993, we hired Steven Fisher, surveyor, to survey our property and place extra stakes along the property line betweeo our property and tho Harris property. 3, In the Spring of 1993, we hired Union Hall I,awn and Garden Service as an independent contractor to develop landscaping plans for our property, 4. In May of 1993, Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service began work on the landscaping plan. 5. Prior to commenci.ng work, Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service was given specific instructions not to cross the property line or to trim or cut any branches, trees, shrubs or brush on the Harris property. 6. Prior to commencing the work, David MCGowan showed Chris Cantrell of Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service the property and Mr. Cantrell ran a string between the stakes to assist his employees in their awareness of the property line. I, ., 7. After the initial instructions on the scope of the work and the location of the property line, we did not oontrol or lupervise the work of Union Hall Lawn end Gorden Servioe, 8. At no time did we direct Union Hall or any of itl employees to out or trim any branohes, trees, shrubs or brulh that were on the Harris property. 9. In June of 1993, we hired Oi1lBbur.q Septic r.ompeny OR an independent contractor to excavete and extend our driveway, 10. Prior to DillBburg Septic Company dumping any dirt or debris on our back property, we advised the contractor of the location of the property line between the McGowan property and Harris property ancl not to crOSB the property line, 11. At no time did we direct Dillsburg Septic Company or any of its emplOYEles to dump dirt. or debris from the excavation onto the Harris property. 12. After the initial instructionB on the scope of the work and the location of the property line, we did not control or supervise the work of Dillsburg Septic Company. 13. At no time did we pnrstlnally enter onto the Horrie property and cut or trim any brenches, ohrubs, brueh or trees. 14. At no time did we direct any other person" to enter onto the Harris property to cut or trim branches, shrubs, brush SAID/8, GUII>O, SHUFF A or trees, MASUNP t6W,HllhSI....1 Ul. At. no time, did we dirnct ony overspraylnq of vegetation CaIIl.I.,PA killer onto the Harris property. 16, At no time did we personally UBe any vegetation killer on or neer the Harris property. . " ' . . It' , .' '.: JOINT ~O~1..A~~R RmLIAS' KNOW ALL PIftSONS BY THISI PRBSBNTS that we, BRUCI O. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS (hereinatter reterred to.. "Relenor."), tor and in con.ideration ot the payment to u. and our attorney. ot the sum ot Two Thousand Dollar. ($2,000), reoeipt ot which i. hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable oonsideration, do hereby remiss, release, quit olaim, disoharge and aClquit and by these presents do, tor ourselves, our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, and all others claiming throuqh us or on our behalt, remiss, release, quit olaim, disoharqe and aoquit torever UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE, CHRIS CANTRELL, NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND their ottioere, direCltor., employee., agents, heirs, exeoutors, administrators, predeoes.ors or assigns (eaoh, any, and allot whom are hereinatter reterred to C1011ectively as "Payors") trom any and all aotions, cause. ot action, clAims, demands, contribution, indemnity, damage., aosts, expense., loss ot servioes, oompensation and all consequential and inconsequential damages ot any kind, whether currently aSCllrtained or arising in the tuture, on aooount ot or in any way arising trom, resulting trom or growing out ot any and all known or unkown injuries, inoluding any injuries to property, property " " rlqbt. or p.r.on, r..ultlnq trom o.rt.in inoid.nt. and .v.nt. on or n..r tb. prop.rti.. ot Mr, .nd Mr., D.vid McGow.n and aele..or. in Diokin.on Town.hip, cumb.rl.nd county, Penn.ylvania tbat oOClurr.d in 1992 and/or 1993, inoluding but not limited to all C1laim. ..t torth aqainat payor. in the Bult dOClket.d to Civil Aotion No. 94-1383 in the Court ot Common Plea. ot Cumberland County, p.nn.ylv.nia, or trom any oth.r matter. th.t oClourred trom tb. beginning at the world to the date ot this rele.... It i. under. toad and agreed that this settlement i. the oompromi.e at a doubttul .nd disputed olaim, entered into by Payor. to avoid further litigation and laid settlement .hall not be C1on.trued .s an admission of liability on the part ot payor., by whom liability is expressly denied, Payor. turther deny that th.y or .ither ot them .re joint tortfe..ors with David MoGow.n or Mr.. D.vid MoGowan or any other party with r..peot to tbi. matter. Furthermore, ReleaBorB do not conoede that either ot the Payor. i. a joint tortfeaBor, The R.leasors reBerVQ the right to make C1laim ag.in.t David MaGowan .nd Mrs, David McGowan and any .nd every other per.on and org.nilation other than P.yorl who may be liable to R.l.a.ors and to C1l.im that David McGowan and Mr., David MoGowan .nd any suoh other parties and not the payors are solely liable to the Relea.ors tor the olaimed injuries, 10B88S and damages, For the oonsideration herein reoited, we further .gr.. that any reoovery that we may obtain as Plaintiffs a9ain.t David " McGoWan and/or Mr., David McGowan and/or any other party other than payor. .hall be reduced to the extent of the pro rata .hare of the joint and ,,'!ual l1abiUty of Payon but only it it .han be judicially determined that David Mcgowan and/or Mr.. David MClGowan and/or any other partie. are joint torttea.or. with Payor.. If it i. judicially determined in any action that Payor. are not joint torttea.or., then the amount reoovered by Relea.or. from David McGowan and/or Mr.. David McGowan or any other party .hall not be reduoed by any amount paid by Payor. to Relea.or., In order to .ave the Payor. harmle.., the relea.ing partie., a. a further con.ideration for 8aid payment, will .ati.fy any decree, judqment or award in whioh there is suoh findinq or adjudiClation involvinq the payors or anyone ot them, on their behalf to the extent of Payor.' liability for oontribution or indemnity a. judicially dotermined in suoh action. In the event an aotion i. brought by David McGOWan, Mr.. David MaGowan or other. aqain.t one or both of payor. for the purpo.e of obtaininq contribution or indemnity from Payor., Payor. .hall immadiately provide notioa to Releasors of .uch action and Relea.or. shall have the riqht and duty to defend Payor. and indemnify them from any liability with re.pect to .uoh aotion. Thi. Relea.. C1ontain. the entire aqree.ent between the partie. hereto, and the terms of thi. Relea.e are oontraCltUal and , . ! " , not. .ere reoit.l. It i. hereby w.rr.nted th.t the r.l...in9 part i.. h.v. not ..d. .ny ..ttl.m.nt with or qiv.n .ny r.1..../r.o.i~t to .ny other per.on or p.rty, tor 4am.9.. .ri.inq out ot the .ai4 aCloi4ent. Thi. Rele... .h.l1 b. qov.rn.4 by .n4 int.rpr.t.d in aooord.no. with the oommon .n4 .t.tutory 1.w. ot the Commonwe.1th ot P.nn.ylvania. w. turth.r .t.t. th.t w. h.ve ~.r.tully r..4 the tor.qoinq R.1.... .nd know the C1ont.nt. thereot, that w. have b..n .4vi..4 by le9.1 ooun..l ot our C1hoo.ing ot it. meaning an4 import, .n4 that w. have .x.outed thi. Relea.e a. our own tree .ot with the int.ntion ot being legally bound, We .uknowledge that thi. a.1.... may be made a part of the reoord of the .bove-ret.renoed C1a.e .t the p.yor.' option, WITNESS the due exeoution hereof thi. d.y ot September, 1994, with the intent to be legally bound, CAUTION I READ BEFORE SIGNING. ~. ~// ic..t- :J , oe ~tJt . I ,- u')W, ~it1<.L ifiiiOrw;rr . " l~ \ ft' \I~'I.~ .,.... ,oc:; , ,_I "'- ,I.I ~ .. ,I . 1 . . ".-, , , . ! " , " \In ,10' ::). .. 'I I : ~) , 1 !L '-' ,~ I 0 ~ -;~u , " , , , , , , , " . . ' Ii , BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI,EA$ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV~NIA v. DAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants NO. 94-1383 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRII' IN SUPPORT 0' DI'INDANTS MCGOWAN MOTION TO DI'MI'S PLAINTIFFS' OBJICTIOHS TO IHTIRROGATORIII AND TO COMPIL DISaOVIRI SAWI5, GUIDO, SHUIT I: MASLAND 26 w, lIJalI SIrNI CU\b1., PA AND NOW, comes the Defendants, David L. McGowan and Deborah McGowan, by and through their attorneys, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND, and files this brief in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Objections to McGowans' Interrogatories, and directing that the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents be answered fully within 20 daye, PROCIDURAL HISTORY Harris initiated this action by Complaint on April 5, 1994, McGowan filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim on April 27, 1994, On or about June 2, 1994, Harris filed a Reply, and raised New Matter, McGowan filed a Reply to Harris' New Matter on June 22, 1994.1 Discovery ensued, with McGowan serving Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Harris on May 20, 1994. 1 On or about July 12, 1994, the other defendants filed their Answer with New Matter. Harris has not filed a Reply to that New Matter. SAm/B, GUIDO, SHtll1' II MASLAND 26 W, 1II1~ SIIItI CIrII.I., PA ijarriB objected to some Interrogatories, and haD failed to answer the remaining Interrogatories. Harris haB f Hod no answers or objections to the Requests for Pr.oduction of Documentu. On August 12, 1994, upon motion of McGowan, this Honorable Court scheduled 0 hel\ring for October 13, 1994, to resolve thAse discovery issues, 'ACTI This entire CI\Be began with the McGowans doing some landscaping to their property. The McGowans and Harris share a common boundary line. Harris sued McGowans because supposedly McGowans' landscaping did some damage to Harrio' property, McGowan disputes this. Because of the property issue and his reputation, Harris has, on several occasions, harassed and frightened the McGowans, Harris' conduct has been outrageous and extreme, and has caused emotional distress to Mrs, McGowan. McGowans' counterclaim is based on that outrageous and extreme conduct. In order to properly prepare for trial on the punitive damages issue, McGowan has requested Harris' financial information, Harris has objected and thus the following illuss are before the Court, ISSUES I. WHETHER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PRIOR TESTIMONY AND I,AWSUITS IS DISCOVERABLE IN A CASE IN WHICH THE PI,EADINGS, AS FRAMED, PLACE IN ISSUE THE REPUTATION OF A PARTY AS A LITIGIOUS PERSON? Suggested Answerl Yes II. WHETHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF A PARTY SUBJECT TO A SUIT INVOLVING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DISCOVERABLE? Suggested Answerl Yes II. WHreTHER A PARTY TO WHO HAS BEEN DULY SERVED WITH INTERROGhTORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED SANCTIONS DUE TO THEIR BLATANT REFUSAL TO FILE RESPONSES? Suggested Answerr Yes ARGUMIN'l' SAlJ)IB, GUIDO, SHUn' " MASLAND 26 w, "111I Ilml Colli"., PA Every litigant is entitled to certain discovery, The scope of what is discoverable can be discerned from the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4003,1 paints a very broad brush as to what is discoverable. That Rule provides I Rule .003.1, SClope of Di.C1ov.ry Generally. Opinion. and Contention. (a) Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.2 to 4003,5 inclusive and Rule 4011, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged/ which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of I!lny other party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, ~~~a~i i~tu~~ou1~a~C:i~~(~lceti~~ t~~~ t~~lanr~~at~~~ ~nformati9.ll sought aDpears reasonably ca:culaied to lead to the dis~rv of admiliible evidence, (c) Exoept as otherwise provided by these rules, it is not ground for objection that the information sought 3 SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHtlI'F " MASLAND 26 W' llJl~ 5_1 Carllal.,PA involveB an opinion or contention that relates to a fact or the application of law to fact. Pa, R.C.P. 4003.1 (emphasis added). The test, therefore, is not whether the information souqht is admisBible, but rather whether the "information sought appears roasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admiBsible evidence, la, McGowans' Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10 relate to Harris' prior sworn testimony and litigation. McGowans, in their New Matter averred the followingl 34, Subsequently, the McGowsnB became aware of Plaintiff Bruce Harris' reputation in the community for confrontation over seemingly petty property disputes, Harris' Reply to New Matter denied this allegation, therefore, Harris' reputation is in issue, ThuB, applying the test for discovery, this "information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," namely whether Harris' reputation in the community is that of a l1tiqious person, The remaining Interrogatories (NoB. 11-15)2 i1\quire into Harris' financial information, McGowans' counterclaim against Harris is based on Harris' wilful, wanton, intentional, and outrageous conduct. ~ Counterclaim PareQraphs 47-56. McGowans relief requests, inter alie, punitive damages against Harris. Therefore, Harris' financial situation is direotly relevant to the case, and most certainly is discoverable, However, that i. not the test, The test is merely whether the information 2 There is no Interrogatory No, 12. 4 SAJI)IB, GUIDO, SHUrr II MAILAND 26 w, Hlatl SI/'Nt c.vtlalt, PA requested appears reasonable calculated to lead to admillible evidence. Where the plaadings and the general status and stage of the case indicate that a bona fide claim for punitive damages is prClSented, pretrial discovery as to financial matters will be allowed, SpraQue v. Walter, 23 D, & C.3d 636 (1982), citing Ayre v. DiCkstein, 337 Pa. 471, 12 A.2d 19 (1940) and City of Newport v, Fact Concerto. Inc.. U,S. , 101 S, Ct, 2746 (1961), w AlJ.Q, Peterman v. Ge1singer Med, Center, 13 D. & C.3d 153 (1960) (allowing discovery of financial information, after other. discovery had been completed because punitive damages were at issue), and Bucks v, Pennfield Corp, 4 D&C 474 (1989), Harris, os the party objectin9 to the discovery, has the burden of proving that the information sought is undiscoverable. Winck v, Daley Mack Sales. Inc" 21 D, & C.3d 399 (1980), ill AliQ, Goodrich Amram 2d S 4003,O(a)7, It iB McGowans' position that Harris cannot meet that burden, all the Interrogatories are proper and "appear r.easonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," Pa, R,C.P, 4003,1 (b), In addition to these frivolous objections, Harris has failed to answor or object to the remaining Interrogatories (Nos. 1-8) and Requelts for Production of Documents (Nos. 1-8). Rules 4006 and 4009 require responsClS within thirty (30) days, McGowan suggests that this shows Harris' flagrant disregard for the judicial process, 5 SAID'S, GUIDO, SHUrr .. II MAlUND 16 W, HIp S_I I Corll.la,PA Rule 4019 provides several sanctions available for t.he trial court, It provides, in pertinent port, os follows I Rule .01'. Sanction. (0)(1) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if (i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objectionB to written interrogatories under Rule 4005/ . . . (vii) a party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requBsted or fails to permit inspection as requested/ . . . (2) A failure to act described in Bubdivision (a)(l) may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act hes filed an appropriats objection or has applied for a protective order. . . . (Cl The court, when acting under subdivision (e) of th s rule, m4Y make (1) an order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the cheracter or description of the thing or lend, or the contents of the paper, or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order/ (2) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition/ (3) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereOf, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or entering a judgment of non pros or by default against the disobedient party or party advising the diSObedience/ 6 (4) an order imposing punishment for contempt, except that a party may not be punished for contempt for a refusal to su~nit to a physical or montal examination under Rule 40101 (5) such order with regard to tl1e failure to make discovery as is just. Pa, R.C.P, 4019. Subparagraph (c) of Rule 4019 gives the trial court wide latitude in crafting a compliance order. MuGowan sugge~ts that an order granting judgment by default in favor. of McGowan and against Har.ris would be appropriate. In the alternative, McGowan would request an order of compliance, directing Harris to fully answer all Interrogatories and Requests, CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs should be ordered to fully answer all Interrogatories and RequeBts for Production of Documents within 20 days, or suffer sanctions in the form of dismissal with prejudice. Datel IDfZ-/9i Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND SAJDIS. GUIDO, SHUFF II MASLAND i6 VI, Hllh Ilml earlllla,P'" Byt ~ Wi am c, Vohs, Esquire Supreme Ct, 1. D. . 