HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-01648
.., . ..41
"'"
"
"
I
I
I
,
'I
I
I
I FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
8910 Route 108
I Columbia, Maryland 21045
I
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED H. RYERSE
318 lOth Street
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania
17070
I
I
I
I
'il. M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION
1 Fountain Plaza
I; Ninth Floor
II Buffalo, New York 14203
II
II
"
Ii
II
Ii
Ii
'I
I,
Ii
II
il
II
II
,I
Ii
II
:1
.1
I
,
Defendant
and
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... Civil Action No. r;/j- J& ~t? ~
...
...
...
I~
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
.................. ... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... ... II< ... .... '" ... ... ...... ...... ......... ... ... ............... ...... ......
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE ISSUE writ of summons in the ahove-captioned action.
Writ of Summons for Defendant Fred H. Ryerse shall be issued and forwarded to the
Sheriff.
'.
Writ of Summons for Defendant M & T Mortgage shall be issued and forwarded to
! i Plaintiffs Attorney.
ii
:1
/" '"
.....-.:-.......
I
....'
..I
Daled: March 31, 1994
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
iJ?-tl 11-,(' ,/..-
(It n E. Book
.~ A Supreme Court
l.D. No.: 62020
Of Counsel:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
I 28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
I (410) 321-7310
I (410) 821-7918 (fax)
I
I
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
I
I
Ii
II
II
II ~.~
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
tI
I'
,I
i'
11
'I
Ii
J!
Ii
,
ii
f;, "-~"}~'"
dI; ~,. ~ ~ ~
-
~ ..'- \\
...-It
~ ~O::"4' ~
.... r:'Z'C:..- .~
..... ~OO""
:... %C::. ~
NJ ::." ':".~ ::;1
" j,,, ~,~ i
-::r .'~~:,~ ~
.. ....,'1..1
C>: ;:_':::":''1. ~\j ~
;:>
... t<.....
--
""
'-
.... '...
1
l
.:.1
II
i
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
8910 Route 108
Columbia. Maryland 21045
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· Civil Action No.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Plaintiff.
v.
FRED H. RYERSE
318 lOth Street
!II New Cumberland. Pennsylvania
, 17070
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
'I
I,
~ I
,
I
\1
II
I.
Ii
,I
II
Defendant
and
M & T MORTGAGE
1 Fountain Plaza
Ninth Floor
Buffalo, New York 14203
Defendant
94-1648 Civil Term
.
...........................................
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
You are notified that the above-named Plaintiff has commenced an action against you.
Lawrence E. WAlkAr
Prothonotary
By: "'fAd.
Date:
April 4. 1994
Seal of the Court
~~k
Deputy
<:cM1ONWEAL'lll OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF Cl.MBERLAND
SHERIFF'S RETURN
In the Cburt of Canron pleas of
C\mt:lerlan:i Cbunty, Pennsylvania
NJ. 94-164 8 Civil 'l'eJ:m
Sl.III1lOns in Civil Action law
I ",;'f'jJ;.:r,,:;:.
First Jldvantage lobrtgage Cbrporation
VS
Fred H. Ryerse & M & T lobrtgage
Serve: Fred H. Ryerse
Donald Harper
, ~ Deputy Sheriff of
Cunberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says,
that he served the within !':nmnn.. in Civil Action law
upon Fred H, Ryerse
A .M. ~EDST, on the 7th
318 lOth Street, New C\mt:ler1an:l
the defendant, at
10:38 o'clock
day of April , 19.2!,at
, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, by handing to r...rrip- Ryerse. wife of defendant Fred H. Ryerse
a true and attested copy of the Sl.III1lOns in Civil Jlction law
and at the same time directing
her
attention to the contents thereof and
the "Notice to Plead" endorsed thereon,
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So answers:
r:"J2;~~~!:~
R, Thanas Kline, Sheriff
14.00
9.52
2.00
25.52
Pel, by Atty.
4-11-94
by vL 0fI
.' . '.-4. c..~,6- 44:~ /
/~ Deputy 'Sherif '"
Sworn and subscribed to before roo
this
TI-
I,", -'
day of (},.:!
19 q 'I A.D,
'- bo::O~~1A[~U- , un i
\
,-
;(....--a.,,,,,,,
.,
.
".
,
.
,
.
.
".
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
.
.
Plaintiff
.
.
v.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
FRED H. RYERSE and
M iii T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
.
.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE enter our appearance on behalf of the Defendants,
reserving however our rights to Answer or otherwise respond to
the pleadings.
METTE, EVANS iii WOODSIDE
By:
Conner,
#36407
3401 North Front Street
P. 0, Box 5950
HarriSburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M iii T Mortgage
DATE: May 27, 1994
l!RR'I'tFICATB OF SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated
below, which service satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with
first-class postage, prepaid, as follows:
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO Ii< FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
METTE, EVANS Ii< WOODSIDE
By:
er C. Conner,
1. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M << T Mortgage
DATE: May 27, 1994
- 2 -
.
.
;5!;
~
~
'"
..,
--
--
~.
v:__
..I."....
'''J1-..i-
() (., . ~"T
:".j';:,~
"- .~<..., .~l
';J-- ~,'
~. .. .
--
("..,
>.,.
~
., '''"
-....;.1
-0. :,1,.
.';'(:,
~
1..:.:-
.,
',1_.."'#
.
!...
.
.
",
~ ", 'i.
s:..~,,--~ .;.:.;..........,.........."',,;,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
FRED H. RYERSE and
M Ii T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
TO: FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
PLEASE enter a Rule upon Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and
M Ii Ii Mortgage, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days or
su f fe r rum tu:2Ji ng. .x:.e.q.
By:
METTE, EVANS Ii WOODSIDE
(J!~,qUi'.
Sup. Ct, I, D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H, Ryerse and M Ii T Mortgage
DATE: May 27, 1994
,
IlULB
TO: FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
c/o Joan E. Book Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
You are hereby ruled to file a Complaint in the
above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days of receipt of
said Rule, or suffer a judgment of n2n ~.
~:'/L A< ~k; 1Jrh~
Prothonotary .
- 2 -
~c~.'","'""~-,,,,,,,,
~
..
"-
...,"-
"!"r"-
.r
~
""
~
.;;.
....... '-
',~ I ~~ .':' ~i
-
-
. '1 ~.
..'.-,
-
r..,
....
~
[r.,
,r
~. .. ,
'~-, ........
.,
,
i
Ii
I
d
III
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
I CORPORATION
i
.
.
.
.
.
· Civil Action No. 94-1648
.
.
.
.
-.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ Ill.,
Defendants.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I,
II
I
I. For Production Of Documents to M & T Mortgage Corporation was served by first class
/1
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
NOTICE OF SERVICE
I
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 19, 1994, a copy of Plaintiff's First Request
mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
Meete, Evans & Woodside
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
James J. Beardl
President
M & T Mortgage Corpordtlon
1 Fountain Plaza
Ninth Floor
Buffalo, New York 14203
I
I
I
,I
Ii
d
,
I
Ii
II
Ii
II
11
II
I
.,
II
I
0-
il
,. .,
~.'"<
Dated: April 19, 1994
Respectfully submitted,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
B>:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
Baltimore. Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
(410) 821-7918 (faK)
..
I,
I
I
I
I,
!
I
I
I,
Ii
"
I
i;
n E, Book
A Supreme Court
J.D. No.: 62020
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
i..,,"., f;~_.'
.-,,-,
r.:~ ,
~
~
":"
en
-
:z:
-=
CD
.:z
~~
41....
t- :r.
UJ 'l.:~:"t
~:1:~"'r
1t..',.J ....>~.,.
r,-.'17.....,;-",
C:-;'::::;~;l
.u,
~. ,,'~: .~
,..c-"
~ ~,~ ;:~~
_":J
'!""o
....
....,
....,
...
....
<>:
".
I,,'" ,.
. .
i
,
I
I
Ii
II
,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ·
CORPORATION ·
.
.
.
I
I
I
!I FRED H. RYERSE, ltllll...
I,
I'
II
II
i
,
Plaintiff,
v.
· Civil Action No. 94-1648
.
.
.
.
.
...........................................
Defendants.
I
I
'I
:1
: j For Production Of Documents to Defendant Fred H. Ryerse was served by first class mail.
Ii
NOTICE OF SERVICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 19, 1994, a copy of Plaintlfrs First Request I
" postage prepaid, upon the following:
II
ii
iI
Ii
II
II
11
II
I'
Ii
II
II
j!
Ii
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
Meete. Evans & Woodside
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
James J. Beardi
President
M & T Mortgage Corporation
1 Fountain Plaza
Ninth Floor
Buffalo, New York 14203
I
.1
:!
"
I
,I
"
I
.-,,"
I'
I
'I
I,
II
'I
!I Dated: April 19. 1994
II
Respectfully submitted,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
Of Counsel:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
: (410) 821-7918 (fax)
"
I
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
I
I
I
'I
I
I
:1
!,
'I
il
II
11
'I
il
I,
Ii
I
I'
Ii
:1
:1
"
'I
:i
I
il
"
Ij
,
,
Ii
!l
:j
......
......
Q:
....
ocz
_''l
:~;~'\
~
Q
~
;:;
-
CD
:::t"
>-,.
...~
..,:~
''It;?~t
U7:l.:.'r
i:.o<..."'..:
II,..':rO..
D~';:::;:
, .......,(Ltl
-, -
V_"';
;~-: i;i
- ~~.
='i
-
-
II
!!
Ii
I
,
i
I
\ FIRST ADV ANT AGE MORTGAGE
,
CORPORATION
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
...
...
...
...
...
... Civil Action No. 94-1648
...
...
...
...
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED H. RYERSE, S1 Bl..
Defendants.
...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
JillTURN OF SERVICE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
1\
I
I
\
I
II Rules 403 and 424 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. the within Writ of
\1
1\
'I
II
"
II
"
Ii
ij
"
II
Ii
p
,I
"
; ~
11
ii
II
'I
I.
I
I. the undersigned. counsel of record for Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage
Corporation. who being duly sworn according to law says, that on April 7. 1994. pursuant to
Summons for Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation was served by certified mail. return
receipt on James J. Beardi. President. M & T Mortgage Corporation. 1 Fountain Plaza.
Ninth Floor. Buffalo. New York 14203.
Return receipt for the certified mail service has been received as follows and is
attached hereto: M & T Mortgage Corporation; Signed for by G. Goodwin. Agent on
April 11. 1994.
SUbS?~d and sworn before me
this day of May. 1994
Ad-J'L ~. ./",,~A~)
Notary Public
t:L.'!'" (.... N"llf(,l;~
.. ~07,,\~Y PlJit:c ~r.\~~: \~-:'~\;\!('AAND
, My CommIssIon EJ.Il'm.<i\minion E,~itQ.Jd,7. 1996
!1
.....",......-'.__A.~"..'
(...
Lw.,~rl;.-::
l:!tl".;;1f"OO' .
"-""'""'-""_'-~-''''-
.,.
en
-
:::II:
c-
U)
In
""
'...
~~;
~;~, :.: ~~
!;:t"{'>~
-: (".,..
.,
;"-
, '",
I..t't.".!'"
r
-
"'"
::>::
:_~.t:
...~.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACI'lON - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ·
CORPORATION ·
8910 Route 108 ·
Columbia, MarylaDd 21045 ·
.
Plaintiff,
.
.
v,
· Civil Action No. 94-1648 CivU Tez:m
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
FRED H, RYERSE
318 10th Street
New CumberlaDd, Pennsylvania
17070
Defendant
and
M & T MORTGAGE
1 Fountain Plaza
Ninth Floor
Buffalo, New York 14203
Defendant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WRIT OF SUMMO~
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
You are notified that tbe above-named plaintiff bas commCDCed an action against you.
"
ii Date: ~rll 4 1994
.'
,
~ i
t,
:1
'LI!wrP~ E. WPlbr
Prothonotary
By: +tt- j:/ ~ 9if
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
In Testimony whereof I h
Ina the seal of said c~urt~:7 ~~~ setpmy hind
~~ S, I,
This....x.c;'.... day of.... 19 9~
.......~ R'. '~~ /JY
7-.--...,..........~:~
Seal of the Court
I
:1
,:
i'
Ii
I
I
i'
,
,
I
l'
I.
. ..
.
i. C.........i.-1_2...---.. . ;~..:";' j'Jiao y.,llh to recalvl thl
I' ComolotO...... 3. .... ... · b, : lollowlna IIrYlell 110' an I.tra I
. PrtnI your ftIIM end.........the rntne of WI'orm 10 mat w. un IHI:
___10""'.
. A_..... ""'" so "'" ...... .1 "'" maOl>IOCO. .. ... d.. I>ocll II 1_ 1. 0 Add'''"H'a Addro.. .
--~. I
. . W.....__~....dlo...........lowdlo__r 2. 0 Rllulctod Dallvlry
11 . "......,........Ihow 10 whom IN -*11.11 dtIYeNd Ind lhldatll
Ii -. Contult almalt.. 10' IH.