155206 215 West High Street carlisle, pA 17013 (717) 243-15222 Attorney for Defendants McGowans ., ) , 7 SAlDU, GUIDO, SHUIT II MoULAND 2aw.lIlatl._ c.rtlar.. PA BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, IN TH~ COURT or COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v, DAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants NO, 94-1383 civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW IRII' IH 'UPPORT Qr DI'IHDANT. MCOO"~ MOTION TO DI.MI.. PLAIHTI".' OIJICTIOH. TO XNTIRROGATORII. ~D TO COH'IL DI.COVlRI AND NOW, comes the Defendants, David L. McGowan and Deborah McGowan, by and through their attorneys, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUrr, MASLAND, and files this brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Objections to McGowans' Int.errogatories, and directing that the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents be answered fully within 20 days. PIOCIDURAL HI.TORI Harris initiated this action by Complaint on April 5, 1994, McGowan filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim on April 27, 1994, On or abo'lt June 2, 1994, Harris filed a Reply, and raised New Matter, McGowan filed a Reply to Harris' New M~tter on June 22, 1994,1 Discovery ensued, with McGowan serving Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Harris on May 20, 1994, 1 On or about July 12, 1994, the other defendants filed their Answer with New Matter. Harris has not filed a Reply to that New Matter. ,.un.., GUIDO, SHUn' " MAlLAND :I6W,Hl....ltIoI CIIIlale. PA Harris objected to some Interrogatories, and has failed to answer the remaining Interrogatories. Harris has tiled no answers or objections to the RequeBts for Production of Documents. On August 12, 1994, upon motion of McGowan, this Honorable Court scheduled a hearing for October 13, 1994, to resolve these discovery issuej. 'ACT' This entire case began with the McGowans doing some landscaping to their property. The McGowans and Harris share a common boundary line, Harris sued McGowans because supposedly McGowans' landscaping did some damage to Hart'is ' property, McGowan disputes this, Because of the property issue and his reputation, Harris has, on several occasions, harassed and frightened the McGowans, Harris' conduct has been outrageous and extreme, and has caused emotional distress to Mrs, McGowan, McGowans' counterclaim is based on that outrageous and extreme conduct. In order to properly prepare for trial on the punitive damages issue, McGowan has requested Harri.' financial information, Harris has objected and thus the following i8lue. are before the Court. 'I 'I " , , SAlDI8, GUIDO, SHUll' ,. MASLAND 26 W, HI1lI51m1 CartI,la, PA ISBUIS I. WHETHER INF'ORMATION PERTAINING 'fO PRIOR TESTIMONY AND l,AWSUITS IS DISr.:OVERABl,E IN A CASE IN WHICH THE PLEADINGS, AS F'RAMED, I'LACE IN ISSUE TilE REPUTATION OF' A PARTY AS A LITIGIOUS PERSON? SU9gested Answerl Yes II. WHETHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF A PARTY SUBJECT TO A SUIT INVOLVING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DISCOVERABLE? Suggeuted Answerl Yes II. WHETHER A PARTY TO WHO HAS BEEN DULY SERVED WITH INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS F'OR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED SANCTIONS DUE TO THEIR BLATANT REFUSAL TO FILE RESPONSES? Suggested Answer: Yes ARGUMINT Every litigant is entitled to ~ertain diBcovery. The scope of what iB discoverable con be discerned from the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4003.1 paints 0 very broad brush as to what is discoverable. That Rule provides I Rule ~003.1. SClope of Dl.covery Generally, Oplnlon. and Contention. (a) Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003,2 to 4003,5 inclusive and Rule 4011, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged/ which is relllvllnt to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible thingB and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, (b) It is not 9round for ob1eclJ,on that the informalli.n sougl.!.t ~ill .Q!! 1na~!1lj,s~.\.ble ~.!; ihe trial of the information sought ap~ear8 rBeai~oinablv calculated to lead to the discovery of admi_!!'__Q_~ !!.li:idl!.!!r.e. (c) Except as otherwise provided by these rules, it is not ground for objection that the information sought 3 BAWlS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MABLAND UW,lfJpSltlel CiIIllala,PA involves on opinion or contention that relates to II fact or the application of law to fact. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1 (emphasis added). The test, therefore, is not whether the information sought is admissible, but rather whether the "information Bought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discov6ry of admiBsible evidence, Ig. McGowans' Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10 relate to Harris' prior sworn teetimony and litigation. McGowans, in their New Matter averred the following! 34, SUbsequently, the McGowane became aware of Plaintiff Bruce Harris' reputation in the oommul),ity for confrontation over seemingly petty property disputes, Harris' Reply to New Motter denied this allegation, therefore, Hat'r is' reputation is in issue. Thus, applying the teet for discovery, this "information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," namely whether Harris' reputation ln the community is that of a l1tigiouB person, The remaining Interrogatories (Nos, 11-15)2 inquire into Harris' financial information. McGowans' Counterclaim against Harris is based on Harris' wilful, wanton, intentional, and outrageous conduct. ill Counterclaim ParaQraphs 47-56, MoGowans relief requests, inter alia, punitive damages against Harris, Therefore, Harris' financial situation is directly relevant to the case, end most certainly is discoverable, However, that ia not the teat, The test ia merely whether the information 2 There is no Interrogatory No. 12. 4 SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHurr ,. MASLAND 26 w, HIp SI/'HI Ctrlllla, PA requeBted appears reasonable calculated to load to admissible evidence, Where the pleadings and the general status and Btage of t,he case indicate t.hat a bono fide claim for punitive damages is presented, pretrial discovery as to financial matters will be allowed, SoraQue-Y" Walter, 23 D. & C,3d 636 (1962), citing Ayro v, U1&Astein, 337 Pa, 471, 12 A.2d 19 (1940) and ~ity of Newport V. Fact Concerts. Inc.. U.S, , 101 S, Ct, 2748 (1961), h.t A.1J..2, Peterman v. Geisinger Med. CeJ11H, 13 D. & C. 3d 153 (1960) (allowing discovery of financial information, after other discovery had boen completed because punitive damages were at issue), and Bucks V. Pennfield Corp, 4 D&C 474 (1989), Harris, as the party objecting to the discovery, has the burden of proving that the information sought is undiscov~rahle, Winck v, Daley Mack Sales. Inc" 21 D. & C.3d 399 (1980). ~.1 1l12, Goodrich Amram 2d S 4003,0(0)7. It is McGowans' position that Harris cannot meet that burdenl all the Interrogatories are proper and "appeal" reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," Pa. R,C.P. 4003,1 (b), In addition to these frivolous objections, Harris has failed to answer or object to the remaining Interrogatories (Nos, 1-8) and Requests for Production of Documents (Nos, 1-8), Rules 4006 and 4009 require responses wi thin thirty (30) days, McGowan suggests that this shows Harris I flagrant disregard for the judicial process. 5 SAIDIB, GUIDO, SHurr " MAIlLAND 26 w, "laII SlIMl CllllaI.,PA Rule 4019 pnlvidee eeveral sanctionu available for tho triol court. It provides, in pcrt.inent part, liB folloWB I Rule .019, Sanotion. (0)(1) The court may, on motion, make on appropriate ol'der .if (i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatorieB under Ru Ie 4005/ ~ ~ ~ (vii) a party, in response to a requeat for production or inspection mode under Ru Ie 4009, faile to reopond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection 1\0 requested/ ~ ~ ~ (2) A failure to act described in subdivision (0)(1) may not be excueed on th~ ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act hae filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order. ~ ~ . (c) 'rhe court, when acting uncler subdivision (a) of this ruie, may make (1) an order that the matters regarding which the questions were aoked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the oct ion in accordance with the clatm of the party obtaining the order/ (2) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents, thingB or testimony, or from introducing evidence of phYBical or mental condition, (3) an order etriking out pleadings or parts thereOf, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or llntering a judgment of non pros or by default against the die'lbedient party or party advising the disobsdillnce/ 6 8A1D18, GUIDO, SHurr " MASLAND 26 W, HlaIl 5lntl Carll.I., P'" BRUCE Q, HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON P~EAS I CUMBBR~AND COUNTY, PENNSY~VANIA I I I I I NO. 94-1383 Civil Term I I I CIVI~ ACTION - ~AW I Plaintiffs v. DAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HA~[, ~AWN GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTREL~, AND DefendantB .RII' IN I~'PORT 0' DI'IIDAHTI MCGOWAN MOTION TO DIIHI.I PLAINTI"I' OIJICTIONI TO INTIRROOATOIII. AID TO COM'I~ DIICOVIRY AND NOW, comes the Defendants, David ~. McGowan and Deborah McGowan, by and through their attorneYB, SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF' MAS~AND, and files this brief in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintif.fs' Objections to McGowans' Interrogatories, and directing that the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents be answered fully within 20 days. 'ROCIDURAL HISTORY Harris initiated this action by Complaint on April 5, 1994, McGowan filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim on April 27, 1994. On or about June 2, 1994, Harrie filed a Reply, and raised New Matter. McGowan filed a Reply to Harris' New Matter on June 22, 1994,1 DiBcovery ensued, with McGowan Berving Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Harris on May 20, 1994. 1 On or about July 12, 1994, the other defendants filed their Answer with New Matter. Harrin has not filed a Reply to that New Matter. SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUIT ,. MASLAND 26 W, Hip 5"... Carllola,PA Harris objected to some Interrogatories, and has foiled to answer the remaining Interrogatories. Harris has filed no answers Qr objections to the RequeBts for Production of Documents. On August 12, 1994, upon motion of McGowan, this Honorable Court scheduled a hearing for October 13, 1994, to resolve these discovery issues, 'ACT. This entire case began with the McGowans doing some landscaping to their property. The McGowans and Harris share a common boundary line. Harris sued McGowans because supposedly McGowans' landscaping did Bome damage to Harris' property, McGowan disputes this, Becausft of the property issue and his reputation, Harris has, on several occasions, harassed and frightened the McGowans, Harris' conduct has been outrageous and extreme, and has caused emotional distress to Mrs. McGowan. McGowans' counterclaim is based on that outrageous and extreme conduct, In order to properly prepare for trial on the punitive damages issue, McGowan has requested Harris' financial information. Harris has objected and thus the following ilsue. are before the Court. " 'l I..UI. I. WHETHER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PRIOR TESTIMONY AND LAWSUITS IS DISCOVERABLE IN A CASE IN WHICH THE PLEADINGS, AS FRAMED, PLACE IN ISSUE THE REPUTATION OF A PARTY AS A LITIGIOUS PERSON? Suggested Answerl Yes II. WHETHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF A PARTY SUBJECT TO A SUIT INVOLVING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DISCOVERABLE? Suggested Answerl Yes II. WHETHER A PARTY TO WHO HAS BEEN DULY SERVED WITH INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED SANCTIONS DUE TO THEIR BLATANT REFUSAL TO FILE RESPONSES? Suggested Answerl Yes ARGUMIIT SAlDIS, GUIDO, SUtln' ,. MASLAND 26 w, HIIlI 51ml Carll.I., PA Every litigant iB entitled to certain discovery, The scope of what is discoverable can be discerned from the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4003.1 paints a very brood bruBh as to what is discoverable, That Rule provides I Rule '003,1, IClope of Di.aove~y Gene~ally, Opinion. and Contentiona (a) Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.2 to 4003.5 inclusive and Rule 4011, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged I which is relevant:. to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, inc luding the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, Ot' other tangible thingo and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. (b) It i!l.. ~nd for obiection that the infomA.ti&n Bought will IlL. inadmissible at the trial of. the information BouQht appears reasonably calcullt.J.!L.t.2 lead to the discovery, of admissible evidence, (c) Except as otherwise provided by these rules, it is not ground for objection that the information sought 3 involves on opinion or contention that relates to a fact or the application of law to fact. Pa, R.C,P, 4003.1 (emphasis added). The test, therefore, is not whether the information sought is admissible, but rather whether the "information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ld, McGowans' Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10 relate to Harris' prior sworn testimony and litigation. McGowans, in thBir New Matter averred th, fol10wingl 34. Subuquently, the McGowans became aware of Plaintiff Bruce Harris' reputation in the community for confrontation over seemingly petty property disputes, Harris' Reply to New Matter denied this allegation, therefore, Harris' reputation is in issue. Thus, applying t~e test for discovery, this 'information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibl~ evidence," namely whether Harris' reputation in the community is that of a litigious SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUff II MASLAND 26 W, HI'" 51,..1 CaIIl,la,PA penon. The remaining Interrogatories (Nos. 11-15)2 inquire into Harris' financial information. McGowans' Counterclaim against Harris is based on Harrle' wil ful, wanton, intentional, and outrageous conduct. ~ Counterclaim Paragraphs 47-56, McQowans relief requests, inter alia, punitive damages against Harris. Therefore, Harris' financial situation is directly relevant to the case, and most certainly is discoverable. However, that is not the test. The teet is merely whether the information 2 There is no Interrogatory No, 12, " i X'i I SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF II MASLAND 26 w, Hi'" 51lftl CaIIl.I.,PA requested appearB reallonable caloulated to Iflad to admissible evidence. Where the pleadings and the general BtatuB and stage of the case indicate that ft bona fide claim for punitive damages is presented, pretrial discovery as to financial matters will be allowed. ~'1ue v, Wolter, 23 [). & C.3d 636 (1982), citillg f\Yre v, ~, 337 Pa. 471, 12 A.2d 19 (1940) and ~~ of Newport v. Faot Concerts. Inc... __ U.S. ,101 S. Ct, 2746 (1981), ~ Ali2, Peterman v. GeisinQer Med. Center, 13 0, & C,3d 153 (1980) (allowing discovory of financial information, after other discovery had been completed because punitive damages were at issue), and ~s v. Pennfield Corp, 4 D&C 474 (1909). Harrie, aB the party objecting to the discovery, has the burden of proving that the information sought iB undiscoverable, Winck v, Dale'y"Mack Sales. Inc., 21 D. & C,3d 399 (1980). W ~, Goodrich Amram 2d S 4003.0(a)7. It is McGowans' position that Harris cannot meet that burden, all the Interrogatories are proper and "appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Po. R.C.P. 4003,1 (b). In addition to these frivolous objections, Harris has failed to answer or object to the remaining InterrogatorieB (Nos. 1-8) and Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1-8), Rules 4006 and 4009 require responses within thirty (30) days, McGowan suggests that this shows Harris I flagrant disregard for the judicial process. 