I 3;';';S;';;'c7 lJt-,yrq/: 48. mel. N be. ~G j
Ii ~ AL <lb. Slrvlco Typo
II I,FOV;1/e:;fIJI r/lf';!p',..J ORllllatllOll Olnlurod
9 T); I'l~ Iii! Clmnod 0 coo i'
" 0 Exp'... Mall 0 Rotum Recllpt 10' 1
#F,I.O #7 /.:f;Jt?j!!j 7. DallolDlllvlry !
I
If .oqulatod J
.u,&,0p0:,--'71. DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT. t.
'-
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
1111/1
~
-
US MAil
0llIcI0I BUlin...
~~"gAp~~
Of' POSTAGE. $300
~AY u 1334
'.
. .prln/fI(II('~~ ~efGr
Jt7rre?lJ1e (Qr',7;;'.' ~ ·
t?l~ . J,{/ 1?{~1~. #V~ I
fi" /liJ?;tP/t!:"'P P -c3/ 2& ~ .!
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
'......
. .'.....e:,:;,"";.'~(,,'
,...... .~""'"'.
~Iii.li!h~,;~';;.r,j.{~":'.,<ffi~ .\0.1... ..d h. I
:z::
Co..
\D
Ln
!::::!
"'...
.",..
~
-
>-..
.......
"'-
,~~~: ';,'
~~~;'~
....
...
x:
',' -
.~ J t......
,..~/....
;:;c..:l
FIRST ADVANTAGE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FRED H. RYERSE, et al.
Defendants.
~
94-1648 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FRED H. RYERSE TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ORDER
AND NOW, this II(' day of Scptember, 1994, a Rule is issued on the defendant,
Fred H. Ryerse, to show cause why the plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents
should not be granted.
This Rule returnable twenty (20) days after service hereof.
BY THE COURT,
;:ib.;"1fL
/
. .
,.
- :
. .
I... I
c~~~:. ."";;:':....::""."..-.-
SEP /5 9 004H 'Sq
'IJ'I'H
Of ; ,il; I HJ~~nH4Y
GUWi ';tl,r. CC','"IY
rt.'j1''''~,f itA~'~
I
,
I
,
I
,
II
q
"
II
il
II
Ii
I'
11
v.
I
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 01<' CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
.
.
.
.
.
· Civil Action No. 94-1648
.
.
.
.
.
Plaintiff,
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ Ill.,
I
,
;,
Defendants.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
!I
I' ORDER SETTING HEARING
,I
!i
"
II Considering Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Fred H. Ryerse to Respond to
II
I; Plaintiffs First Request For Production Of Documents and pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules,
II
I i IT IS ORDERED that said motion be set for hearing before this Court, commencing
I: at o'clock a.m.lp.m. on the _ day of , 1994.
II
I~ Order signed this day of , 1994.
I
I
Judge
-{-",-
I' "'
~'*~--_.,-
i~q.
,
I
I!
II
I
I v.
I
I
i
I
I
I
II
I,
il
,
I
,I
II
'I
11
'I
II
I,
II
II
11
I'
II
II
II
I
I
1
I'
.1
iI
II
I
I,
"II
,
,I
:1
Ii
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
...
...
...
...
...
...
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Plaintiff,
...
...
...
...
...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
FRED H. RYERSE, ltllll..
Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Fred H. Ryerse to
Respond to Plaintiffs First Request For Production Of Documents and Defendant's response
thereto, it is this _ day of
.1994,
ORDERED, that within ten (10) days. Defendant Ryerse shall provide the documents I
requested in Plaintiffs Request No. 14, Request No. 18 and Request No. 19.
Judge
,
"
'"
.;
'1
II
I
I
,I
I
I,
I
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13. 1994, a copy of Plalntifrs Motion to
i
I Compel Defendant Fred H. Ryerse to Respond to Plalntifrs First Request For Production Of
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I.
1/
I
Documents, Memomndum In Support thereof. Order Selling Hearing and Order were served
by first class mail, postage prepaid. upon the following:
Christopher C. Conner. Esq.
METTE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110-0950
,
I
Ii
d
I'
I
II
II
I.
ii
..~:~,M..;.~'"
, .
I
,
"
II
'I
I
1,1" .
SEP 14 199~ !
elL i
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
I,
II
v.
Plaintiff,
ii FRED H. RYERSE, ~ ill.,
II
Ii
II
II
!,
!i
,
I
,I
.1
:1
I
:I
I'
I
Defendants,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FRED H. RYERSE TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant 10 Rule 4019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advanlage"). moves this Court to issue an Order
compelling Defendanl Fred H. Ryerse to produce the documenls requested in Request No.
; ~
d
:I
!i
,
I;
,
14, Request No. 18 and Request No. 19 of Plaintiffs First Request for Production of
Documents to Defendanl Fred H. Ryerse. This discovery request was propounded upon
Defendanl Ryerse on April 19, 1994.
The grounds for this Motion. as more fully set out In the accompanying Memorandum
I
II
i I in Support of Plainliffs Motion to Compel Defendant Fred H. Ryerse to Respond to
Ii
'I Plainliffs First Request for Production of Documents. are that despite repeated attempts by
i
i i Plaintiff to oblain proper responses to the requested discovery. Defendant Ryerse has
engaged in dilatory tactics to avoid responding to Ihe requests in a timely manner and has
unjustifiably failed to provide the documenlS which he committed to produce by
.
......
r ,~. , ~..~
t/$'~~"''-''_''"
"..,L;;;F ."
,~~,.
II
I,
September I, 1994. Plaintiff is entitled to the documents requested and needs responses to
I these discovery requests In order to prepare adequately its Complaint and to prepare for trial.
Plaintiff submits this Motion in compliance with the discovery dispute procedure
encouraged in the Discovery Rules of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Producer. Plaintiff
has made a good faith infonnal attempt to resolve the dispute.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Court enter an Order compelling Defendant
Ryerse to promptly respond to Request No. 14, Request No. 18 and Request No. 19 of its
First Request for Production of Documents.
Dated: September 13, 1994
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
I Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
I (410) 821-7918 (fax)
I
I
i
I
I
!I
II
By:
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
,
i
I
II
,.
d
I
I
j'
I
I
I.
II
ii
"
[,
I'
Ii
,f
Ii
Ii
!I
2
I
,
I
. I
I,
II
j\
"
'I
II
I
!.
II
I'
I
II
II
,.
I'
I'
I'
II
.'
II
'I
II
II
tj
~ !
,I
I'
I!
.I
'I
I
,
;1
:1
it
:1
i
i;
,
:i
i
Ii
ii
,
I,
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ...