5 'AlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF A MASLAND 26 W, HI'" 51m' Carllal..PA Rule 4019 provides several sangtions available for the trial court, It provide~, in pertinent part, as followSI Rule 601'. '.nation. (a)(l) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if (i) a party fails or objections to 40051 to serve answers, sufficient answers written interrogatories under Rule * * * (vii) a party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested 1 * * * (2) ^ failure to act deBcribed in subdivision (a)(l) may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a protective order, * * * (c) The court, when acting under subdivision (a) of this rule, may make (1) an order thftt the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordanoe with the claim of the party obtaining the ordeq (2) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppoBe designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or montal condition 1 (3) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereOf, or staying further proceedingll until the order is obeyed, or entering a judgment of non pros or by default against the disobedient party or party advising the disobediencel 6 SAIDI8, GUIDO, SHUtT II MASLAND 16 w, HIJII Slml CaIIl.la.PA (4) an order imposing puniehment for contempt, except that a party may not be puniehed for contempt for 0 refueal to submit to a physical or mental examination under Rule 4010, (5) euch order with regard to the failure to lllake discovery as iB just. Pa, R.C.P. 4019. Subparagraph (c) of Rule 4019 gives the trial court wide latitude in crafting a compliance order. McGowan suggests that an order granting judgment by default in favor of McGowan and against Harris would be appropriate. In the alternative, McGowan would request an order of compliance, directing Harris to fully answer all Interrogatories and Requests. COHCLUSIOH For the foregoing reaBons, Plaintiffs should be ordered to fully answer all Interrogatories and Requeets for Production of Documents within 20 days, or suffer sanctions in the form of dismissal with prejudice, Datel IDf2-/1L./ Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HASLAND By,JI. ~.v.~ .;..,,, Supreme Ct. I.D, * 65206 26 West High Street CarliSle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants McGowans 7 CCNIIMOHWUlUH or "HHIJIYIlH'. ---.......iiMilifo' COMMON ,im (: U M~ ER L^N~ ,I IUDlCIIlI ill'.'C' NOTICI 0' A"IAL 'WM DIIT/lICT JUITICI JUDGMINT COIlIMOHPUIlIH.. q~. 1,j?3~.~vJ~LT!f"m NOTICI 0' APPIAL Notl~. II gI_ 11101 tho uppttllant 1101 hied In Iho obove Courl 0' co",,,,o,, Plo", un uppool fr"", tho judl)l11onl rend"od by Ih. DIIl,ld Ju.tl" on "" dolo and In tho co.. Il1Of1tionod bel_ ~_.._.__.._--'-_._..__.... -- ... .-.---.... .... , ~~('~ Q",,'I'~ tJ.t (cO~,Jt).", city \~~ deb-PlltHl "We r'. f\i~,~ .,..~",.'i-"'~YIN~lI'e;'I/Nii\,'",'jj''' '-"".... ~~"i~i~():":6~:~:\~"'>. .I~" ThI. block wi" b. Ilgnod ONLY whan Ihl. noloHon II roqulred "ndor Po. R.c,P,JP, No. 100al. ThI. Nolk. of 11"",01, when roctlvod by tho 01.11 lei J"lIlco, will ""0"'10 ," 0 IllJPIUIDlfllS 10 tho I~t let po....lIon In Ihl. COlo. 'IM/,/lTllIT>><~N1llMl1ll11r-'--"--'---~ Drl,;.~'!.~.M ...ot.\~_"~~.3 ~ ~r~ '~~~;l'Ii'~GlM":? ~Il~ ;01) ~M"- , w....UU~!l CJMhJIt . S;rii,i'h-HlJ 'i.jl''''i,i!JCNJ(>fMY 'j-Y {Ji">lily ".., _h_.___..__.____.._...._._..~ /I /lppollanl W/lS CLAIMANT (sea Pa, R,C.P,J.P, No, 100/ (G) In act/on oo/ore Dls/rlcl Jus/Ice, he Mt/ST FI/.E A COMPLAINT wl/hin lwonly (20) days alter /IIln(/ Ills NOnCE 01 APPEAL, .,iAltipITOINTIR RULI TO PILI COMPLAINT AND RULlio'j'Li-----m--.-"- (TIlIB secllon 0/ 101m to bfJ used ONLY when all/wl/Ilnt was DErfNOAN r (""O I'll HCP,JP. No, 100" 7 ) III actioll b%re D/5trlct JU5/lce, IF NOT USED, dfJtach (rom c~y o( no/lco 01 appolll to bo "",vorl upon "WUI/OO), 'IAICI'I. To Prothonotary Inhtr ",I. upon 1ir~, ~ (0. j -\.N ( i~ . '.' /J 10 Iii. 0 complalnlln !hI. oppool ,'-'...., ...1'!-JJ.?J c ;,. J 'f.:;;7:;~; '-"" ''''' '~\:'m '~1~ '--,,:- 5~111Jttlfl/ I 41~lItIIll r)f 'III IItftYnty cI ",.", f;dW<\rd Gj."do, E.1'(, IUL anl'~ II To ,_j,l,,-,,~ _ ,.~ \\o-{f;~ . Nw"" Il' 1),.)(/l/mYII} , oppoll"('I, ('I You oro noKfl.d thot 0 rulo I. horoby onl...d "pOll you to filo 0 ",mplolnt In Ihl. oppool wllhln twenty (201 doy. oft" tho dolo 01 ",vie. Qf !h11",1. upon you tw p,""",,1 .ory.. Of by "rtlfl.d Of regl.t.rod moll. (2) If you do nol fll. g' complaint within thl. II",., 0 JUDGMENT Of NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGIIINST YOU (31 Tho dolo of ..,YId of thI. rule If I"yl" Wtll by moil II tho do" of "",1IIug. Dolo: TrJa.ti.LA-1dL Ji~'1 . 9JJ ~.J" m (()~UU;, ~ BIdWtn rX ~ '1"".1 .-'J. N:JPG JI"." '" ~ I", '1<, ,-~ 'n '.:..J \'.. ~" "\-. t '\. "1t .>./ r '-.I \,j ,. :t ~. ~~ I! I- " ~.~ "l~_ \r1 ~ iI;' .. Q '" ~"..)l"".1 '>.> '~ ",'l!r.. r,J N nl':'f I , ,.,oo ','. .~ l.1) ~ ' ,II') 1 _...If - ".Ih.,r. 1l' N ' \' H}{~ . , > JI ,.,1 '6(.' ,I' .11 , , , " 'I I' ,. I~ell UO ,.J,d" UOllalWWoo ~iI'l "I~lIIrJJr.) ""~ ":17--:---- jJpNllIlIIM 11~II'J'lIlJ UiOI/M IIIl)I(JIJ /.1;1//111 Jc1 fJlrlj'IJnlS ------- .- J""I/'~~!!.--_--_._-_....~-- ---al "''''~.'''-~-''~O ^VO-"'-'--'''-- SIHJ. "l~ 3HOnIJ O:HlIIJ'JSflns ONV I03~\IU~V) NIJ0MS OIQJlltj 1..HH10UllllldlO:)I)J 6,JOpU06 'II11UJ (paJOI61I)a,) (PO'I'IJOj) ~Q Cl ')0'MOO,""00",,1 ~q [J "-..---61' ,-..-.....-.-,..--'..-...'.. "'" IHll.'lJPPII 'IUM IIlnU alU ""OlJM 01 ,.)aelleddu mu uodn IvoddV 10 "oIlClN 'MO"V GIll n"'~lJudll,o,,,)l/ ll""ld'!I<1C) U "11.1 <1I "lnU ,)lU 1"'^HI. I \Ul1I IGIU"'\ puv [J olawl) poq:lV\lU Id,G'o, .,'OP""' '111111' IP,lIolollJol!lpOlpIHlO) ~" [J OOI^'M IIIUn6Jad ~q CT '~al ' --- uo ,_..~._~---_._---.,_...-~ - (nu/I/II} '.JOllllddu \Jill UOdll PIJU 'Oll.)JUll pUl~:Hnl'(l ~dll)Oj:jJ ',lapuoo 'lIell' (POWI616oJ) (POIIII'o,,) ~q l J 1)0IM'" 1"1,0."1" ~" [J ,.,... -al ' ,.. ..u,.. (.O/^'../o ./ep) UO UIOJiHO PUlU\jBI!i{)P O:JHBflr l:llJ\lilO Hll\ lJodn . .,-, I}N IiWOld UOUjUJO'J 'IQoddV III IWII()N mil 10 .A.cto" u 0 PO^'O" 1111111 "'JlII" JO ,UOM. ~q'lJl)lII :J.I^Yal~~Y u! --------,----- ~O UNnOO VINV^1A8NN~ol ~O H1WlItINOWWOO {...oq G/q.""rldll ~.1011:1/n.'ld" 10 0"'1011 alii n'l/llll/lI IV ,,',\ V<I ((II ) N /L Nill /1M <1/.,,1 .Jf/ I snw .",^,.,/Q 1001<1 "~l) J.NIY1dWOO ;m~ 0.1. a1nU ONY WaddY :10 aOI.LON :10 aOIMJaS :10 :lOOl:ld SAI/)JS, (iUmO , MAPiI,ANIl 16 W, IlI,h Sir,'" l'.tll.I., P ^ BRUCE G. HARRIS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NANCY HARRIS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiffs . . v, . I NO. 94-1363 DAVID McGOWAN, MRS, DAVID I McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAW AND I GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS . CANTRELL, . Defendants . CIVIL ACTION LAW AIII"IR "ITIl HI" MATT.R All/) COUHTIRCLAIM AND NOW, come Defendants, David McGowan and Deborah McGowan by and through their attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Mas land, and answer the Complaint as follows. 1-2. Admitted, 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4, Admittsd upon information and belief, 5-7. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. It is admitted t.hat a buffer of trees, weeds and brush has existed along the common property line. It is denied that 0 "Bcreen" existed. To the contrary, at all relevant times, huge gaps existed in said trees and brush, It is further denied that a majority of the trees and brush wore located on Plaintiffs' property. It is impossible to tell on whose property the majority were located. 9, Denied. '1'0 the contrary, Defendants McGowan did not hire Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service to perform any work on their property prior to the Bpring of 1993. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendant, Chris Cantrell was in charge of the work to be performed by Union HaU, It is denied that Union Hall was hired to do any work in the fall of 1992. 11, Denied as stated, Prior to January 1993, Defendants McGowan had only a rough approximation of the location of the property line. Because of the apparent pettiness of Plaintiff ~ruce Harris, Defendants McGowan hired a surveyor to stake out the property line so that they could properly landBcape their own property without causing any confrontation with their neiqhbor who was obviously obseBsed with the sanctity of his brush and weedB. 12. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants McGowan were only interested in clearing and landscaping their own property. They had no intention of "opening the screen" to give a view of the South Mountain, By way of further answer, it i~ denied that a "screen" existed. By way of further answer, their landscaping plan called for 0 row of Arbor Vitaes which would act as a screen, 13, Denied as Btated. It is admitted that Defendant.s McGowan wanted some of the brush and trees on their property cleared to suit their landscaping needs. It is denied that they wanted all of the brush and treeB on their property removed. It is specifically denied that they wonted any of the brush or trees 8A/l)18, (iUmO A MA8I.ANl) removed from P laintiffB' property. To the contrary, some of the 16 W, III.h SIt<"' l'arlhl.,l'^ brush and trees were left on Defendants' property and all of the brush and trees were left on the Plaintiffs' property. 14. The responBe to paragraph 11 is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants MI')(/owftn (:111. 01' lil1\JIIOd lIr plll'lnltted to be cut any brueh, trees or limbs locnted on PLalntlffu' property in the fall ~ of 1992. To tho contrnry, if any brush, trees or l~mbs were cut on Plaintiffs' property in the fall of 1992, uid cutting was done by other partlell without the knowledge of Defendants. 15. Denied as stated. The reuponlle to paraqraph 14 is incorporated herein by reference. ay way of further answer, it is admitted that Plaintiff aruce G, Harris confronted the McGowans in the fall of 1992 and told them not to touch anything on his property. It is donied that the McGowans, or anyone acting on their behalf or with their Iluthodty had cut anything 011 the Plaintiffs' proporty. 16. Denied. 'l'o tho llontl'luy, Dofllndllnl.s McGowan never cut, caused or permittod 1.0 bo l:llt any treen, limbs or brush on Plaintiffs' property. 17. Donl.od. 'l'ho rOllpOnlllllJ to pllragraphl! 6, 12 and 16 are incorporetlld herein by refnrence. By way of further answer, if any new upon IIHI IlXLstfl, whirJh 1.11 denied, it was caused by the lawful removal of t1'OOll, woeclo and brush from the McGowan HAI/)III, (;lJl/lO .. MAHI.ANJ) 16 W, 111,11 Sir.,,, Olflhh,. PA property. 16. Uenlor!. 'l'he l't1sponsllo to paragraphs 6, 12, 16 and 17 are inCOrpnl'lItllr! hOI'Clln by referonco. 11), Ilonlor!. 'rhe responsee to pBragraphs 14 and 16 are i nrJoqml'lIl.nr! horn In by roference. By way of further answer, Defondent.1I MllOllwen nevor ovel'-uprayed any form of vegetation killer on their property. By way of further answer, it is denied 3 t SAlms, Gumo , MA81,ANU 16 W, lIIall Sir,,, l'Brlifth:,I)A that any action on McGowans' property resulted in any plantings on Plaintiffs' property having been killed. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief os to the truth of said averments and strict proof thereof iB demanded at trial. 20. Admitted in port and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants McGowan hirtid Dillsburg septic to perform some work on their driveway in 1993. All other averments contained therein are denied. To the contrary, Defendants McGowan neither caused nor permitted Dillsburg Septic to dump soil and/or pieces of blacktop on the Plaintiffs' property. Any such material that may have been placed on Plaintiffs' property was done so by Dillsburg Septic without the knowledge, permiBsion, or authority of Oefendants McGowan. 21. Denied os Btated. Dillsburg Septic has acknowledged their mistake to Plaintiffs and has asked Plaintiff Bruce Harris for the opportunity to remove the soil from Plaintiffs' property at no coot to Plaintiffs. 22. Denied. The responses to paragraphs 8, 12, 17 and 18 are incorporated herein by reference. 23. Denied. It is denied that the items set forth in Exhibit "A" are "reaBonably required plantings," To the contrary, there are no plantings reasonably required to restore the integrity of the brush, tree and weed buffer between the parties' property. By way of further answer, it is denied that the costs set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable. After 4 reasonablfl InVtlllt.l'jlll;\on, llefllndantB ore without. knowledge or information uutflulunt to furm a belief as t.o the truth of that averment snd utriat proof thllreof is demanded at trial. 24. [)enled. '1'1111 Ilverments contalned ther.ein are oonclusion" of law to which no responDe is neceesary. 2!L llenlmJ. '1'0 the contrary, Daid dirt can, and will upon request, be removCld by lllllllburq Septic at no charge, 26 . llo n lod . 'rhe Ilverments contained therein are conolusionll of law to which no reBponue is necessary. 27. Denied. The avermentD contained therein are oonclusions of law to which no responDe is necessary, 28. Denied. 1'he avermentu contained therein are oonclusions of law to which no reBponse iB necessary. By way of furtlwr answer, .It Is specif ically den1ed that the Defendants McGowan trellpalllled on Plaintiffs' property. To the contrary, neither of the McGowads have ever been on Plaintiffs' property. 29. Denied. Defendantll McGowl\nD' responses to paragraphs 16 and 23 are incorporated herein by reference. 30. llen led. Rome of the avermDnts contained therein are concluslonu of law to which no response .lB necessary, By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendants McGowan are without knowled~e or .Information sufficient to form HAIIIIII, .illlll!) A MMI/.ANU a be lief aB to the tx'uth of the averments set forth therein and l~ w, 111111 """'1 ,0,1I_1"I'^ strict pl'OOf. thereof is demanded at trial, 31. Denied. The averments contained therein are conolusions of law to which no response is necessary, By way of 5 SAlOIS, (;lJmo a MA8I.AN/l %6 W, 111111 Sir,,, Oarlhlf, PA further anBwer, it is specifically denied that MaGowons ever willfully trBl1passed upon the property of Plaintiffs or willfully cut any treeB or brush thereon. WHEREFORE, DefendantB MaGowan pray this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants McGowan together with costB of this aation. II" MATUR 32, In October of 1992, Plaintiff Bruce Harris advised the McGowans thot he was adamantly opposed to the housing development in which the McGowans' property is located. 33, At the same time, Defendant Bruce Harris advised the MaGowanB thl\t someone had cut a "branch" along the tree line, He further warned them against touching any trees or vegetation along their common boundary. 34. Suboequently, the McGowans became aware of Plaintiff Bruce HarriB' reputation in the community for confrontation over seemingly petty property disputes, 35, During the winter and spring of 1992-1993 the McGowans developed a landsaaping plan for their property with the help of Defendants Cantrell and union Hall, 36, As a result of the statements and warnings of Plaintiff Bruce Harris, aB well as Defendant McGowans' knowledge of his reputation, the McGowans hired a surveyor to specifically delineate the property line so as to avoid a confrontation with the Plaintiffs. II SA/l)IS, (iUI/lO , MA!lI,AN/) 1ft W, 1I1,Il ~1I'" Olrll~IL', PA 37. In May of 1993, Defendants McGowan contracted with Defendante Cantrell and Union hall to begin work on their landscaping plan. 38, pr ior to the commencement of the work, the MclJowans specifically instructed Defendante Cantrell and Union Hall not to cut or touch anything on the Plaintiffs' property. 39. Prior to the commencement of the work, at the insistence of the McGowans, a string was attached between the stokes along the McGowan and Harris property line so the boundary would be clear to the workmen. 40. Shortly after the work commenced, Plaintiff Bruce Harrie confronted the workmen in II violent manner and threatened bodily injury to them if they continued working, 41. In June of 1993 Defendants McGowan contracted with Dillsburg Septic to extend their driveway approximately three feet. Dillsburg Septic was specifically advised of the location of the Plaintiffs' property line and told not to place anything over the line. 42. Dil1eburg Septic miBtakenly placed 0 small amount of soil on the Harris side of the woode along the McGowan/Harris border. 43. Dillsburg Septic has acknowledged its mistake and has apologized to Defendants McGowan and Plaintiffs. 