CORPORATION ...
...
Plaintiff, ...
...
... Civil Action No. 94-1648
v.
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ nt.,
...
...
...
Dcfendants. ...
...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT FRED H. RYERSE TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgagc Corporation ("First Advantage") filcd its Praecipe
for Writ of Summons on April 4, 1994. Plaintiffs basis for this action is breach of fiduciary
duty as an officer and employcc of First Advantage of Dcfcndant Fred H. Ryerse
("Defendant Rycrse") and civil conspiracy of Dcfendant Ryerse and Defendant M & T
Mortgage Corporation ("Dcfcndant M & T") to climinate First Advantage as a competitor in
the mongage banking busincss in central Pcnnsylvania. Defendant Ryerse was served with
'i
I the writ on April 7, 1994. and Defcndant M & Twas scrvcd on April 15, 1994.
i!
On April 19. 1994, Plaintiff scrvcd Its First Rcqucst for Production of Documents to
Defendant Rycrse and servcd its First Rcqucst for Production of Document to Defendant M
'i
i & T. Although Dcfendants' responses werc duc undcr thc Pcnnsylvania Rulcs on May 19,
1994, Dcfendants requested an cxtcnsion of timc to rcsponrl ro thcse discovery requests,
II
i I allegedly in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. With the expectation that Defendants
"
I' would pursue settlement negotiations. Plaintiff granted the requested extension of time.
'I
'I
II
II
II
'I
i
!
,
Defendants, however, did not propose any pre-complaint settlement but filed a
Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint on May 31, 1994. In light of the fact that Defendants
had not submitted their responses to Plaintiffs pre-compliant discovery, Defendants agreed to
grant Plaintiff an extension In time for filing its Complaint until after pre-complaint discovery
I has been completed.
I,
il
I:
I'
,I
'I
Ii
I'
Ii
,I
"
I'
,!
I
In addition, on June I, 1994, Defendants informed Plaintiff that although they had the
documents responsive to the discovery requests, they refused to produce these documents
unless Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to a confidentiality order.. Although Plaintiff verbally
informed Defendants it was not opposed to a proper confidentiality stipulation, Plaintiff was
required to make repeated demands (on June 3, 1994, June 8, 1994 and June 14, 1994) that
Defendants submit the proposed confidentiality order for Plaintiffs review.2 Defendants
eventually responded to these demands and on July 22, 1994, submitted to Plaintiff a draft
confidentiality agreement for review and comment.)
On July 5, 1994, Defendants agreed to make certain revisions to the confidentiality
agreement and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendants another extension of time to respond to
· For the convenience of the Court. a copy of counsel for Defendants' June I, 1994
letter requesting a confidentiality stipulation is attached as Exhibit 1.
, 2 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of the letter summarizing Plaintiffs efforts
II to resolve this discovery dispute Is attached as Exhibit 2.
II
I
i
) For the convenience of the Court, a copy of this letter and draft confidentiality
agreement is attached as Exhibit 3.
2
,~~~",..",.
.
,.
}
I
I
I
I!
,
"
"
I
I
!
! that he would respond to the document requests "on or before July 22, 1994".' Despite the
!I
I
I
I
I!
II
its discovery requests until July 22, 1994.4 Counsel for Defendants specifically committed
fact that Defendants had the documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests available for
production since June I, 1994, Defendants did not produce the documents requested on
July 22, 1994, but on July 27, 1994, informed Plaintiff that they would submit the
,
il documents "in the next several days"..
II
I,
I.
II
"
"
"
II
Ii
II
II
:1
II
Although Plaintiff attempted to resolve informally this discovery dispute and in iight
of Defendants continued dilatory tactics and failure to cooperate In the pre-complaint
discovery process, on July 28, 1994, Plaintiff advised Defendants that it would not grant any
additional extensions of time for response to the discovery requests but would file a Motion
to Compel if Defendants did not submit the requested documents by August I, 1994.'
Accordingly, on July 29, 1994, Defendants submitted their Responses and Objections to
Plaintiffs Document Requests.
Ii
II
!i
I; Subsequently, on August 5, 1994, Plaintiff notified Defendants that there were several
I'
.1
i
! deficiencies in Defendants' responses to the document requests.8 In light of the fact that the
I
,
I
I
i! 4 For the convenience of the Court. a copy of Plaintiffs letter agreeing to the
,! confidentiality stipulation and granting an extension of time to respond to discovery is
. i attached as Exhibit 4.
!i
i ' For the convenience of the Court. a copy of Defendants' letter confirming that their
I responses to discovery would be submitted on or before July 22. 1994, is attached as Exhibit
5.
!l
6 For the convenience of the Court. a copy of Defendants' letter is attached as Exhibit
, 6.
i
i;
.'
, For the convenience of the Court. a copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 7.
8 For the convenience of the Court. a copy of this letter Is attached as Exhibit 8.
.,
3
~."
. ,.-,..'
II
II
jI
i
!
I discovery dispute regarding the production of documents already had extended over three
I
I
:1
II
I'
1\
'I
ii
Ii
,I
I,
II
,
:;
j,
il
Ii
I'
I:
Ii
II
"
I
Ii
I
'I
I:
I;
Ii
!i
II
"
months, Plaintiff demanded that Defendants respond to the discovery within ten days.
Defendants contacted Plaintiff about this discovery dispute on August 16, 1994.9
On August 18, the parties agreed to a compromise regarding the discovery. Plaintiff
agreed to limit the scope of certain requests and Defendants agreed to produce all the
documents by August 31, 1994.10 If Defendants had difficulty producing the agreed upon
documents by this date, Defendants' counsel assured Plaintiffs counsel that he would notify
Plaintiffs counsel about the delay.
Although Defendants produced some of the documents on August 22, 1994,11 several
responses remain outstanding. Defendants counsel has not advised Plaintiffs counsel that
Defendants have encountered any difficultly in producing the requested documents. Although
Plaintiff attempted to resolve this dispute infonnally, Defendants have consistently engaged in I
dilatory tactics to avoid producing the documents. There is no justification for Defendants' I
failure to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. The discovery requests are relevant and
i I gennane to the subject matter of the litigation and in drafting of Plaintiffs Complaint and
Ii
II
,
authorized by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
, 4019, Counsel for Plaintiff presents this Motion to Compel Production of Documents.
II
1:
i!
I,
:i
!i
ii
1 i 9 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of Defendants' response is attached as
!! Exhibit 9.
,
:1
"
,
"
10 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 10.
II For the convenience of the Court, a copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 11.
"
I.
I
I
DEFENDANT RYERSE'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REOUESTS IS NOT LEGALLY
JUSTIFmD
I, II.
il
"
II
.1
>I
"
!I
II
!j
I ~
II
II
"
'I
"
, 1978, and consequently, relevancy is broadly construed at the discovery stage of litigation.
!i
"
il Hickman v. Taylor. 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947); Szannack v. Welch, 456 Pa. 293, 318 A.2d
"
Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that
discovery may be obtained "regarding any maller, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject mailer involved in the pending action". Pa,R.C.P. No. 4003.1. Rule 4003.1
"incorporates the broad Federal discovery rule," Pa.R.C,P. No. 4003.1 Explanatory Note -
" 707 (1974). A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility
,
,I
that the infonnation sought may be relevant to the subject mailer of the action or that it
'I
I
Ii
"
!;
reasonably r.ould lead to other mailers that could bear on the issue that is or may be in the
case. ODoenheimer Fund. Inc, v, Sanders, 437 V,S. 370 (1978). Accordingly, discovery Is
"
"
"
i i not limited to infonnation admissible at trial. Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.1 Explanatory Note -
il
i
'I
,I
1978.
In addition, discovery is not limited or prohibited because it causes some annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense. The annoyance. embarrassment, oppression,
burden or expense must be unreasonable. Hallv v. Premier Mfll. Com., 404 Pa. 330, 172
i A.2d 283 (1961). If the responding party is unable to furnish the infonnation without
;!
ii
making an unreasonable investigation or without unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment.
oppression, burden or expense, the responding party must at least set forth all of the
infonnation at his disposal and all that he can obtain without the employment of experts, as
5
.."
I' well as set froth the facts which would show that further discovery would be unreasonable.
,
I
!
I
I
I
II
III
\
I'
I
Rush v. Butler Fair & Al!ricultural Assn. 17 D & C2d 250, 260 (1958).
Plaintiffs Counsel attempted to resolve the dispute infonnally. Despite Defendant
Ryerse's alleged commitment to produce the documents as agreed, he continues to engage in
dilatory tactics. Defendant Ryerse's refusal to produce the documents requested is
unwarranted and in contravention of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as shown
below:
I
I
II
II
,
i
PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REOUEST NO. 14
Any and all telephone bills for your home phone number or car phone for the months
I
Ii of January, 1994 through the present, including, but not limited to, the itemized telephone
il
\1 call account statement page from that bill.
il
! I RESPONSE
! I See attached car phone bills.
;\
Ii ARGUMENT
"
:1
! I Initially, Defendant Ryerse did not include documents concerning his home telephone
I,
'I
'I
,I bl1l. After infonnal dispute resolution. Defendant Ryerse agreed to produce his home
:1
I! telephone bl1ls. See Ex.hibits 8 & 9. Although Defendant committed to produce these
,.
!i
Ii documents by August 31, 1994 (four months after the initial discovery request), as of the
, I
I
date of this Motion, Defendant has not produced them. See Ex.hibit 11, Defendant Ryerse
provides no explanation for his continued delay in providing Plaintiff with these documents,
I
"
,
,
,
6
,
I
I
!"I
I i and therefore, his failure to producc these documcnts is unjustificd. Consequently, the Court
ii
I'
II
I
II
II
[I
II
Ii
fI
II
it
I.
ij
II
I
i
!
I
;
should order Defendant Ryerse to produce these documents within ten days.
REOUEST NO. 18
Any and all documents regarding and relating to your current duty with M & T
including, but not limited to, all documents relating to transactions with prospective
borrowers In the acquisition and processing of mortgages.
RESPONSE
Objection. Request No. 18 is overly broad and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, a response to said Request would cause
unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense to Defendant
Ryerse and would require Defendant Ryerse to make an unreasonable investigation.
'I
ARGUMENT
i i As noted during the informal dispute resolution, this request is not objectionable
'i
i I because it goes directly to the issue of whether Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary
i:
I,
I' duties to Plaintiff by acquiring business opportunities for his own and Defendant M & T's
il
: i advantage that were business opportunities of Plaintiff. See Exhibit No.8. As Vice
.'
President and manager of M & T's Harrisburg branch office, Defendant Ryerse is
responsible for the acquisition and processing of mortgages on behalf of M & T. Some of
these mortgages closed by Defendant Ryerse may have been initiated while Defendant Ryerse
,
;!
, was an officer and employee of Plaintiff.
The parties resolved this dispute by agreeing that Defendant Ryerse will produce a
:i
summary list of mortgages closed through July 31, 1994. The summary will include the
7
..
. ;"
\.... ..
".~
t." _,.u~~. 0R"!.~:~:.
I
II
II borrowers name, address, interest rale of the loan, the loan amount, loan type and date the
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
Ii
'i
II
i
I
I
I
,
II
II
Ii
I!
:1
II
ii
Ii
.I
II
q
I
d
!I
ii
"
I
i'
Ii
Ii
"I
I
I
i
loan closed. 12 See ExhibilS 10 & II. This discovery request provides pertinent infonnation,
gennane to the central issue of the suit and is properly discoverable under State rules.
Although Defendant committed to produce these documents by August 31, 1994, as of
the date of this Motion, Defendant has not produced them. Defendant Ryerse provides no
explanation for his continued delay in not providing Plaintiff with these documents, and
therefore, his failure to produce these documents is unjustified. Consequently, the Court
should order Defendant Ryerse to produce these documents within ten days.
REQUEST NO. 19
Any and all documents regarding and relating to your efforts on behalf of M & T
relative to eSlablishing a mortgage operalion in Pennsylvania in Cumberland, York, Dauphin,
Perry, or Lancaster counlies.
RESPONSE
Objection. Request No. 19 is overly broad and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, Further, a response to said Request would cause
unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense to Defendant
Ryerse and would require Defendant Ryerse to make an unreasonable investigation.
d
"
12 Defendants' counsel raised the issue that providing this infonnation may be subject to
the Privacy Act. Defendants' counsel staled he would investigate this issue as well as
whether the parties Stipulation for Confidenliality applies under these circumstances. As of
the date of this Motion, Defendants' counsel has not objected to providing this infonnation
based on the Privacy Act.
8
I
ARGUMENT
As noted during the infonnal dispute resolution, this request is not objectionable
I because it goes directly to the issue of whether Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary
!I
I
,
I
,
':
I'
II
,I
I'
II
Ii
Ii
11
!I
Ii
II
:1
I
!I
,
"
duties to Plaintiff by engaging in activity to acquire business opportunities for his own and
Defendant M & T's advantage that were business opportunities of Plaintiff and by soliciting
Plaintiff's employees while Defendant Ryerse was still employed by Plaintiff. See Exhibit
No.8. This discovery request provides pertinent infonnation, gennane to the central Issue
of the suit and is properly discoverable under State rules.