44. Dillsburg Septic has contacted Plaintiffs and offered to remove said Boil without charge, 7 45. Plaintiff Bruce Horria has refused to allow Dillsburg Septic onto hiB premises to remove the soil. 46. Plaintiff Bruce Harris has advised the owner of Dillsburg Septic that he would not be made part of any lawsuit because he has apologized to Plaintiffs for his error. COUIITIRCLAIM SA/J)/8, laHUO , MA!lI.ANJ) 16 W, IIlih Sir", C.rll~lr! PA 47. Ths averments of paragraphs 32-45 are incorporated herein by reference. 48. In May of 1993, within daYB of the incident referred to in paragraph 40 above, Defendant Deborah McGowan was in her vehicle stopped in traffic on Old York Rood at the intersection of Old York Road and Route 34, She was accompanied by her 13 year old daughter, when Plaintiff Bruce Harris stopped hie vehicle next to hers, wound down his window and proceeded to scream, yell and shake his hand violently at her. 49. During the months of June and July, Plaintiff Bruce Harris would regularly stalk along the McGowan/Harris property line and stare for long periods of time into the McGowan house. This was done for the sole purpose of harassing and frightening Defendant Deborah McGowan. 50, In August of 1993, Plaintiff Bruce Harris asked the Pennsylvania State Police to arrest Defendant Deborah McGowan for criminal trespass. She was contacted by the State Police regarding the complaint of Plaintiff Bruce Harri$ and no further action was taken. 8 f MI/)IS, (iU/IlO . MASI,ANIl 26 W, ftllh Sir", C1arll~lc, P ^ 51. One night in October 19~3 Plaintiff Bruce Harris drove his vehicle into the field abutting the McGowans property and parked it in such a way that the headlights shone directly into the McGowan home, ThiB was done for the sole purpQso of harassing and/or frightening the McGowan family. 52. On or about Sunday, April 17, 1994 Defendants McGowan were in their vehicle on Old York Road proceeding within 5 miles per hour of ths speed limit when Plaintiff Bruce Harris operated his vehicle within inches of their bumper and continuously blew his horn. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct Bet forth above, Defendants McGowan have suffered, and continue to suffer emotional distress, including, but not li~itsd to fright, horror, shame, humiliation, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry. 54. As a direct and proximate result of said extreme and outrageouB conduct, Defendants McGowan have incurred substantial expense for the purchase and inBtal1ation of Bpecial blinds and a privacy fence. The cost of Baid items are approximately $5,300.00. 55. As a direct and proximate reBult of said extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant Deborah McGowan has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for stress-related maladies, inclUding, but not limited to anxiety, headaches and heart palpitations. 9 VlRIPICA'l'IO" I verify that the statements made in the foregoing An.wer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I under.tand that false statements herein are made subject to the penaltiee of 16 pa, C,S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsHication to authorities. DATEDl ,-:-<,~)~J; Nr 'I f .' ('r. " ., 8,AI/)IS, GUmO A MA!I/.ANIl 16 W, ftllll Sir,,, Carll.le, P^ 'I , " , , , " ,I " BRUCE Q, HARRliS, Plaintiff v, IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1383 civil 1994 DAVID L, MCGOWAN, ET UX Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CIRTI'ICATI 0' .IRVICI , ' I, William C. Vohs, Esquire hereby certify that the following were served by U.S. moil, certified, return receipt requeeted, on March 22, 1994, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania! Bruce G. Harris 472 West Old York Rood Carlisle, PA 17013 District Justice Susan K. Day 229 Mill Street Box 167 Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 Attached hereto is a court file copy of the Notice of Appeal and the Proofs of Mailing and green cards. Datel ,~j~'6f~ Respectfully submitted, MAS LAND 8AI/)III, (;UI/)O , MAIII.ANU 16W, IIllh Sir,,, ('.rll~lr, PA BYI Wil am C. Vohs, Esquire Supreme Ct, I.D, * 65200 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendant , I I NOllel 0' APPIAL COIlIIl\IlNW'/lLlH Q' "NNUL"AN'A --.,.---.-.. (aUIt 0' CUMMONPUA5 (' I' )1'i\\1/ \1,1./\0' )i\ 1lIl>ICIAL tJlI)lII(' Jill !t., 1l1~1111(f JUSJlU, JUDGMENT Nolle. I. Ulve"lh<l1 Iho <IW..lI<l"II,," Iii",' '" II", "b,,..., ("",I "I (","""", 1'1"," 'Ill "pp""II,,,," 'h" 1',<111""'''1'''''')''0<1 by ,h. Dlllrlct bllee on the date ond In the ((JIlt Ilumtloflud below. UlMMONPLlWlo. '/'/, iJ',{J ('VI 1.-1" m NOTICE Of APPEAL FlMiIilIIJiHl'>'" M< ... M('", ""/.WIl!\c\l ;.PPt,I>'" \"'$) (\(/HI/I( ~'\J P\(Hl '~1.~H\. \lt~.'I","'i)I,f,";""i' .~J,.I.\\(\'\ 1,(')((" ~ .\\(..\11\' rr oooOOQ (p- q"i CV 19 IM.'\Il1'~"O;;"I'Minl'''.' u."O."!'30.3 D l' .)\h(~ f\ D'^':/d""~~__ M,Il.H u....~ ' P/\ ll."..... .,.)2<:) ,.3 f>l, '.r 1'.1 Of'" .'r;,""/fNc. ~/.l"",^,,,\ U"-".., v;:JIr,'W ,/'" 'ov, u: . a"J(.h, ~~ ~II ''''',,,,I'''~ "~~~t~:~~~' ,7Jt,c,',,1 ," , ~~,,'P"'... LT 19 \ ...' :..2'_,.. ._.__'_'_~~ d.H . .___ ...._...._.._. _... .,_ e' ,_ .' I Thl' blod( will be !)lgllftd ONLY when lhl, /lotqtioll l~ requillld IJtldm Po, R,C.P.J,P, No. 100BB, Thla Noticfj of ApptltL1I, when re(tllvuJ by Ihll Ol~trld hJ!ltice, will n!JlIfol.t m (I &JPfR5EDEAS In th. judU",."t for po"."IOIl in thl. "",., [)l"o$ \ ^ Me. ~,n,lllr\ HIY C\I \"J~ _ ,..._ . _. __..___...__., ..._.__..... ,,__,._.. ....._w_,... /I d/l/lolfd/11 Wd'; C~AIMANT (81111 PO, fI'cP,JP, NQ, 100 I ((j) 1/1 ilctiollllo/O(o District JlIsHco, M MUST FII.E A COMPI.AlNT wifllln Iwonly (20) rloys oft"r li/irl(l IllS NOneI' ot APPF.AL ~~ilJ'1diH,H nf Pru}/lnlll J/"'-v 1J1 {II '!1U'V PRAIClPfTO IN"'R RULE TO flU COMPLAINT AND RULI TO fiLl (This soe/lon of ""'" to /'" IIsl'll ONI.Ywlll'lIl1w"lflllll Wi'" 111,11 NnAN! 1',"" f',1 lIe!'.}I', No) 100/(11 III ,1e/lolIl.",tom 010111"' ,Iusllco, IF NOT IJSED. cJotudl from f;oflY of IIIJII(;o o( ilH)fNlf III 1m ~].'I\ll'f' 111'0/1 ,lppd/l!I!) PRAICIPI. To Pmlhunulury En"'r rol. "pOll jJ r 'I (",,- (Common Pleo. No. 'l!/d.I.J;1 j 'J h \lie.., 0, \.\<^-, Ii,.) , oopallHl.l, 10 iii. " (omploln' In !hI. opp.ai Nllllhl<JII/yll'!ltt'{,) ~ ( \ v, I '" I 1>11 within IWllnty (20) JoY' u'.'er ,,,~..?~~ ...,~r~ of j"dgm"'" of non pro. \ ?-.. ;.' '1' - - .~ .. iIOlllltlJI'" , ",-.U II,JII'"'lI- rll~ ,If;;",i~,y I), +ilU'Hlf 1:;/1 \~.I/I ,-1 C I J ,,,\ ':1 l ;"/ ,0Po"IIM!I): RUlli To, (~ \\0,1(,':. Nol/rlll 'il oIH)r'II,',~,,) (1) YC)U Clre notified Ihllt () tllll) l~ hnrehy OnlP.flld upon YOlj 10 HIlt I) (,nll1fll..lll)l 1111111& llppeol wllhln twenty (20) day' olr., Ih., doh' of ..,,,Iu of Ihl& nJ11It upot' YO!I by perional ultvke ot by (I']tllri~HJ or tl/Ol.tttlod moil. (2111 YOl) do not iii. II romplo;,,' withl" Ihi. lim.., II JlJDGMF.NT Of NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, (3) The deltt' of r.ervlce of Ihl~ rlJlit If utrvloJ WOPl by lllolll", 11m dlJh, (ll molllt\{J. (/"t1Lr._}}J.,. IT ; ,r/) (, J.f.I,,/..M4:.1:__.,;_lkJ.. -'.. :::J1UfIafllm ~lf'AtVY or ~/ry Dolo: .jlLf].'LI~, L ,i!. , 19 'J '/ N)ft{:JIl,lt.4 COllf1T FILE IRuel G. HARR18 and NANCY HARRIS, plaintiff. IN THI COURT 0' COMMON P~1A8 CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PINN'Y~VANIA v. NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HAL~ LAWN AND GARDIN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendant.. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMP~INT 1. Plaintiff., Bruce G, Harri. and Nancy Harri. are adult individual. re.idinq at 472 We.t Old York Road, Dickin.on Town.hip, Carli.le, penn.ylvania 17013, 2, Defendant., Mr, and Mr., David McGowan are adult individual. re.idinq at 130 C1earview Plaoe, Diokin.on Town.hip, carli.le, penn.ylvania 17013, 3. Defendant, Union Hall Lawn and Garden ServiCle i. a bu.ine.. with offiCle. at 4322 Enola Road, Newville, penn.ylvania 17241, 4, Dafendant Chri. Cantrell i. an adult individual and qen.ral manaqer of union Hall Lawn and Garden servic., 5. plaintiff. own property in DiClkin.on Town.hip, cumb.r- land county, penn.ylvania. 6. Defendant., Mr. and Mr.. David MClGowan al.o own property in DiClkin.on Town.hip, cumberland county, p.nn.ylvania. 7. Th. property ot Defendant. MaGowan li.. ima.diately north of . portion of the property owned by pl.intiff. .nd the two propertieD .hare . oommOn property line. 8. Betore fall 1992, the oommon property line w.. .oreened by bru.h and tree. primarily looat.d on property of Pl.intiff.. 9. In tall 1992, Defendant. McGowan hired Union Hall L.wn and G.rden Service to pertorm land.oapinq work on their property, 10. Detendant Chri. Cantrell wa. in oharqe of the work performed by Union Hall Lawn and Garden Servioe.. 11. All Detendant. were aware ot the looation ot the property line between the propertie., 12. Defendants MaGowan wanted the eoreen opened .0 that they would h.ve a view ot the .outh mountain, 13. Detendant. MaGowan aleo wanted the bru.h and tr.e. out to .uit their own land.oapinq objeotive., 14. The Defendant., with full knowledqe of the property line and Plaintitf.' prop.rty riqht., in the fall of 1992 tre.- p....d onto Plaintiff'e prop.rty and wronqfully .nd defi.ntly out .nd/or oau.ed and permitted to b. out bru.h, tr..., and limb. loo.t.d on Pl.intiff.' .id. of the property line, 15. Wh.n plaintift BrUCIe G. Harri. di.C1ov.r.d the C1uttinq in the fall of 1992, he epoke to the MClGowan. and told th.m not to C1Ut .ny other tree. or bru.h on hi. .ide of the property line, - :a - without w.iVin9 any ol.im. for the wron9ful outtin9 that took pl.o. in the f.ll of 1993, 16. De.pit. the above in.truCltion .nd d.Mand mlde in the f.ll ot 1992, Defendant. in M.y 1992 again wron9fully and d.fi- .ntly tr..p...ed onto Plaintiff'. property and .9.in cut and/or oau.ed .nd perMitted to be cut tr.e., liMb. and bru.h on Pl.- intiff., .id. of the line, 17. A. a re.ult of the wrongful cutting on Plaintiff.' .id. ot the prop.rty line, there iB now an opening in the Icr..n that pr.viou.ly exi.ted b.tween the two propertie., The opening i. approxiMately 30 yard. 10n9. 18. If D.fendant. had cut only on their .ide of the lina, th.r. .till would b. a .olid .oreen between the two prop.rtie., 19. After the wrongful cutting in M.y 1993, which follow.d the wrongful outting in the fall of 1992, Def.ndant. over.pray.d with .ome torm of v8getation killer, A. a re.ult, tha .pray w.nt onto the property of Plaintiff., A. a re.ult of the over.pr.y, A number of pl.nting. on Pl.intiff.' property h.ve been killed, 20. Furth.r, after the wrongful outting in May 1993, Def.ndant. McGowan hired another oontraotor, Dill.burg S.ptio, to perforM .0Me work on the driveway area of their proplrty. Defendant. MoGowan either cau.ed or p.rmitted the contractor to dump .oil .nd piece. of bl.cktop onto Plaintiff., property .long the Harri./MClGowan property line. - 3 - 21. D..pit. demand, to date, n.ith.r D.t.nd.nt. McGow.n nor the contr.C1tor h.v. r.moved the .oil tro. Pl.intitt., prop.rty. 22. In ord.r to r.pl.c. the .cre.n th.t pr.viou.ly .xi.ted betw..n the H.rri./McGoWan propertie., it i. n.c....ry to pl.c. pl.ntin9' in the .re.. 23. Th. tot.l r...onable co.t ot the r.a.on.bly r.quir.d pl.ntin9' tor th.t purpo.. i. $1,950. Th. e.ti..t. ot 8uncr..t a.rden. tor .uch planUnq. is attached hereto .. Exhibit "A" .nd incorpor.ted herein by reterenCle, 24. D.tendant. McGOw.n, Union Hall L.wn and Gard.n S.rvice, .nd chri. cantrell are jointly and .everally liable tor the co.t. ot the .tore.aid plantinq.. 25, In ord.r to remove the dirt and a.ph.lt dump.d ov.r the line it will co.t .pproximat.ly $320 to hire a contr.ctor tor th.t pUrpo.., Att.ch.d hereto aa Exhibit "BI. i. the ..Umate tor the r.mov.l ot the dirt. 2~. Detendanty McGowan are jointly and ..v.rally li.ble tor the co.t ot r.movin9 the dirt. 27. Pl.intift.' prop.rty riqht. h.v. been viol.t.d by the .C1tion. ot Det.nd.nt.. 28, All D.tendant. h.ve tr..p....d on Pl.intitt., property .nd .r. li.bl. tor q.n.ral damaqe. tor tr..p... to r..l property. 29. Th. v.lu. ot the tree. and bru.h that wa. cut on Pl.intitt.' property i. at l.a.t $1,950. - 4 - 30. A. a ~..ult of the action. of D.fendant. a. ..t torth abov., Plaintiff' have .uffe~.d and endu~ed e.ot1onal up.et and d1.t~e" to~ which Plaintiff. de.and co.pen.at1on in an ..ount within the jur1.d1C1t1on of the arbitr.to~.. 31. The conduct of Defendant. in willfully tre.pa..1nq on Plaintiff., prope~ty and willfully cutt1n9 tre.. and b~u.h de.p1te .pecific in.truction. f~o. plaintiff A not to do .0, wa. wilful, outraqeou., wanton, and intentional and, the~.fore, Defendant. a~e liable for punitive da.age., WHEREFORE, Plaintit:. Bruoe G, Harri. and Nancy Harr1. de.and judqment 89ain.t D.fendant., Mr, and Mr., McGowan in tho a.ount ot $2,270 toqether with qeneral damage. and punitive damage., Plaintiff. further de.and judqment a9ain.t union Hall Lawn and Garden service and chri. cantrell, jointly and .ev.rally in the amount of $1,950 toqether with general damaqe. and puni- tive damaqe.. By etIJ ano , an I.D. No, 21401 100 pine street p, O. Box 1166 Harri.burq, PA 17108-1166 (717) 232-8000 Attorney. for Plaintiff. " , I .. II .. CIRTI.ICAT. or 8ERVIC. J hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the CO.- plaint Wa. .erved on the fol1owin9 by fir.t ola.. ..il, po.taV. pnpddl Edward E. Guido, I.quir. saidi., Guido' Ma.land 26 We.t HiVh street P,O. Box 560 Carli.le, PA 17013 chrb cantrell union Hall Lawn and Garden service U22 Inola Road Newville, PA 17241 Dated I April 6, 1994 , i , , , " , I, 'II' " I " )' :r I ! I , I I, I )" , , ll~ BRUC. G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, PldnUtt. IN THE COURT or COMMON P~1A8 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY~VANIA v. NO. 94-1383 i' '.' DAVID MoGOWAN, MRS. DAVID MoGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDIN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ;1 , I fLAINTIFFS' RE~LY 10 NEW MATTER ~ND COUNTE~CLAIM 0' DAVID McGOWAN' MRS. DAVID McGOWAN " AND NOW COME Plaintitt., by their attorneys, McNees, Wallaoe . Nuriok and make the tollowing reply to the new matter and oounterCllaim ot Defendants. :, REPLY TO NEW MATTER Admitted only that plaintiff Harris would have pre- 3:1. ferred that the housing development had not taken plaoe, 33. Admitted in part and denied in part, It i. admitted that Dr. Harri. told the McGowan'. that tre.s and tree limb. had been C1Ut on his side of the property line and that he warned the MoGowan's again.t tre.pll..inq on his property or cutting any tree. or vegetation on his .ide of the property line. It i. denied that he .dd that only a "branoh" had been cut. 34. Denied, It i. denied that Dr, Harri. has .uoh a reputation, Further, atter rea.onable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sUfticient to form a belief ! 'I' ,1'1' ~'" !,.- ',~".~~- I, I a. to what awarene.. the MoGowan" may hav~ ha~ at any partioular period ot time and proot thereot i. deman~ed, it relevant. 35. Denied. After rea.onable inve.ti9ation, Plaintiff. are without knowle~ge or intormation .utfioient to torm a belief a. to the truth ot the averments set forth in this para9raph. The averment is therefore ~enied an~ proof thereot deman~ed. 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It i. admitted that the MoGowan's had a .urveyor .urvey the boundaz'y line and that the MoGowan's knew where the line wa. looated. It i. denied that the MoGowan'. have at any time taken aotion to avoid a oonfrontation with Plaintiff., but, on the oontrary, have under- taken aotion. to violate Plaintiff.' property righte to make a confrontation inevitable. A. to the remaining averment. of this para9raph, after rea.onable inv..tigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledqe or information ,ufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of tha avermente .et forth in this paragraph. The averment i. therefore ~enied and proof thereof demanded. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is a~mitte~ that the McGowan'. at .ome point had Cantrell and Union Hall do work on their pruperty. A. to the remainin9 averment. of this para9raphs, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff. are without knowledqe or information eUffioient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. .et forth in thi. paragraph. The averment i. therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. - :I - " , I, "',. 38. After reaeonable inve~ti9ation, Plaintiffs are without knowle~ge or information euffioiant to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. set forth in thi. paragraph. The .verment is therefore denied and proof thereof demande~. 39. After re.eonable inveeti9ation, plaintiff. knowledge or information .ufficient to form a belief truth of the avermente .et forth in thi. paragraph. is therefore denied and proof thereat ~emande~. 40. A~mitted in part and ~enied in part. It i. admitted that, ae .et forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff Bruoe Harri. disoovered that hi. property right. had been violate~ by the outting of tree., brush and branohe. on his eide of the property line. In order to mitigate the harm and avoi~ further outting. in violation of hi. property righte, it ie further admitted that Dr. Harri. oonfronted the workmen and made it olear to them that they .hould not cut any tree., limb. or brueh on hi. .ide of the property line. Plaintiff Bruoe Harri. wa. merely aoting to protect hi. property righte from being further violated by Defendant.. It i. denied that Plaintiff Bruce Harrie' aotions were in any way inappropriate under the oircumetanoes. 41. Admitted in part and ~enied in part. It is admitted that at some point Dill.burg Septio di~ .ome work on the McGowan property. As to the remaining averments, after r.a.onable inveeti9ation, Plaintiff. are without knowledge or information are without as to the The averment - 3 - suffioient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. .et forth in this para9raph. The averment i. therefore ~enied and proof thereof demanded. 42. Admittad in part, danied in part. It i. admitt.ed that a sUbstantial amount of .oil a. well a. other ~riv.way debri. was dumpad on Plaintiff.' side of the property line in further violation of his property right.. Denie~ that it was a "small" amount of soil. As to the remaining averments of this paragraph, after re..onable investigation, Plaintiff. are without knowledge or information .uffioient to form a belief .. to the truth of the av.rment. set forth in thi. paragraph. The averment i. therefore denied and proof thereat demanded. 43. A~mitted in part and denied in part. It i. admitted that Dillsburg Septio has aoknowle~ge~ that it violated Plain- tiff.' property right.. To date, however, it ha. failed to remove the .oil and other material from Plaintiff.' property. A. to the remaining averments of thi. paragraphs, after reasonable inve.ti9ation, plaintiffS are without knowledge or information .uffioient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. let forth in this paragraph. The averment is therefore ~enie~ an~ proof thereof demanded. 44. Denied a. stated. Plaintiff Bruoe Harris oontaoted Dillsburg Septio to demand the removal of the soil and debris. - 4 - ,!' " Althou9h Dilllbur9 septic ha. indioated it would remove the 80il and debri., it has not yet done .0. 45. Denied. plaintiffs' have given Dillebur9 Septic permission to cros. the boundary line to the extent necessary to remove the soil an~ debris from plaintiffs' property. 46, Admitted that Plaintiff did not join Dillsburg septic as a party to this lawsuit on Dillsburg septio'. representation that it would promptly remove the .oil and debris at no expense to Plaintiff and without any further damage to Plaintiffs' property. To date, however, Dillsburq Septio has failed to make good on its promile. !, I " REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM 47. The replie. to paragraphs 32 to 46 are inoorporated herein by referenoe. 48. Denied. It il denied that Plaintiff Bruce Harril stopped his vehicle next to Mrs. MoGowan'. and eaid or did the things claimed in paragraph 48. Suoh event never took plaoe. 49. Denied ae stated. It i. admitted that Plaintiff Bruce Harris occasionally walke on hie property, includinq the property that ie to the south of the McGowan/Harrie property line. It i. denied that his walking on the property at any time hal been for the sole purpose of haralsing and frightening Defendant, Debra - 5 - r MaGowan. On the oontrary, plaintiff hal at all times acted within hi. p~operty riqhtl. 50. Admitted that in August of 1993, Plaintiff Bruce Harri. went to the Oietriot Magistrate regardinq Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs' property right. and their trespa.s onto Plaintiffl' property. The District Maqiltrate suqgested that Plaintiff report the inoident to the Pennsylvania state police. 51. Denied. From time to time, Plaintiff Bruoe Harris hal ~riven hil vehiole on hil property as he is entitled to do ad the owner of such property. It i. denied that he ever pointed hi. headlights directly into the MoGowan home for the sole purpose of harassing andlor frighteninq the MoGowan family. 52. Denied. plaintiff Bruce Harri. never enqaged in suoh aonduot. 53. Denied. At no time has Plaintiff en9aged in extreme o~ outrageou. oonduot of any type, and at all times Plaintiffs' aotions have been appropriate in view of the violations of his property right. by Defendant. It is further denied that Defen- dants McGowan have luffered any leqally cognizable injury. 54. Denied. It il denied that any suoh expenles were inourred as a relult of any extreme or outrageous conduct of Pldntiff, all of which is denied. Pldntiffl' conduot ha. at all time. been appropriate under the circumstanoes. As to the remaining averments, after realonable investiqation, Plaintiff. - 6 - a~e without knowledge or information lufficient to form a belief as to the t~uth of the averments set forth in this para9raph. The averment is the~efore denied and proof thereof demanded. ~~. Denied. It is ~enied that plaintiff .ngage~ in any extreme and/or outrageous conduct and at all times Plaintiffs' conduct has been appropriate under the oiroumstance.. It is further denied that Defendant McGowan incurred any medical expenles or medical problem. a. a reeult of any conduct of Plaintiff. ~6. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff Bruce Harri. engaged in any inappropriate conduot at any time under the ciroumstance.. Further, it is denied that he ever engaged in any wilfUl, wanton, intentional or outrageous oonduct that would under any oiroumltanoe, 8ubject him to any liability for punitive damage.. WHEREFOR!, Plaintiffl' demand that the new matter and counterclai~ of the Defendant.' McGowan be di.missed and judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff. in aooordanoe with the demands of the Complaint. NEW MATTER ~7. To the extent Defendantl have 8ustained any damage of the nature set forth in their oounterclaim, all of whioh ia denied, Defendants e.eumed the ri.k of luoh damages by viOlating - 7 - Plaintiff.' prop.rty riqht. and tr.spassing or cau.in9 other. to tre,pa., on Plaintiff.' prop.rty and causing damage to their prop.rty, and D.f.ndant.' claim. are barred under the doctrine of a..umption of risk. 58. Defendant. have be.n oontributorily n.91igent and any claim. .et forth by Defendant. in their counterolaim ar. barred a. a r.sult of .uoh n.gligenc. in tr..pasling on Plaintiff.' proparty and oauling dama9. to th.ir property. 5e. Beoause of D.f.ndant.' wilful tre.pas. on Plaintiff.' property, Defendant. are e.topped from claiming any harm a. a re.ult of the dilPute. that have ari.en because of suoh wilful, int.ntional tre.pas. on Plaintiff.' property. 60. Plaintiff Bruoe Harris' oonduot was at all times ju.tified a. a r..ult of the wilful, wanton tr..pa..e. by D.fen- dants on Plaintiff.' property. 61. TO the extent Defendant. oomplain about Plaintiff.' activities on hi. own property, plaintiffS' aotivitie. are privile9.d b.cau.e of PlaintiffS' .tatu. as the landowner of .uoh property. i' " ~. . " CERTIFIGATI OF ~ERVICE I he~eby certify that a true and correct copy of the tore. 9oin9 dooument was .erved on the following by first class .ail, postave prepaidl E~ward I. Guido, I.quire Saidisf oui~o , Ma.land 26 We.t High street P,O. Box 560 carlisle, PA 17013 Chri. Cantrell Union Hall Lawn and Garden Service 4322 Enola Road . '.""'., PA '72" r;; ~ ,A'~ I no M. an I Datedl JUne 2, 1994 '~! " \1 , ,,, " 'I , ;j " I q I I'll I,' I, ,I , ., . , ,I I' , . " " [,: ! '. ,. , I " '.'1 " I': >" !I !I Ii 'I ;! , BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff v. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBr,RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I I No. 94-1383 I I I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW DAVID McGOWAN and DEBORAH II McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND I GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS i CANTRELL, Defendants al'LY TO .IW MATTia AND NOW, comes Defendants, McGowan by and through their attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and reply to the New I Matter raised in Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim as follows I 57. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is necessat'y, it is specifically denied that Defendants McGowan trespassed or caused others to trespass on Plaintiffs' property. To the contrary, Defendants McGowan actually went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor I anyone acting on their behalf trespassed on Plaintiffs' property. II 58. Denied. The averments contained therein are I II cunclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the II extent that a rllsponse is necessary, it is specifically denied 'I that Defendants McGowan trespassed or caused others to trespass :, on P laintif fs I property. To thl! contrary, Defendants McGowan I actually went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor il I anyone acting on their behalf trespassed on Plaint.iffs' property. I SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF .. MASLAND 16 W, Hllh Sln'l COIII,lo, PA 59. Denied. The evennents contllinllld therein are " I Ifonclullions of law to which no response is necessary. To the ~xtent that a response is neceseary, it is specifically denied ~h8t Defendants McGowan trespaseed or caused others to trespaS8 lion plaintiffs' property. To the cont.rery, Defendants McGowan ~ctuallY went out of their way to make sure that neither they nor I lanyone acting on their behalf trespassed on Plaintiffs' property. 60. Denied. The lIverments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response io necessary. By way of further answer, Plaintiff, Bruce Harris' neurotic obseesion with his property rights and his confrnntationol attitude toward any IPerceiVOd violation thereof (ee evidenced by his Reply to this particular paragraph) are the reasons why the Defendants McGowan took extra precautions and incurred extra expense to make sure Ithat no one violated thODe property rights. 61. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to whi~h no response is necessary. WHEREFORE, Defendants McGowan demand that New Matter be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of Defendants McGowan in accordance with the demands of the counterclaim. OM'ED t ~,f.J ~I 'r 1/ Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, GUIDO, S~YFF & MAS LAND SA1DlS, ClUlDO, SllUFF' .. MASUND l~ W, Hllh ~Irrtl l'ullol.,P" BYI ,<.-f'C. ~/ \ ,,~. II Edward E. GUido, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants ,; I I I v..xrXCATXOI I., I verify that the statements made in this Reply ~re true And oorreot. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to ths penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i , " --- ! I I,' " " .j,l, " ~ (~o/~r Datedl /, I , I' , , ' I, ,} , , " " , , I' , SAIDIS, GUIDO, ' , SHUFF Ie , , MASLAND 26 W, lfI.h 8'n.1 , , C.rll.I.. PA I I, " 3 " " i" , " " .IIUC. Q. HAllIIZ. and NANC'I NARIl', 1'1 a:J.ntJ.tt / IN 'I'N' COUll 'I' 01 CONNON PLIA' / CrnG.IlLANV COUN'l''I, I'.NN''IZ,VANZA / / CIVZL AC'1.'ION - LA" / / NO. '" -1.313 / / / / / / / v. DAVID NaQO"AN, HR,. DAVID NaOO"AN, UNZON HALL LAJfN AND QAIID'N '.IIVIC. and CHilI. CANTR.l,l" Detendant. HOTIC' TO P~DD '1'0/ plainti.tt. and tbei.r aoun.el, Delano N. Lant., ..qui.re NaN"S, WALLAClI , MIRICK P. O. Box 1166 Harri..burg, PA 17108 You are hereby noti.aed to plead to the enalo.ed An.wer and New Netter withi.n twenty (20) dey. ot .erviae hereot or a detault may be entered auei.nel: you. P08'1.' , SCH.LL, P.C. f:2 [Id. ~e Paul ". Or.go, .. Z.D. No. 39701 101 N. front St. Huri.burg, PA 17101 (7,17) 232-5931 Date/ 7/1& It) tj Co-Coun.el tor Detendanl:l Union Hall l,awn and aarden Servi.ae end Chri.. Cantrell Vieaggi.o, rna. JMUC' O. ~MIS and NANcr HAIIUS, 'ldntJ.t1 I IN 'I'H' aOUM'I' 01 COIIIION PLUS I CUNJ.llLANlJ cornrrr, PlNN,rLVANIA I I CIVIL AC'I'ION . LAW I I NO. 14-1313 I I I I I I I v. DAVID IIcOOWAN, liltS. DAV1D lIaOOPfAN, UNION HALL LAPfN AND QAIID.N '.IIVIC. .nd CHnS CANfIl.LL, De '.nd.nt. ANBfIIIR JUG) lID .,a~.. AND NOW INTO COUll 'I' , through underlJ,gn.d aoun..l, oOllle th. Del.nd.nt., un.i.on Hall Lawn Ind Oarden S.rv.i.oe and Chr.i.. C.ntr.ll, who, .i.n an.w.r to the C~mpl..i.nt 01 th. ,l..i.nt.i.II., r..peotlully repr...nt th.t I 1-:2. D.n.i..d. Alt.r reuon.bIe .i.nve.t.i.g.t.i.on, an.wer.i.ng De/.ndant. l.ok .i.n/ona.Hon or knowl.dge .utt.i.a.i..nt to lona . b.H.I a. t() the trutb 01 the av.na.nt. aont..i.n.d .i.n th.i.. p.r.gr.ph end .Ul. er. th.re/ore d.n.i.ed, .tr.i.ot proof be.i.ng d.m.nd.d .t tr.i.al, .i.1 r.l.v.nt. "-4. Adldtted. 5-8. D.n.i..d. A/t.r rea.onebl. .i.nve.t.i.g.t.i.on, en.w.r.i.ng D,'endant. l.ck .i.n/ona.tion or knowledge .ultJ.c.i..nt to lona e bel.i..1 e. to the truth 01 the .v.naent. cont..i.n.d .i.n th.i.. p.r.graph .nd .Ul. .r. ther.lor. d.n.i.ed, .tr.i.ct proof bdng d.m.nded .t tr.i..l, .i.1 relev.nt. 9. D.n.i..d. '1'0 the contrary, D.I.nd.nt. lIoGowan d.i.d not hjre unjon HaJ.l L.wn .nd a.rd.n S.rvjoe to perlontl .ny work on th.jr prop.rty pr10r to the Sprjn~ 01 1113. 10. ",dJaHt.d 1n p.rt .nd d.n1.d 1n p.rt. .rt 1. .dJaHted th.t D,'.ndlnt, Chr1. C.ntr.U w.. jn oh.r~e 01 the wor/r to be per/ontlld by Un10n H.U. It j. d.n1.d th.t Udon H.ll w.. h1r.d to do .ny work jn the '.11 01 1113. 11. Denj.d. ""t.r r...on.bl. 1nv..tj~.t10n, .n.w.r1n~ D,'.nd.nt. 1.ok 1nlontl.tjon or knowl.d~. .uI1101.nt to lontl . b.l1el .. to th. truth 01 the Iv.ntl.nt. oont.jn.d 1n thj. p.r.~r.ph and .1lII. .11" ther.tor. d.n1.d. .tr1ot prool b.1n~ d.m.nd.d .t trj.l, 11 r.l.v.nt. 13-13. The oorr..pond1ng p.r.gr.ph 01 the Compl.1nt 1. not .ddr....d to th. .n.",.r1ng D,'.nd.nt. .nd r,<<u1r.. no .n.w.r. To the .xt.nt th.t .n .n.w.r m.y b. dlt.m.d r.qu1r.d, how.ver, d.n1.d lor th. r...on. 1nd1o.t.d 1n 11, .bov.. 14. 'Th. r..pon.. to 110 1. 1ncorpor.t.d h.r.1n by r,/er.no.. By w.y 01 lurth.r .n.w.r, 1t 1. .p.o111o.11y d.n1.d th.t De/.nd.nt. Un.ton HaJ.l LIWJ2 .nd a.rd.n S.rv1o. .nd Chr1. C.ntr.ll out or o.u..d or p.rm1tt.d to b. out .ny bru.h, tre.. or 11mb. loo.t.d on Pl.1nt111.' prop.rty 1n th. 'allot 1193. 'To the oontr.ry, .tt .ny bru.h, tr... or 11mb. WIll" out on Pl.1nt.ttl.' prop.rty 1n the ,.U 01 1113, ...td outt1ng w.. don. by oth.r p.rt1.. w1thout the knowl.dg. 01 th. D.I.nd.nt.. 15. 'I'h. oorr..pond1ng par.gr.ph 01 the Compl.1nt 1. not .ddr....d to the .n.w.r1ng D,'.nd.nt. .nd r.qu1r.. no .n.w.r. TO the extent that an an.wer may be deemed required, hQw.ver, d.ni"d lor tbe rea.on. indicated in 11, above. 16. nenied. To tbe contrary, Delendant., Union HaU ~aw.D and Garden Service and Cbrie Cantrell nev.r cut, cau.ed or pe.ndtted to be cut any tree., HI/Ib. or bru.b on Plaintifl.' prop.rty. 11. Denied. The r..pon.e. to '8, .12 and '16 are incorporated herein by relerence. By way ollurtber an.wer, it any new opening exi.t., which i. denied, it wa. cau..d by the lawlul removal tree., weed. and bru.h trom the McGow.n property. 18. Denied. The r..pon.e. to '8, '12, '16 .nd '11 are incorporated h.rein by ret.rence. 19. Denied. The re.pon.e. to '14 and '16 are incorpor.ted herein by r.terence. By way of turther an.wer, D.tendant. Union Hall Lawn .nd Garden Service and Chri. C.ntr.l1 never ov.r .pr.y.d .ny torm ot veg.t.tion killer on the Harri.' property. By w.y ot turth.r .n.wer, it i. denied th.t .ny .ction on NcGow.na' prop.rty r..ult.d in any pl.nt. on Plaintitt.' prop.rty heving b..n kJ.ll.d. Att.r re..on.ble inve.tigatJ.on, an.w.ring Detend.nt. lick inlorm.tion or knowledge .utticient to torm . b.li.t .. to the truth ot the .v.rm.nt. cont.ined in thie par.gr.ph .nd .ame .r. ther.'ore deni.d, .trict proot being demsnd.d .t tri.l, it relev.nt. 20-21. Th. correeponding par.gr.ph. 01 the CODlplaJ.nt are not .ddr....d to the anewering Detendant. and require no .newer. To the .xt.nt th.t In .n.wer II'Y b. d..II.d r'Il'IJ.red, how.v.r, d.nJ..d tor r..,on. J.ndJ.c.t.d J.n '1, .bove. 22. D.nJ..d. Th. r..ponl.. to '8, '12, '17 end 'lB .r. J.ncorpor.ted her.J.n by ret.renc.. 23. D.nJ..d. Att.r r...onebl. J.nv..tJ.g.tJ.on, .n.werJ.ng D.t.nd.llt. lick J.ntona.tJ.on or knowl.dg. .uttJ.cJ.ent to torm e be1J..t .. to the truth ot the ,v'rIII.nt. cont.J.ned J.II thJ.. p.r.gr.ph .nd .11II. .r. th.r.tor. d.nJ..d, .trJ.ct proot b.J.ng dell'lIded .t trJ..l, J.t rel.v.nt. 024. L.g.l conclu.J.on. whJ.ch r.quJ.r. no .n.w.r. Wh.r..n .n.w.r J.. d..m.d to b. r.qu1r.d, .tt.r r...on.ble J.nve.tJ.g.t1on, .n.w.rJ.ng D.tend.nt. l.ck 1ntorlll.tJ.on or knowledge .uttJ.cJ..nt to torm . b.lJ..t .. to the truth ot the .v.rm.nt. cont.J.n.d J.n thJ.. p.r.gr.ph .nd .1UIIe .r. th.retore d.n.t.d, .trJ.ct proot b.J.ng d'lI.nded .t trJ..l, J.t r.l.v.nt. 025-026. Th. corr..pondJ.ng p.r.gr.ph. ot the COllpleJ.nt .r. not .ddr.....d to the .n.w.rJ.ng D.tend.nt. ',nd r.quJ.re no .n.w.r. To the .xt.nt th.t .n .n.w.r m.y b. d..m.d r.quJ.r.d, howev.r, d.nJ.ed tor r...on. J.ndJ.c.ted in '1, .bov.. 027-028. L.gel conclu.J.on. whJ.ch r.qu1re no .n.war. Wh.r. .n .n.wer J.. d..mect to b. requJ.r.d, .tt.r re.,on.bl. J.nv..tJ.g.t1on, .n.w.rJ.ng D.t.nd.nt. l.ck 1ntorlll.tJ.on or knowledge .uttJ.cJ.ent to torm . belJ..f .. to the truth ot the .v.naent. cont.J.ned J.n thJ.. p.r.gr.ph .nd .1UII. .re th.r.tor. d.n1ed, .trJ.ct proot beJ.ng d.lI.nd.d .t trJ..l, J.t r.l.v.nt. By w.y ot turth.r .n.war, J.t J.. .p.oJ.lJ.a.Uy d.nJ.ed th.t the D.I.nd.nt., UnJ.on H.U Lewn Ind Q.rden 8ervJ.o. end ChrJ.. C.ntr.ll tr..p....d on the Pl.J.ntJ.II., property. 