The parties resolved this dispute by agreeing that Defendant Ryerse will produce
documents that rellect actions taken to start-up M & T's operation, such as the office lease
negotiations, equipment installation, initial employment interviews. See Exhibits 10 & 11.
Although Defendant commilled to produce these documents by August 31, 1994, as of the
I: date of this Motion. Defendant has not produced them. Defendant Ryerse provides no
Ii
:: explanation for his continued delay in not providing Plaintiff with these documents, and
ii
Ii
therefore, his failure to produce these documents is unjustified. Consequently, the Court
II
,
,I
I
,j
should order Defendant Ryerse to produce these documents within ten days.
~ !
Respectfully submilled,
'!
,I
II
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
By:
I I KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
., (410) 821-7918 (fax)
I
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
Dated: September 13, 1994
9
HOWIU. Co \o4lt'Tl
JAMU 'W IVM'i$
kOIl" T MOO"l
CHAIJ.U' Z-WALLY
,.rta. J '-lSSLl"
UOYO a. 'Il\SUN
CkAIC ^ nONI
JAMU A '.:UH
OANItJ. L Sl..'\.UVAN
STlVIS 0 SNYD.'-
GU}.Il\ CULL
CH"llTC'HU. C C.Ch"Wll\
l1.yn L k':Cu'S
..............:..;;.c:.:;,..:
Exhibit 1
JUN :3 1994
~U!lTTEl. El'\.ANH . WOODHIDEl
A PIllrr.uIOS"L cost,.UIUT1U'"
ATTOR:oIIt'U AT LAW
lWOl NORTII rRO:olT .TIUlCT
..0. UOX 5DIIO
UARRlaUIIRO, .A l1UO'0D1IO
un..lD
lOU"'T 1- wOOtSIDI
TI1.UHONl
(7111 2J2-5000
'AX
e71n 2J6.1818
ANDU" H OOTU"'G
MICHAIL 0 kilO
kOI.k r , HA Y"'U III
'AlJt.A J I.ltCHT
DAVID A- PlTUIM",..S
GUY P "NIVI,..r.''''O
MltHAIL 0 PlM
itA""" '" CON""I~1. y
"en... J lATZM.''''
JA nON k WCLPCMrolG
SCOTT D MCQkl
A""OU" J o,n.':"'lt
ILlZAIlTK w c.A1.:AGWO
DULY L LONe.
I~"O
23.1815005
June 1, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE
410/821-7918
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO lit FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Alleqheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
Re: Fred H. Ryer,e
Dear Ms. Book:
I have received documents from my client which are
responsive to your discovery requests in the above-referenced
matter. However, some of these documents contain confidential
information includinq, but not limited to, staff salaries, market
strategy, and other sensitive information. Accordingly, I
respectfully request your aqreement to stipulate to a
confidentiality order prior to forwarding the documents.
I will forward a proposed confidentiality stipulation for
your review. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will
assume that we have a continuing extension of time to respond to
your discovery requests pending resolution of this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Christ her C, Conner
CCC:gls
+6782
cc: Mark Metz, Esquire
Mr. Fred H. Ryerse
Exhibit 2
JOHN 0, ItRUCHKO'.'
JAY R. 1'1UES"
OU!NN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
tJND,t, Mc<l1LL MILLER'
KAnlLE!!N A, TALTY'
STEVEN W. RAY.'
SUSAN TAJiERNIA...
JOAN E. BOOK'.
JANE C. TUCICl!R'
JANET L. BOYER.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Suite 202
7929 Weapark Dri...
McLean. VJrBinIa 22102
(703) 734-05S4
Suile 606
:8 Wesl AIle&heDY A"'Due
Blllimon:. Marylaol1 2tW4
Telep/lo..: (410) 321.7310 ,
Telecopicr. (410) 821.7918
Suite 900
601 PconsylWlia A"'DDe. N.W.
WashiDIlDD. D.C, 20004
(202) 347-6550
Junc 14. 1994
..-. -MD .YA 'DC .'"
VIA FACSIl\fiLE AND U.S. MAD...
Christophcr C. Conncr, Esq.
MEll!:'., EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pcnnsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Corn. v, Fred H. Rverse. et. aI.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation of June 8, 1994 wherein you agreed
to grant First Advantage Mortgage Corporation an extension of time to me its Complaint in
the above-referenced matter until such time that Defendants have responded to First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation's discovery requests.
On April 19, 1994, we sent Requests for Production of Documents to your clients,
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation. We granted you an extension of time to
respond to the discovery requests in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. Pre-
complaint settlement was unsuccessful.
On June 1, 1994, you notified us that your clients have the documents responsive to
thc discovery requests. You stated, however, that your clients would not produce these
documents unless my client agrees to stipulate to a confidentiality or~er. You stated you
would be sending us a copy of the proposed confidentiality agreement and 'considered tlf!"'-
extension of time to respond to the discovery requests to continuc unless we indicatcd
otherwise.
On June 3, 1994, we informed you that we had not rcceived your proposcd
confidentiality agreemcnt and requestcd that you respond to the discovcry requcsts by June 7,
1994. In our June 8, 1994 telephone conversation, you again confl1"IIled that you havc the
documents which are responsive to our discovery rcquests but requested that the panies enter
into a confidcntiality agrecment. Again. we rcquested that you scnd us a copy of the
proposed stipulation.
{..:,. .-.~-:.'~:u' '~'..'- ,,''';';_~''~
J
Christopher C. CODl1Cr, Esq.
June 14. 1994
Page 2
We have not yet received the proposed confidentiality stipulation or your clients'
response to our discovery rcquCllS. Consequently, we would appreciate receiving a
telephone call from you to d1sc:uss lhls malter and resolve any disputes over the outstanding
discovery .
It continues to be our understanding that our obligation to me a Complaint in this
malter Is stayed pending your response to our discovery requests. As we discussed, once we
have reviewed said response, we abaU be in a position to me a complaint in this malter.
By:
,.
Sincerely yours.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
cc: Ms. Ann Llchtfuas
. .,.:'.
Ub.':': ~..
HOT1!l.L ~ ...r.n
J.U'..u ':I" IV Al'oa
a.oaD.l' M=C(\.1
O<MWLrrA:.J.~
P:7"Uo J. WSLD.
c.C')~ L ,u.s~
c:AAJG /It.. STONI
J~ /It.. UUH
M~P.C~~
::)A..~:"S:Jt.:..."V^~
~~ ~);~Ul
Cl.D' ...=
QCP..:.s':"O'~C.C:QNND.