'To th. aontrery, n.J.ther 01 th. Del.nd.nt. h.ve ever b..n on ,1.J.ntJ.II.' prop.rty. 39. D.nJ.ed. Alt.r r...on.bl. J.nv..tJ.g.t.J.on, .n.werJ.ng D.lend.nt. l.ole J.nlorm.t:J.on or lenowledg. .ullJ.oJ..nt to torm e beH.I II to th. truth 01 th. .v.rm.nt. aont.J.ned J.n thJ.. p.r.gr.ph .nd .1llI. '1" th.retor. d.nJ..d, .tr,tat 1'1'001 b.J.ng d.m.nded .t trJ..l, ,tl r.lev.nt. 30. Den,ted. Some ot the .v.rm.nt. oont.J.ned th.r.J.n .re aonalu.J.on. 01 llw whJ.ah r.qu,tr. no .n.w.r. Wh.re.n .n.wer J.. dl.med to b. requ,tred, .tter r...on.bl. J.nv..t,tg.t,ton, .n.w.rJ.ng D.I.nd.nt. l.ole ,tnlorm.t,ton or lenowledge .utt,to,tent to lorm . bd,tel II to th. truth 01 th. .v.rm.nt. oont.,tn.d ,tn th,t. p.r.gr.ph .nd .1llI. .1" th.relor. d.n,ted, .tr,tot proof be,tng demlnded .t tr,t.l, ,tl relev.nt. 31. L.g.l conolu.,ton. wh,toh requ1r. no .n.w.r. Wh.re.n .n.w.r 1. de.m.d to b. requJ.red, .It.r r...on.ble J.nv..tJ.g.tJ.on, .n.wer,tng D.I.nd.nt. l.ole 1nlorm.t10n or lenowl.dge .ullJ.oJ.ent to form I b.lJ.el .. to the truth ot th. .verm.nt. oont.J.ned J.n thJ. p.r.gr.ph .nd .1JIl. .1" theretoI" d.n,ted, .tr1ot proof beJ.ng d.m.nd.d .t tr,t.l, 1t r.l.v.nt. "." ""ft.. 33. 'The Pl.,tntJ.ll. m.y h.ve 1.J.l.d to .t.te . o.u" 01 .atJ.on upon wh,toh r.lJ.et o.n be gr.nt.d. J3. The appHaab1e Statute 01 r..iIllHation. m.y have .xpired prior the 1n.titution 01 thi. aation. 34. An.w.ring D.f.ndant. w.r. not n.g11g.nt. 3$. Any aat. or ollli..ion of an.w.ring D.f.nd.nt. Ill.g.d to aon.t1tut. n.g11g.na. w.r. not .ub.t.nti.l a.u... or l.ator. 01 the .ub;eat inaid.nt .nd/or did not r..ult 1n the in;ur1e. .nd/or 10.... all.g.d in by the Pl.intilf.. 36. Th. 1naid.nt .nd/or du.g.. d..ar1bed in Pl.int111.' C~ple1nt m.y h.v. b..n a.u..d or contribut.d to by the Pl.int111. 37. Th. n.gHg.nt .ot. or om1.,ion. of other individu.l. .nd/or entiti.. m.y h.v. con.tituted int.rv.ning, .up.r.eding a.u.e. of the du.g.. .nd/or in;jur1.. .lleg.d to h.ve b..n .u.t.1ned by the Pl.intiff.. 38. Th. Pl.intiff. m.y h.ve ...um.d the ri.k. 39. Th. Plaintill. m.y h.v. b..n aontributor11y n.gHg.nt. 40. Th. incid.nt, in;jurie. .nd/or dueg.. .lleg.d to h.v. b..n .u.t.in.d by the Pl.intiff. w.r. not proxim.t.ly a.u.ed by .n.w.ring Del.nd.nt.. 4J.. Pl.intifl" m.y 12Qt h.v. prop.rly m1t1g.t.d th.1r du.ge.. 43. Pl.intiff. m.y h.v. .ctuelly or imp11edly aon.ented to .ny .ntry on to the Pl.int1ff.' l.nd or .ny .at1v,tt1e. aonduated th.r.on by the .n.w.ring D.I.nd.nt.. 43. D.f.nd.nt., Un10n H.ll r...wn .nd a.rden S.rv1a. .nd Chr1. C.ntr.ll, Jlur.u.nt to P..R.C.P. 33$3(d), h.r.by ;joins " " BRUCE G. HA~RIS and NANCY HARRI S , IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintittl v. OAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, NO. 94-1383 Civl,l 'l'erm CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants ORDIR 0' COURT ANO NOW, this ~ day of ~~, 1994, a hearing is hereby scheduled on the attached Motion for the I~',~~ day of "dMo'..,) , 1994 at (Llil 0' clock in Courtroom No. ,5- BY THE COURT "I /1..1I:lj J i/lsl1Y UJ {.~iL ,1.11'1' J , .' ./1'(" {11' ...I..'tr , ,If. /,.I( . .L . .J/.'" li/'l j! i "jl}. i 1,.,1 , , , I ~ 'Jl\' (/ , , 111'1 Lll ta,t I AUQ 15 I liB PK .'" lit ~ICf. 1)1 I", 1 I; :111)11': r A~Y rU~'('I;:'\.hlH\ ~1\'JHrV r ,Ioli '.' ,1/,llIl , , 1: I' (' ';! Ii t [: .(. I\' i I, , , !'; ,I ". '. \. 'I . , , , I' ,I 1,1t . , '. ,I ;1 , I" ~.l; I I, I \. l~. :1 ,'I I' I q II ,I ,II " ,I , , "" .1 1 1 I' " HI BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRI S , Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HALL LAWN AND GARD!N SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, NO. 94-1383 Civil Term Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW I ,I AND NOW, this 01tD.1l or COUll' day of , 1994, upon !': conlideration of the within Motion of Defendants McGowan to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Objections to Interrogatories and to Compel Discovery and aftfJr a hearing, it is ORDERED that the Objectionl are dilmissed and Plaintiffs' are directed to fully anlwer the Interrogatoriee and respond to the Request for Production of Documents propounded by Defendants McGowan within suffer sanctions upon further application of this Court. days or BY THE CQURT ( , , I, i' \, BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, PlaintHh IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID L. MCGOWAN, DEBORAH MCGOWAN, ,UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDSN SERVICE end CHRIS CANTRELL, NO. 94-1383 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendents MOTIOI 0' DI'IIDAlT. MCOOIAl TO DI.MI.. 'LAIITIP'.' OIJICTIOII TO IITIRROOATORII. AID TO COMPIL DIICOVIRY AND NOW, comes the Defendants, David L. McGowan end Deborah McGowen, by and through their attorneys, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF' HASLAND, and moves this Court pursuent to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4006 and 4019 for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' Objections to McGowens' Interrogatories, and directing that the Interrogatories be answered fully wi thin 20 days. McGowans represent as follows! 1. On or about May 20, 1994, counsel for Harris was In support of this Motion, SAIDIS, GUIDO. SHUFF It MAS LAND 26 W, HI.h SIR" Cullll., PA served with Interrogatories pursuant to Pa.R.C.p. No. 4005. 2. On or ebout July 18, 1994, counsel for Harris served Objections to the Intorrogatories. 3. Harris objected to Interrogatories No.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 end 1/1. 4. Interrogatory No. 9 provides as followsl State whethelr you have ever given sworn testimony. If so, state the date said testimony was given end identify where and/or to whom it was given. 6. Harris' Objection Interrogatory No.9 is as followSI This Interrogatory requests information that is beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it is irrelevant it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyancel embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to P aintiffs. 6. Interrogatory No. 10 provides as followSI State whether you participated in any other litigation whatsoever other than litigation involving the Defendants, and identify whether you were a plaintif.f, defendant or witness and the docket number and court in which the suit was filed. 7. Harris' Objection Interrogatory No. 10 is as followsl This Interrogatory requests information that is beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it is irrelevant it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyancel embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to P aintiffs. 8. Harris' Objections to Interrogatory No.9 and Interrogatory No. 10 are without basis under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and should be dismissed as thelfe Interrogatories are not beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, are not irrelevant, are not sought in bad faith, and would not SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUrF " MASLAND l~ W, ltIah 81",.1 Carll,l., PA cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppreDsion, burden, or expense to Plaintiffs. 9. The pleadings, as framed, have placed the litigious reputation and character of Plaintiffs Harris directly in issue, Therefore, Interrogatory No.9 and Interrogatory No. 10 regarding Plaintiffs Harris' litigation history are directly relevant. 10. Interrogfttory No. 11 provides as follows I (Thil interrogatory il directed to ,laintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Bruce Barril). P'or each year, 1990 through 1994, identify by name and address each and every bank, savings and loan company, securities firm, mortgage company, lending organization or similar institution with which or whom you have or had an account, deposit holding, line of credit, indebtedneBII, or otherwise conducted business. 11. Harris' Objection Interrogatory No. 11 is as follqwsl This Interrogatory requests information that is beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it is irrelevant it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to Plaintiffs. 12. Interrogatory No. 13 provides as follows! (Thi. inte~~ogetory i. di~ected to 'leintiff and CO\anta~c1aim Defendant, I~uc. Ha~dl). Provide the name and address of your accountant, financial advisor and/or tax attorney for yourself and for any business in which you are a principal for the years 1990 through 1994. 13. Harris' Objection Interrogatory No. 13 is as follows! This Interrogatory requests information that is beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it is irrelevant it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to Plaintiffs. 14. Interrogatory No. 14 provides as follows! (Thil inte~~ogetory i. di~ected to Plaintiff and Counte~olaim Defendant, 8~uce Harri.). Identify (setting forth the name and address of the holder of the same and the account number under the same are held) the following items in which you have an interest and the value of your interest therein. a. Stock and bondsl b. All assets including real property, vehicles antiques, art, jewelry, mutual funds, Savings accounts, checking accounts and cash I SAlDI8, GUIDO, SHUFF II MASl.AND 26 W. Hllh 510nl CuUII.,P/\ c. Pension plans, retirement funds, annuities, 401 K plans and state your vested interest in each of the samel and Insurance polioies inducing the type of insurance policy and its current cash value. 15. Harris' Objection Interrogatory No. 14 is as followsl d. 3 8AID18, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASI.AND 26 W, IlIlh 5....1 Carll.ll, PA This Interrogatory requests informetion that i. beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it i. irrelevant it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unrua.onable annoyanc8i embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to P aintiffs. 16. Interrogatory No. J,5 provides as follow8I (Thil inte~~ogato~y ia directed to Plaintiff and COllnte~alai. Defendant, Brlloe Ha~ds). State your gross income, your net income and the total amount of youz' .indsbtedness, both buBineu and personal, for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. 17. Harris' Objsction to InterT-oqatory No. 15 is as follows I This Interrogatory requests information that is beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, it is irrelevant/ it is sought in bad faith, and would cause unreasonable annoyance/ embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to Plaintiffs. 18. Plaintiffs' Objection to Interrogatories 11, 13, 14 and 15 are without basis under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and should be dismissed as these Interrogatories are not beyond the scope of legitimate discovery, are not irrelevant, are not sought in bad faith, and would not cause unreasonable annoyance, e~barrassmsnt, oppresaion, burden, or sxpense to Plaintiffs. 19. In their counterclaim against Plaintiff Bruce Harrie, Defsndants have made a claim for punitive damagss. 20. Defendants claim for punitive damages against Plaintiff Bruce Harris is based upon allegations of extreme, outrageous, wilful and intentional conduct by Plaintiff Bruce Harris directed against Defendants. 4 SAlOIS, GUmO, SHUFF 1& MASLANJ) 26 W, IIIlh 5'"," Cullal.,p,\ 21. Discovery of the financial condition of Plaintiff Bruce Hlrris is directly relevant to an assessment of the amount of punitive damages appropriate to punish him and to deter future tortious acts and outrageous oonduct. 22. Plaintiffs Harris hav" not responded to Interrogatories l~B. 23. Plaintiffs Harris have not responded to McGowan's Request for Production of Documents which was served on the same dlte that the Interrogatories were served. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4006 and 4009 require the party served with Interrogatories and Requests to servs written response within 30 days after the service. WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 4019, McGowans request this Honorable Court to enter and Order dismissing Harris' Objections to Interrogatories 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 151 requiring Harris to file complete and full answers to all Interrogatories and to file complste and full responses to all Requests for Production of Documsntsl or enter an Order pur.suant to Rule No. 4019(c) as this Cou rt dee~\1s appropr i4 te . Patel ~{)h t/ Respectfully submitted, UFF , MASLAND ~ Bye c::-:::- Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. * 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants McGowans & , , I" " ", '1 CIRTlrlCATI or .IRVICI On this 12th day of August, 1994, I, Edward E. Guida, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion of Defendants McGowan to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Objections to Interrogatories and to Compel Discovery upon counsel for all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as followsl ,.1"1 j' ~; ", " I' Delano M. Lantz, Esquire MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Robert P. Reed, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, ET AL P.O. Box 93 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0093 Paul W. Grego, POST & SCHELL 101 North Front Harrisburg, FA Esq\lire Street 17101 DATED I 8/12/94 SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND ii , ~~/( ~ ~ ,/ " I BYl Edward E. Guido, Esquire 26 West High Street carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants McGowans ;!i \ SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF" MAS LAND 26 w, Utah S'm' Cull.I., fA , , 1'1 I ~ , IRUCIl G. HARRIS and NA~~~l.ll HARRIS, y 1:~~1 ;~~ COURT or COMMON PI.1lA8 or ,CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I,) , ( CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs v. DAVID L. MoGOWAN, DEBORAH MoGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendantl 94-1383 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF C~ AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 1994, upon conlideration of the Motion of Defondantl MoGowan To Oi.mis. Plaintiff.' Objftctionl to Interrogatorie. and To compel Diloovery, and following a oonferenoe in chambere with Oelano M. Lantz, Elquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, William c. Vohs, Esquire, .tanding in for Edward E. Guida, Eequire, attorn.y for Defendant. MCGowan, George F. Douglas, Jr., E.quire, attorney for Bruoe G. Harril and Nancy Harris on the counterolaim, and Robert P. Reed, Esquire, attorney for union Hall Lawn and Garden Servioe and Chris Cantrell, and it being indioated that the only remaining issue which has not been resolved between coun.el is the question of disoovery of finanoial information respecting plaintiffs Bruoe G. Harri. and Nanoy Harrie, and it being indioated by Mr. Lantz that depolitiona will be taken of either or both of the McGowan. and that a motion for .ummary judgment may be forthcoming on behalf of Defendantl McGowan, the Court believe. that the requeet for finanoial information relpecting . . the H.~ri.e. is premature at thi. time, and a ~ecision with , respect to the Motion at i,sue is deferred pendin9 further diloovery by the parties and any motions re.peoting summary jUdqment. Mr. Lantz ha. indioated that he will be promptly Bupplyin9 An.wers to the Reque.t for Produotion of Doouments submitted by the MoGowans. The Court ~as indicated to Hr. Reed that it will not ruquire his presence at any trial in thil matter on behalf of Union Hall Lawn and 'Garden Servioe and Chris cantrell, if the I cale is settled with respeot to tho.e olient.. The Court has not indioated, however, that the parties them.elve. would not be required to be present. By the court, DELANO M. LANTZ, EaQUIRE For the Plaintiffl WILLIAM c. VOHS, ESQUIRE EDWARD E. GUIDO, ESQUIR~ For the Detendantl MoGowan GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, JR., ESQUIRE For Bruoe G. Harris and Nanoy Harri. on counterolai~ ROBERT P. REED, ESQUIRE For Union Hall Lawn and Garden servioe ~nd chril cantrell woy Q~R~"" <l~.J,,~~,..1;..