Go ysa S. P.OC!3U
J..a.:U,J
'U"J.' ':,JO J..,J,U
.ll~LL~. c.,tlU~...
~vu..' UtlV
Exhibit 3
:METTS. SVA:s'S ar WOODSIDE
.... 'PBoJ"S,SStO:f.LL CORPOR.l.nO:f
"'T'I'Olt.''''ETS .JIt..T LAW'
:s.II01 :oooltTS FltO:fT snua:r
;ro,O. DO::!: SII50
.
!t.UUUSBtTIlG. PA 17UO'OII5O'
~
"OUAT!. 7QQ=t
~,...,
C;111~,.5ll00
FAX
(7&7) 23a.I'"
OOllO.
itJ.l"500~
^"'i:"-WT K. :::cTt..,.-C;
MIc:::K.'\S:. ~ UID
J.OU2&. 'r ~. WA. Y):IS::
'A~~':':.!:c:KT
:l:^V1Q /It. fr:"ZSl)CQJd
CUT ,. u)'"'!Vno~ ANO
M.lc.K.An t). rIP.'"
~N.~l'I,.s;u.y
J.Clnr:.;, Jt.,4.TZM.'\N
:Al1C":.."C1JICiM,,:
$eOit' g, MCOU
""111.'" J.O~Q,"",
JJ.,l.Z.A1.rnt: M. CAIoeAG'NO
1l4"'l..tOll~
June 21, 1994
VLA FACSIMILE (410/821-7918)
and U.S. MAIL
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO &. FRIES
suite 606
28 west Al1egh~ny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Dear Joan:
Be:
Fred H. R"'erse and },[ & T
w
This will acknowledge receipt of your fa% of June 14,
1994. Although I do not adopt your recitation of the procedural
matters in its entirety, this will confirm my willingness to grant
your client an e%tension of time to file a COmplaint in the above-
referenced matter pending a resolution of the confidentiality
issue.
Attached you will find a proposed Confidentiality
Stipulation for your review and comments,
Sincerely yours,
CCC:qls
+6822
Enclosure
r=J:Uo, EVANS &. WOODSIDE
Christo he~~~:;'
V.. 44.V"
WI'" I .VV ... ,......
..'........ .........'.....
_.,...#.~.'~."--'
@{fJfjJIfU
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF .CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
.
.
.
.
Plaintiff
.
.
.
.
v.
.
.
NO. 94-l648-Civil Te~
.
.
FRED H. RYERSE and
M iii T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
:
.
.
.
.
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTlALITf:.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4002, the parties
stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Any document or oral testimony produced or given in
this action which is asserted by the producing party to
contain or constitute confidential 1nfo~ation shall be so
desiqnated by so producing party, Each such document or
transcript of testimony shall be clearly and prominently
marked on its face with the legend: .CONFIDENTIAL" or a
comparable notation.
2. In the absence of written permission from the
producing party, or an order of the Court, any confidential
information produced in accordance with the provisions of
Paraqraph 1 above shall not be disclosed to any person other
than the following qualified recipients:
(a) Counsel for the receiving party or parties,
including necessary support personnel of counsel and
reporters taking testimony involving such confidential
info~ation;
(b) Court employees;
[IDill&~lJ
. .t._'_
";,1';';.,,;'
oe"::,'9~ 11:1J~ 'aili ~Jti IHU
.'.t1lt~. t.,tlU~...
(c) Representatives of the parties who are expected to
testify at any deposition, hearing or trial in this
action; and
(d) outside experts engaged for the purpose of this
civil action by the party receiving this information, and
their support personnel.
3. Confidential information shall not be disclosed to
any person qualified under the terms of Paragraphs 2 (c) and
(d) of this Stipulation unless they shall have first read this
Stipulation for Confidentiality and B%ecuted the undertaking
attached hereto as Exhibit -A.- Clerical and secretarial
personnel of such outside experts and representatives need not
sign such an undertaking if their ~ployers or superiors have
done so.
4. In the event that any confidential information is
included with, or the contents thereof are in any way
disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition, transcript or
other paper filed with the Court, the confidential information
shall be filed under seal, prominently marked with the caption
of this case and the notation that the filed materials contain
protected information subject to a stipulation for
confidentiality.
5. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the
propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent
challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this civil
action challenges, in writing, at any stage of these
proceedings, a confidential designation, the parties shall try
to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the
designation may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
6. With~n thirty (30) days after final termination of
this action, each party shall assembly all documents and
things furnished and designated by any other party as
containing confidential information and copies made from such
documents and things furnished and designated by any other
party as containing confidential information, and shall either
(a) return such documents and things to the producing party,
or (b) destroy the documents and things, Counsel for each
- 2 -
"'.. "... ...
-... .-. .-,..
party shall be entitled to retain '.on~ copy of all pleadings,
motion papers, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition
transcripts (with the e:z:ception of exhibits thereto which are
desiqnated by any party as confidential), and work product.
7. The provisions of this stipulation for
confidentiality shall survive termination of this civil
action, for whatever reason, and the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions hereof.
!'lrO:U;.I:i, BVABS &; WOODSIDE
By:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
p, o. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
. .
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
KRUCBKO &; I!'RIES
By:
Joan E. Book, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I. D. #62020
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny ~venue
Baltimore, Me 21204
. .
Attorneys for Plaintiff '.~ .
First Advantage Mortgage
COrporation
'-
APPROVED:
/J/
- 3 -
..
...~::.'.
,.._~ .
F.TRTBIT -A-
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
.
.
:
Plaintiff
.
.
v.
,
.
.
.
No. 94-l64B-Civil Te~
,
.
FRED H. RYERSE and
1'1 &; T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
:
.
.
.
.
AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
STTPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
I have read the Stipulation for confidentiality in this
litigation and agree: (8) to be bound by the terms and conditions
listed therein; (b) not to reveal information covered by the. order
to anyone other than another person designated to receive such
information; and (c) to utilize such information for the purposes
of this civil action and no other litigation.
Date:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
-
. .
.~ -j
"I
Exhibit 4
IOHN 0, KRUCHKO'"
lAY R. FRJES..
OLENN P. HAR.E'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
LINDA McOn..L MILLER,
KAmu;EN A. VJ.TY.
STEVEN W, RAY"
SUSAN TAHERNlA'"
lOAN E. BOOK"
lANE C. nICKER-
JANET L. BOYER-
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Suite 202
7929 Wcslpark Driye
McLcIl1. VlI'liDia 22102
Suite 606
28 Well A1lelheny Avcnue
Ballimon:. Marylll1d 2t204
(703) 734-0554
TelephoDe: (4101 321.7310 '.