( 10/ U 0/ N . ~ .J, t' BRUC! G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL!AS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAW CIRTlrlCATI or .IRVICI I, Scott D. Moore, Esquire certify that on the 31st day of March, 1995, I served a true and correct copy of the within Motion for Summary Judgment and Praecipe for Listing Can for Argument upon counsel for Counterclaim Defendants in this matter by hand delivery addressed as followSI William P. Douglas, Esquire DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS 27 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 DATED II, 'r I .J \ SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HAS LAND ....... SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 16 W, >>llh 511ftl CIIlIII., PA / . (" ') BYI' . .../\ '(~.' ~I I JI / "'c:.:.. "'lcott D. Moore, Esquire , ./' 26 West High Street carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants , , , " . I !I I, 'I it " " I, , , , " " I, , i I , I ~ e N~ ~, . 'I 'I ,I u. , " , ' ~ N ~~ ,I , , .... ~ ~. . . . I , , , .' :1 '" , ' " i' " I' ,I , I . .. BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plftintitf IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN, MRS. DAVID McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAW CIRTIrICATI or .IRVICI I, Scott D. Moore, Esquire certify that on the 30th day of March, 1995, I served II true IInd correGt copy of the within Prllecipe for Listing ClIse for Argument upon counsel for Plaintiffs in this mlltter by depositing same in the United Stlltes mail, first ClIlSS, postllge prepllid IIddressed liS followsr Delllno M. LlIntz, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street HlIrrisburg, PA 17108 DATil 0 I '1 - 10 . .,~ SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HASLAND BYI IlArDIS, GUIDO, IlHUrr II MAIlLANP 1~ W, HII~ Jlml C.,U,I., PA Scott D. Moore, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants " " ,I 'I II; I ~ >>. ,,.. (- if: -,-" 'I I j'-'~ 11,.\ ~ 'e.>:r' " '" ~.... i' N , , " '. .'. ~ ,,'" ,:,..\'1 1:1 \._:,,11. ~:,J I " , " , " "', " I ", , , , ,,' . 1 " 136. SRUCI G. HARRIS and I IN THI COURT or COMMON PLIAS or NANCY HARRIS, I CUMBRRLAND COUNTY PINNSYLVANIA Plaintiff. I I V I I DAVID MCGOWAN, MRS. DAVID I NO. 94-1383 CIVIL TaRN MCGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND I GARDIN SBRVICB AND I CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRIS CANTRELL, I Defendant. I III lUll AJlGUMlHT COURT IN RBI SUMMARY JUDG~~T MOTION OF DEFBNDANTS DAVID MCGOWAN AND MRS. DAVID MCGOWAN BBFORBI SHEELY. P.J.. OLER. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of JUNE, 1995, we hsreby GRANT the summary judgment motion of defendant. David McGowan and Mrl. David MoGowan. By the Court, -A '{ ~-- " '. l ' ,- , II rold Il. , P.J. Delano M. Lantl, I.quire For the Plaintiff ~ C! "/,J,'.,, ,..."".q." {,/91'1S "=. U - - .J,. r' , Soott D. Moore, Ilquire For the Defendants leld ,.,0: 1,1 .' 't! . ';' "1'('1(\) ~ \ \1'1'" ,~It'1 , , 10 ~ \l ~il ",1(',1 ". I . ~ ') I J II \ \6.~~60\\ 6111\f '. , , . BRUCI G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 0' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN And DEBORAH McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants QIU)Il AND NOW, this day of , 199&, upon conl1deration of the within Motion of Defendants McGowAns to di.mils Plaintiffs Objections to Interrogatories and to Compel Dilcovery, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections are dismi/ilSed and Plaintiffs ara directed to fully answer the Interrogatories and respond to the Reque.t for Production of Documents propounded by Defendants McGowans within days or suffer unct.ions upon further affirmation of this Court. BY THE COURT I SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF II MASLAND 26 w. HiJh 511nl Culhl" PA ! J. " I I, SAIDIS. GUIDO, SHU.'V " MASLAND 2~ W, IlIlh SIIYCI Carll,I., PA ... BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARR IS , Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 94-1383 DAVID McGOWAN and DEBORAH McGOWAN, UNION HALl. LAWN AND GARDEN SIRVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants OIm.1I. AND NOW, this day of , 199~, a h..rin9 i. hereby scheduled on the attached Motion for day of , 1995, at o'clock _.M., in Courtroom No. BY THIl COURT I i'l " ," , , , I, ,I J. . BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, Plaintiff v. DAVID McGOWAN and DIBORAH McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SIRVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants .. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 0' I CUMBF.RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I NO. 94-1383 I I I I I CIVIL ACTION LAW I I MOTION or D...NDAIIT. IlaCIQWD '10 DI'MI" 'LAINTI," QIJ.CTION, '10 IQIltROGA'1'OIUU DO '10 ClOM..1. DI.COVlU AND NOW, comes the Defendants David McGowan and Deborah McGowan by and through their attorneys Saidis, Guido, Shuff , Masland and files this Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Objectiona to Interrogatories and to Compel Discovery pursuant to Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4006 and 4019 and repre.ents as follow.t 1. On April 5, 1994, Plaintiffs filed an action against the Defendants David McGowan and Deborah McGowan. 2. On April 27, 1994, Defondants David McGowan and Deborah McGowan ("McGowans") filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim which alleged punitive damages. 3. On or about May 20, 1994, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents were served on Plaintiffs seeking, among other thingB, financial information relevant to establish the damages assessed for outrageous conduct. 4. On July 18, 1994, Plaintiffs objected to the Interrogatories and Requests. SAID IS, GUIDO, :.. SHUFF" MASLAND 26 W. IIllh 51..<1 Carll.I" PA " . IL On August 12, 1994, DefendAnts filed a Motion to Oilmils the Objections and Compel Discovery. 6. A hearing was scheduled befors The Honorable J. We.ley Oler, Jr. for October 13, 1994. 7. At a conference held in Chambers, counsel lor Plaintiffs represented that Plaintiffs intflndQd to take the deposition of Defendants and file a Motion for Summary Judqrnent. 8. Based on this representation, the Court indicated that the request for financial information was premature and deferred a decision pending furthor discovery and Motions for Summary Jud9Jllent. A copy of the Order dated October 13, 1994 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 9. Subsequently, Defendants McGowans filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 30, 1995, which was unopposed by Plaintiffs. 10. On June 6, 1995, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants McGowans. A copy of thil Order i8 attached hereto as Exhibit "B". SAlDlS, QUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 W, Hllh Slr...1 CIlI'II.I.,PA 11. Plaintiffs have conduoted no discovery nor filed any Motion for Summary Judgment. 12. Based on the lack of action by Plaintiffs, Defendants request the Court to enter an Order dismissing the Objections to Interrogatory No. 11, Interrogatory No. 13, Interrogatory No. 14, Interrogatory No. 15, answer the Interrogatories and respond to the Request for Production of Documents No.2, 3 and 4. A copy of the Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit "Co. A copy of the Request for Production is attached hereto 4S Exhibit "0". f .. 13. The Interrogatories and Request for llroduction s.ek relevant information that is necessary to prove damagBl in a olaim for punitive damages. WHtlRilrORB:, Defendants David McGowan and Deborah McGowan r..pectfully request the Court to grant the Motion to dismiss the Objections and to compel the Plaintifh, Bruce G. Harris and Nancy Harris to answer Interrogatories 11, 13, 14 and 15 and r.,pond to the Request for production of Documents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respectfully submitted, SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUrr & MASLAND Dated I 'J../ t' . 9,- / , '-l~' ,/ , . ~> 10' ( n - '-. "'" aott D. Moore, tlsqu re Attorney 1.0. No. 55694 tldward tl. Guido, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 , I I SAIDIS, GUlDr>, SHUFF II MASLANJ) 26 W. Hllh SIr..1 CorU.I., PA 'I) 'I I I , I I I, . \1 I . . .. C.RTlrICAT. or ..RVIC. ......1<- I, Scott D. Moore, Esquire certify that on the ~ day of , , '>yII" t--41.... ,; 1,.... , , 1995, I served a true and correct copy of the Plaintith within Motion of Defendants McGowan to Dismiss Objections to Interrogatories and to Compel Discovery upon coun..l for Plai~tiffs in this matter by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid addressed a. follows I Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street HarriSburg, PA 17108 George F. Douglas, Jr., Esquire DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS 27 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 DATIDI '1- ?, _..~ ,- SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HASLAND Byt -' ".. )'--' /"- '1'h" _.._..? f"(' f l .. ;(.....,...~..~~ Scott D. Moore, Esquire 26 West High Street carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendants SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF" MASJ.AND 26 W, Hllh Slml C..II.I.,M r: " 'I " I " , i I' 'I " " " I, I I , , i' iii II I' 'I 'I " , " " , " '" IXHlI" A ~ BRUCr. G. HARRIS and /lA/lCY HARRIS, III THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMPr.RLAIID COUNTY, PEIINSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTIOII - LAW DAVID L. McGOWAN, DEBORAH McGOWAN, UNIOII IIAr,L LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, Defendants 94-1J8J CIVIL TERM QB.O.E1L OF COUR'r AND NOW, this 13th day of october, 1994, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants McGowan To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Objections to Interrogatories and To compel Discovery, and following a conference in chambers with Delano M. Lantz, Esquire, attorney for PlaintiffS, William C. Vohs, Esquire, standing in for Edward E. Guida, Esquire, attorney for Defendants McGowan, George F. Douglas, Jr., Esquire, attorney for Bruce G. Harris and Nancy Harris on the counterclaim, and Robert P. Reed, Esquire, attorney for Union Hall I.wn and Garden Service and Chris cantrell, and it being indicated that the only remaining issue which has not beon resolved between counool 10 ! the question of discovery of financial information respecting Plaintiffs Bruce G. lIarris and /laney Harris, and it beinq indicated by Mr. l.ntz that depositions will be taken o( nlthor or both of the McGowans and that " motion (or Bummal'y judlJnwnt: may bo [orthcomin<] on bohalr o[ DoftlndoltltB McGoWoltl, thn cOIII'I believes that the reqllcwt [or flthltwial inlnl"l1\O\tlnn l"'lIIp'll'lln'J 4 the t1ardses is premature at this time, and a decision with respect to the Motion at issue is deferred pending further disoovery by the parties and ony motions respeoting summary jUdgment. Mr. Lantz has indioated that he wi) 1 be promptly supplying Answors to the Roquest for Produotion of Doouments submitted by the MoGowans. The Court has indioated to Mr. Reed that it will not require his prosence at any trial in this matter on behalf or Union lIall Lawn and Garden Service and Chris cantrell, if the oase is sottled with rospeot to those olients. The court has not indicated, however, that the parties themselves would not bo required to be present. By the court, DELANO M. LANTZ, ESQUIRE For the Plaintiffs ~AM c. ValiS, ESQUIRE EDWARD E. GUIDO, ESQUIRE For tho Do fondants MoGowan I l-LLti'L, J.' esley Oler,\\1r.,\J. '. -.... TRlIF. copy FROM Rl!crm) In T~st ilL ",' ", I I " ' 'I " 11,)1',01 and ,h.\: 5f.(I1 .,i ..:ll\~ ': ,'~ ,',111 'il,:, V'J. Thls..,J,() fl.. d,IY of (])_,~ ' 19'f'f ~ .~ '1 . 1....~r,..1 (4,.. l HI""'" ..n__.. ........ "..,.., . '-~I,JJJ.~' ( .. .,.........c.........." Gf:ORGE f'. DOllGL,AS, ,JR., f:SQllI RE t'fjt~f' Prothonotary For Bruce G. Harris and Nancy Harris on counterclaifu ROBERT P. REED, EnQUIRE f'or llnion lIilll Lawn and Gard'1/1 service and Chris cMltrell way RGTIVFU JUN j 3 14~~ ' 136. BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V DAVID MCGOWAN, MRS. DAVID MCGOWAN, UNION HALL r~WN AND GARDEN SERVICE AND CllRIS CANTRELL, Defendante NO. 94-1383 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN REI ARGUMENT COUR~ IN REI SUMMARY JUDGME~T-MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DAVID MCGOWAN ~ MRS. DAVID MCGOWAN BEFORE I SHP.EI,t, l', J '4-Ql&Rl-!1..t. 9.!ill..!ill Q~' COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of JUNE, 1995, we hereby GRANT the summary judgment motion of defendants David McGowan and Mrs. David McGowan. By the Court, .l...../-.... , P.J. Delano M. Lant~, Esquire For the Plaintiff .~tt, D. Moore, Esquire Po~e Defendants , lllld Ii, " . I, " ,,1,1 IXHIIIT C , , " I' , 1 I .J :,1 , , " " ,I " ,I , 'I .il 1;1 " , ' II ,I' II IItHlcr,; (l. HAIt/ll II and NANCY HAlt/liS, IN 'I'm: COtJll'I' O~' COMMON I'J.I';MI CtJMlIf:lll.AND COtJN'I'Y, P[':NNIlYI,vAN IA I' Idnt if f. v. DAVIU McGOWAN IInd UEllOIlAH McGOWAN, UNION HALL [,AWN AND GARDEN RERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL, No. 94-1383 Defondantll C I V II. AC'I'ION .. [,AW II il II " TOI II ~ I Ii XmRROGAT08U1i.u!'J!O!'9.JJIL.B.X..RlfII1RNfTJ_ltoGOHAIf ,..9.1\ AJfSHIlIl.B.l..PLAXN'I'1fU - n~U_."T Bruce G. lIarris and Nancy Harris c/o Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NtJllICK 100 Pine Street P.O. flox 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS of Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4006, ae amended, you are required to serve upon the undersigned your Answers and Objections, if any, in writing, under oath, to the following said Interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after I service of said Interrogatories. The Answera shall be inserted in the space provided ~ following each Interrogatory. If there is in6ufficient space to , II answer. an Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. The Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing in nature, in accordance with the provisions of Po. R.C.P, 4007.4 as amended. If, between tho time of filing your Answers to these '1\11>18. GllIJ)O, BUll.... " MASI.ANI) )hW tlllllSfn't'1 ('..II\I.,~^ lnt.c!'rogatorills and the t.ime of t.rl.al i.n t.hln matter, you or nnyone acling Oil your bllhn If 1<llIrn t.he Idllnlity IInd localioll of /Iddlt.ion/ll perllona havinq knowl<ldge of dlBcovnrllble f/lclfJ IInd tho , I' I I I II I I I I I , Ii :1 !/ II 'I I 'lIllS, GUIDO, SllU.... .. MASl.ANI) I, II' '" w I".h ~I"'I <'..lIol',I'A 'I II DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS The following definitionu are appllcable to theae Btandard interrogatorienl "Document" 1110lln6 any written, printad, typed, or other graphlc matter of /lny kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, including photographa, microfilma, phonoqrapha, video /lnd audio tapas, punch carda, magnetic tapeo, diaco, data cella, drumo, and other data compilationo from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" meana, when uaed in reference to 1. A natural peraon, his or hen (a) full name; Bnd preaent or last. known reaidence and employment addt'ess (including street. name and number, city or town, and state or county). 2. A documontl (a) its description (e.g. ietter, memorandum, report, etc.), title and date; (h) its subject matter i (c) ita author'a identity; (d) ita addressee's identity; (e) ita present location; and ( f) ita cuatodian'a identity. 3" An oral communicationr \ ,I (a) its date; (b) the place where it occurred, (c) ito ilubotllnce; 3 I (d) t.ho idonUt.y of t.ho (luruoll who mado the comll1Unlcllt.loll; (e) t.he identi ly of ooch perllon to whom lluGh communical!clJ) wall madel I1lld (f) the identity of ol1ch person who WIlS preBent when such Gommunication wa~ madel ... A corporllte enti ty I (a) its full corpora to nome; (b) its dote and place of incorporation, if known, and (c) its present address and telephone number. 5. Any other context I a description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafter be specified and II recognized, I I including relevant dates and places, and the identification of rolcvant pooplo, entitics, and documents. "Incident" means the occurrence that forms the basis of a cause of action or claim for relief eet forth in the complaint or similer pleading. "Person" means 0 natural person, partnership, ftsBociation, corporation, or govornmont agency. The following instructionB are applicable to these standard interrogato~iesl 1. Duty to an.war. The interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verifiod, and served upon the undesigned within 30 days of thoir Ilervice on you. Objections must be Iligned by the attorney making them. In your Ilnswors, YOll must furnish such information is Ilvoilllblo os to you, your omployeos, loeprosentlltiVoll, ogent.o, IInd att.olonoyn. Your Ill1llWUrfJ mUllt bo 4 ! . I II , " uupplull1l1llt.lId illld Il/llllllc!U<! iltJ requirod by Lilli [>Ulllloylvlllllll Rulos of civil l'!'lll:oduro. 2 . Claim of privilege. With roolloct to any claim of prlvilego or i/llmunit.y from diBcovery, you muat Identify the pr i v ilogo or lll1JlIulli ty llflflortod and prov ido flU f fic ient information to Hubfltllntiate the claim. 3. Option to produce doouments. In lieu of identifying docu/llonto ill rooponoo to thOBO interrogatorios, you may provide I copies of such documents with Ilppropril1tfl reforences , II to the corresponding int.orroglltorieo. I I 'I II I ., ;1 " , , , , .' I , I'. I! , , I I . , I I', . II , 'I " ',I ,AII>IS, GU/DO, " I SIIU.'F " , . MMI.AND " M W lll.h ~Irr" (',,11,1.. PA 5 II 'I II 'I ''', IHTt:RROG~TORU:8 Ill. il I I II ,/ Pleaue provide the foilowing information I a. Your full nomel b. Your curront oddroo/l ond the address of eAch other rosidence which YOij have had durinq the p~st five (~) yean . , I I ' I. ',' , , '" " , ,.1 I I I, I. " \1, " I I 11 , , I iI I 'iAmIS. GlIm!). SIllJ.... ... MASI.ANn '6 W IllahSlrrtl ("'hlll',I'^ " I II 6 t, II J, I'ltJUllu idllllLity illlY pOr.UlIJI/ firm OJ organization having any infcH"mlltion or knowlul!<JU of Ilny fllctll pertaining to thia lawauit, or the claima mudo by Plaintiffs thorein and the natura and/or substance ot the information poaaeased by each. , , , , " , , ' ,,\IIIIS, (lUlllO, sllU.... III MASI.ANll )fIW Ihllh!illrl!1 ('.,hlll'. "A L :1 II I II " " I' n I' 5. If you, or amnoonu not. an uxport. uubjoct to p.R.e.p. 4003.5, conducted en inventigetion in connection with thia lawauit, or any of the events giving rise to it, please identifyc II. Each perllon, as we 11 /IS tho nllme and addresa of the employer of ellch person, who conducted any auch inveetigation/ and b. All notes, reportfJ, or ot. hor documents prepllred in connection with each such invefJt.iqation and the peraon or peraons who hllvo custody thoreof. II " " ,,\IIlIS, CllJllm, SIIU.... " MASI.ANI> I,. W lh,h ~hfll'l ('"Iul~, IIA , " " " " , ' LO l, 6. PIO/lllll idllnt.lfy llat:h and /lvllry dllt:ument, Objflct, product, oomplll or thing in your pOIlBeaaion or control, or in the pos~ession or control of eomeone acting on your behalf which is relevant to the currflnt laweuit or which you may present as an exhibit at tho trial of thia matter. I I II I I I I " , I 7. Identify each person you intend to call as II non-expert witness at the trial of this matter, lInd for ftech such person identified, stete your relationship with such person and the Buhstance of the facts to which ho or she is expected to teetify. I , I ,\II)IS, llUll)!).: "1' sitU"" "" MASI.ANU II .1(,W tlllh.'Urttl ('uh.lr.I'A 11 1,,1 II I ..... 9. Stato whother you have ovor qivqn owor'n tQotimony. If "0, olllto tho date oaid testimony was 9ivon end identify where and/or to whom it WdB qiven. II " I I I II " I , , , 1'.11 " ''1, I , I' I' , 13 II 10. Slal.l1 Whlll.hox. YOll 11/lvlJ !Hlrl. Lctpaled in any other liti94tion whataoovor oth~r than litigation involving the Defendanto, and idontify whethor you wore a plaintiff, defendant or witness and the docket number and court in which the suit was Hied. 'LI, I, " " :1" , , ," ", I , , , " 'I II I J I , , '1llIS, Illllllll, SIIlJW& MASI.ANIl Ir, W Ihlth SIIl,.'1 l'lUlhll', ItA Ii 'I, , I 14 II 11. (This lnt.flrrogatory is direoted to Ploint.l.ft "nd Counterclaim Defendant, Bruoe Harris). f'or each year, 1990 t.hrough 1994, idontify by name and adell"OBEl each and every bank, savinqll and loan company, Bocur!tiofl fIrm, mortgage company, iending organizat.ion or oimilar inBtit.ution with which or whom you have or had an aCGount, depoBit holding, line of credIt, indebtedness, or ot.herwiElo conducted bUBineee. 'I' , , " " < < 1 < \ <, .'IIlIS. GUIDO, SHUn' .. MASI.ANI) '11 w thlh :ifrr'l "lI1htlr, PA , , Ii) t , 14. (ThiN interrogatory iB directed to Plaintiff and Countercldm Defendant, Bruce Harda). Identify (uetting forth tho name ond addreeo of tho holder of the Ham and tho account number under tho lI/1me are held) the following ltema in which you have an lntereat and the value of your InLeroat therein. a. Stock and bonda; P. All assela Including roal property, vehicles antiques, art, jewelry, mutual funds, Sllvinqo Ilccounle, checking accounte and cash; c. Pension plana, retirement fundo, annuitieu, 401 K plans and state your vested interest in each of the same; and d. Insurance policies inducing the type of insurance policy and its current caah value. " ,.1, ,^mrs, GUII)O, snUFF" ;1 MASl.ANIl1 :1 !~ w. W.h ~"'" Ctrlult,IIA 'I " " I 17 't I ,,\Jl)IS. mlml). SIllW~' &. MASJ.ANII )fl w III~h ~1Jl"1 ['llIh~ll', l'A r I II CERT I F I {;ATIL_9UE.&'ll!d't Ii II " I I, Edward E. Guido, Esquire, certify that on June 20th, 1994, . I served the origin"l and two true and correct copies of the within Interrogatorioo Proposed by Defendant McGowans for Answer by Plaintiffs - First Set upon counsel for PI~intiffs in this matter and a copy on all other parties by depositing S6me in the United States mail, flrst class, postage prepaid addreosed as follows I Chris Cantrell Union Hall Lawn & Garden Service 4322 Enola Road Newville, PA 17241 Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Dnte I June 20, 1994 Respectfully submitted SAlOIS, UFF & MAS LAND BYI Edw~rd E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. * 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendanto 19 I , I iI " j'I "i lil i, 'I' , , , " '11 'i " , , 'i II , ' I " \1 , , 1,\ IXHlltT D I hI " , , , ,I"l, , " " " .,A1ms, GUJI)(), SIIU.... " MASl.ANl) 1fJW IIlllhSII'L'tl ('arli,looM URUC~ G. HARRIS and NANCY IIAI~R IS, IN '1'lIf: COUR'I' OF' COMMON Pl,EAS CUMDf:JU,AND COUNTY, PENNSYl,vAN IA I'laintJ.ff v. NC). 94-1:183 DAV ll) McGOWAN and OF:DORAH McGOWAN, UN ION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CIIRIS CAN'i'RE LL, Defendants CIVIL AC'I'ION .. LAW DEFENDANTS McGOWANS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMINT8 TO PLAINTIFFS - FIRST SET '1'01 Druce G. HarrJ.H and Nancy Harris c/o Delano M. Lantz, Eoquire McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Hnrrlaburg, PA 11108-1166 II Ii il !I I I Defendants I, II II /I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009, that PlaintlffB request proQuce the documents hereinafter described and permi t Defendant.s, through their attorncys, to inspect thclII and copy !Juch of them as they may desire. Defendants rcqucot that the documents be made available for this inspection at the offJ.ces of Defcndants' attorneys located at 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, within I th irty (30) days of the date of service t.hercof. Defendants' att.orneys will be responsible for thosc documents /1S long as they are In their' posocssion. copytng will be donc at Defendants' 8xponoe and the documents will be prompt.ly returned after copying hao boon completed. 1 ,AlDIS, GUIDO, SHUtT" MASLANI) !h W IIllh S"..., , II CuUd.IPA 'I 'rills rOC!Ullfl!, if) intllndod to COVill' all documllnto in tho pODseSD Lon, c:uDtody and control of P lainti f fu, theh' aqontll, employees, insurancll c:arriera and attorneys, and io consider'ed to be continuLnq. Plaintiffo' response to the Requeot should be modified or supplemented as Plaintiffo' response to the Roqueflt should be lII<ldif ied or supplemented 110 Plaint if fs, and/or' the ir attorneys, obtain further or additio~al documents up to the time of trial. I I " I , I , I " I I I " I " , , , , , ", ,I'; , I " , " I' I i II IU;QVr;JT# 1 . All documentB proplll'ud by tho Plaintiff", theh' agent" or employeee or anyone acting on their behalf, during an investigation of tho a 11og/lt lonn Ilnd ovente which are the eubject matter of thia Buit, or propal'ud In anticipation of litigation or trial of thie matter, uxc)udlny the mental impreesione, conclusione or oplnionn of their counnel. 2. (This Request is direoted to Plaintiff Bruce Harris.) I All etatements received durlny the paet twelve monthe from any ~ I :1 bank, mortgage company, inflllrilnCO cOl1lpany, securitiee firm, or any other pereon or entity whllLnoever, evidencing the value of any aeeet you havo or the ill1l(Jllllt 01. indebtodneas yO\! OWo. 3. (This Requelt is direoted to Plaintiff Bruoe Harris.) All financial etlltoments fol' the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. 4. (This Request is directed to Plaintiff Bruoe Harris.) Copiee of all fsdl!!ral incol~lJ 1:/lX returne for the yeare 1991 through 1993. 5. All statements, notes, summary of statemente, tran~cripta -of recorded Btatements, or intorviewe, or memoranda of statemente, of any person who hae any knowledge of the facte which are the subject l1Iattol' of thie laweuit or who wae . \IUIS, (,lIlJ1l). slllWt'/It "Identified in Plaintiffs' Answllt'S 1'0 Illterrogatories or who may MASUNIl '"w IlIjll,\.."" be called ae a witness at trial. 1'4,h,I,~. P^ 3 6. IlopOl't.1l of 1111 IlXpoltn who will hI) called by t.ho Dofendant to toetify lit trial, an woll all tho curriculum Vitae for each ~uch export. 7. All documonto or olhor demonatratiVl) evidence which will be introduced or uaed at trial. 8. '1'0 the extent not othorwiae requested, any and all documenta referrod to or identified In any anawer to any interrogatory or ufiod by the Plaintiffs in reBponding to the Defendanta' interrogatoriea filed in thia lawauit. SAIOIS, & MASLAND I I , (p ( J '-' /1 J./ BY ____________ Edward E. Guido, Eaquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attornoya for Defendants \I/)'S, (mIDI). SIIUt'F .. MASI.ANn '(1 w Itt.h 51n'tl Carll".. PA '\ I I I I " , " 4 t' ; ,I\ID'S, ovum, IlIlUJ'F " MASLAN') !~ w, f11.h 51,.", CarU.lr,M al:I.lfI'J'I_QIUI The word "documont" or "documento" nu uaed in the preceding Request, includes, without limitation or exception, the original and copin of the following items, (whether pdnted or recorded or produced by any other mechanical process, or written or produced by hand) I agreements/ communiclll.ions, correepondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of personal conversationa or interviews, diaries, r"epor"ta / graphs, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sket.cheu, maps, summaries or records of meellngs or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opin!c)ns, or reports of consultants, drafts, letters, any marginal conunenta appearing on any document, and writings of every kind. Thie definition ohall also be deemed to include any machine produced document, whether from a computer or not, notes or recorda of any oral communication and recordings (tape/ disk or other) of oral communications. The word "communication" as uaed in the preceding Request shall mean any transmission of information by oral, written, pictodal or otherwise perceptible means, inclUding, but not liml.ted to, telephone conversations, lottero, telegrams, and personal conversations. Ths word "person" as usod in any individual, corporation, associated or business sntity. the preceding Motion ohall mean partnershlp, unincorporated , ,,' II II Ii " " 5 1 ~.MIlJC:ATI 0' U8YJ"" I, EOWARD lL GUIDO, F.SQUIRF., certify thllt on June .:!.~.,....._, 1994, r served a true and correct copy of the within Defendants' Roquest For Production of Documents upon counsel for Plaintiffs In this matter and ail other parties by depositing name in the Uni ted State!! mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as followsr Chris Cantrell Union Hall Lawn & Garden Service 4322 Enola Road Newville, PA 17241 Qelano M. Lantz, Esquire McNEES, WALI,AC~; & NUR I CK 100 Pine Street Harrigp'urg, Ph 17108 Edwllrd E. Guido, Esquhe------ SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLANO 26 West High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 IIIlIS,OU/I)(), sllU.'.... " MASl,ANI) 'f, W IIllh 81",,, '""'lilt, PA II il I ! II . , BRUCE G. HARRIS and NANCY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HARRIS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. v. : : CIVIL ACTION. l.AW , . DAVIDL, McGOWAN, DEBORAH: NO. 94.13B3ClVll. TERM McGOWAN, UNION HALL LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICE and CHRIS CANTRELL REPLY TQ ~orJON OF DEFENDAr>;TS McGOW NY 1',0 DISMISS r~t\INTI~ OWEcrlONS TO lN1~RROGATORIES AND TO CO~PEL DISCOV~Jn: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. " 5. Admitted. 'I 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Counsel for the Defendants McGowan were requested to produce their clients for deposition, and to date no dates have been given when they can be made available. Dates have been requested as far back as October 25, 1994. A copy of that letter Is attached hereto, marked Exhibit" A". 12. As soon as the Defendants McGowan are produced for deposition, and It Is learned what, If anything, supports their claim, this matter can proceed. ~ i I ,'Ii , 13. The In.fC)rmatlon lought II lought merely to haralll the Plaintiff. Harrll, and would not be relevant to the pending action, WHBRBFORE, It II prayed that the motion of the Defendants McGowan be dlsml'led. Relpectfully submitted, DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS &c DOUGLAS September :uI, 1995 By ~q. Attorney .for P/alntlIfl i, I ; I , .t " il: '" " " " I , " , " " , , " " , " 'I , , " I'll I,' " ;"1 l! ) \ " I ., I, II " I,' " ' I I " I' il {, " j'! '(; , I' j' , 'O(J PINt: 5T1Hr::f P,O UOJl. IflUi HARRUUIlJRO. PA, 11101"'188 Tr:~'Pt'ONII Jl11 if JZ'800Q ~''''1l11' 7'" J6'i6fle /),f.I,AHQ ~I, 1,~H1~ 01"IC1 PIAl.! (r1,) "r',.,m.tIt October 25, 1994 Edward GUido, Esquire SAIDIS, GUIDO & MASLAND P. O. Box 560 Carli~le, PA 17013 Georgc F. Douglas, Jr., Esq. DOUGLAS, DOUGl,AS & DOUGLAS 27 West High St., 2nd Floor' P.O. Dox 261 Carlisle, PA 17013 ReI Harris v. McGowan Our rilel 6881-2 Gentlemenl We need to schedule the depositions of the McGowans in the above matter. We ask Mr. Guido to provide us with dates when his clients are available. Thank you. DML I cpe CCI Paul W. Grego, Esquire Robert P. Reed, Esquire Or.. Bruce G, Harris Very truly _y,ours, McNEEIl, ;lr,l:ACE 4 NUR ICI< 'I oj 'Y /c~tl' [141-- ~no M. Lantz n "-" , J 't /J 1/ /:'Yl',/u't /1 BRUCB G. HARRIS and NANCY HARRIS, PlainUfh IN THI COURT or CQMMON P~IAS or CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSY~VANIA v. CIVI~ ACTION - LAW DAVID McGOWAN and DBBORAH McGQWAN, UNION HAL~ LAW AND GARDBN SIRVICI and CHRIS CANTRI~L, Defendante NO. 94-1383 CIVI~ TBRM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thh ~ tl day of October, 1995, due to a oonfliot in the judge'l lohedula, the dhcovery conferenoe previously soheduled for Ootober 13, 1995, h RESCHEDULED for Wednelday, Ootober 18, 1995, at 4100 p.m., in ohamberl of the underligned judge. BY THE COURT, J. Scott D. Moore, E.q. . Idward E. Guido, Blq. 26 Welt High Street Carlille, PA 17013 AttorneYI for Defendantl MoGowan Delano M. Lantz, Elq. 100 Pine Street ' , Harrisburg, PA 17108 William P. Douglal, Blq. 27 W. High Street Carlille, PA 17013 Iro C~:.~ ~..<l lo/'fl'ts ii' ;.h, 'r, ^ I l- I, '" ,.fJ \, V }\l' " x, \ I , {AI' \,\11,) ,{" .,\'1\ \Ij\ . " , , ,I!I, BRUCE G. HARRIS and I NANCY HARRIS, I Plaintiffs I I V. I I DAVID McGOWAN and I DEBORAH MoGOWAN, UNION HALL I LAW AND GARDEN SERVICE AND I CHRIS CANTRELL, I Defendant. I IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUN~Y, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 94-1383 CIVIL TERM ORDER QF COURT AND NOW, this ,~ day of Ootober, 199~, upon relation ot Soott D. Moore, Esquire, that the issues in thil oase have been resolved, the discovery conference scheduled for Wednesday, October 18, 1995, at 4100 p.m. is CANCELLED. By the court, SCO~T D. MOORE, ESQUIRE EDWARD E. GUIDO, ESQUIRE 26 West Hiqh Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Detendants MoGowan I DELANO M. LANTZ, ESQUIRE 100 Pine Street Harri_burq, PA 17108 WILLIAM P. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE 27 W. High Street Carlille, PA 17013 woy 'II, :1 , . I' I' II ,It I 'I 1,,11~/h' .,lI,""t'. r..l\.~J ~~ ,) I r~\ ll~ l.t A S61 Vii ~ Z II G 1100 ,,' '.,., , , ~ ,. .. " - .r .. ." , ~ ,. " I.') .' .1 ~ f' , . , l~i I , , (j") 1'.1 UII' 'I" ,...... i'n. ,.- .1 1!; '." - - .,r.... /I , " , , 'I 'I I, , '. , , I' " " .1 , , 1 , " , " "