Telccopia: (410) 82t.7918
Suite 900
60t p"lIIISylvanla Amlue. N. W.
WuhiDIIOD. D.C. 20004
(202) 347,6550
........ -MIl _VA .DC .'"
July 6. 1994
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Corn. v. Fred H, Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94.1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation of July 5. 1994 wherein we agreed to
revise the proposed confidentiality stipulation as follows: . .
Revise paragraph 2(c) to include representatives of the parties
who are on the litigation strategy team; and
Revise paragraph 6 to include all appeals ("Within thirty (30)
days after fmal termination of this action. including all
appeals").
You will be forwarding to me a revised stipulation for execution.
In light of the panics agreement regarding the confidentiality stipulation, we also
agreed that your clients will respond to the discovery requests by Friday, July 22. 1994.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
cc: Ms. Ann Lichtfuss
HO_ILL C MUT!
JAMlS" IV.\Si
a.oau. T MoolI.I
CtfAkLU a ZW ALL 't
,ITII\ J a.USLla.
LLOYD a. 'lkSCN
CkAIC A $TONI
JAMU A CL.SH
MAlliA' CCGNUTI
D^~IIL L. SCLLIVAN
SlEVIS 0 SN'tDll\
CUN 1\ ClULL.
CHIlISTO'H!1l C CONN!I\
IL.YSlIIlXIIlS
'.1'
_ <-.oJ
Exhibit 5
;)JETTE. EY....SS .. WOODSIDE
A. PR0rDl810:"lAL CORpORAT10:"l
ATTORSE\.S AT LAW
30101 SORTH FRO:oiT STREET
p.o. BOle SOftO
HARRI8Bt:RQ, PA 17110'99110.
IltrllllD
a.~IIAr I '.OODSI:!
T!:.UHONI
t1111232.S0QC
'AX
1111123tlollll
ANDI\I'''' H DO'&':':SC
MICHAl:' D I\t!t
1\01l1lT,. HAYSU III
'ACLA J L1ICHT
DAVID A 'ITZSIM':SS
CUY'IIS1V1ST...SO
MICHAIL D PI'."
IC.A'UN S CONN1:':' Y
1\0nN J itA TZM."S
JAYSO"; 1\ WOU':ANC
SCOTT D Mool\!
ASDI\I'>>" J OSTI\=""SItl
!LtZAIlTH M CM.:'ACSO
IMIL Y L. :.O";C
II\SNC
23.181$00$
July 7, 1994
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO So FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: Fred H, Ryerse
Dear Ms. Book:
Enclosed please find an amended Stipulation for
Confidentiality which I have revised pursuant to our recent
telephone conversation. Kindly sign the enclosed Stipulation and
return the same to me for Court approval and filing.
This will also confirm my willingness to forward our
discovery responses by mail on or before July 22, 1994. If you
have any questions on the above discussion or the enclosed, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
CCC:gls
+6870
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
,.
l,' ,',~...'
""1""
"".;;0",-, '.~' ' "
~'8"
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
v.
No. 94-l648-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M & T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4002, the parties
stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Any document or oral testimony produced or given in
this action which is asserted by the producing party to
contain or .constitute confidential information shall be so
designated by so producing party. Each such document or
transcript of testimony shall be clearly and prominently
marked on its face with the legend: "CONFIDENTIAL" or a
comparable notation,
2. In the absence of written permission from the
producing party, or an order of the Court, any confidential
information produced in accordance with the prOV1Slons of
Paragraph 1 above shall not be disclosed to any person other
than the following qualified recipients:
(a) Counsel for the receiving party or parties,
including necessary support personnel of counsel and
reporters taking testimony involving such confidential
information;
(b) Court employees;
4, In the event that any confidential information is
included with, or the contents thereof are in any way
disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition, transcript or
other paper filed with the Court, the confidential information
shall be filed under seal, prominently marked with.~he caption
of this case and the notation that the filed materials contain
protected information subject to a stipulation for
confidentiality,
5. A party shall not be Obligated to challenge the
propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent
challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this civil
action challenges, in writing, at any stage of these
proceedings, a confidential designation, the parties shall try
to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the
designation may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
6. Within thirty (30) days after final termination of
this action, including all appeals, each party shall assemble
all documents and things furnished and designated by any other
party as containing confidential information and copies made
from such documents and things furnished and designated by any
other party as containing confidential information, and shall
either (a) return such documents and things to the producing
party, or (b) destroy the documents and things. Counsel for
each party shall be entitled to retain one copy of all
(c) Representatives of the parties who are expected to
testify at any deposition, hearing or trial in this
action, as well as any party representatives who are part
of the party's litigation strategy team; and
(d) Outside experts engaged for the purpose of this
civil action by the party receiving this information, and
their support personnel.
3. Confidential information shall not be disclosed to
any person qualified under the terms of Paragraphs 2 (c) and
(d) of this Stipulation unless they shall have first read this
StipUlation for Confidentiality and executed the undertaking
attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Clerical and secretarial
personnel of such outside experts and representatives need not
sign such an undertaking if their employers or superiors have
done so. .
- 2 -
,......,..,...^
(-----
pleadings, motion papers, legal memoranda, correspondence,
deposition transcripts (with the exception of ezhibits thereto
which are designated by any party as confidential), and work
product.
7. The provisions of this stipulation for
confidentiality shall survive termination of this civil
action, for whatever reason, and the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions hereof.
ke~~~, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
Sup, Ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
KRUCHKO 5< FRIES
~
By:
&'
an E. ~bok, Esquire
up. Ct. I. D. #62020
suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
Attorneys for plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage
Corporation
APPROVED:
1
I
! .
I
,
I
I
I 1
,
"
IJI
- 3 -
-#'
t:.;., ":'.:-::",. ,
;....~:i'"
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
v.
No. 94-l64B-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M & T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
.
.
AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
I have read the Stipulation for Confidentiality in this
litigation and agree: (a) to be bound by the terms and conditions
listed therein; (b) not to reveal information covered by the order
to anyone other than another person designated to receive such
information; and (c) to utilize such information for the purposes
of this civil action and no other litigation.
Date:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
EXHIBIT ''A"
I' ;w,.;/f.~'
L_~,_;,---_ .- ..,""''''
. Exhibit 6
HOWILL c: MUTI
JANU W IV....trroiS
"o",.r MCQU
CHAlW' %\1' ALLY
'ITlIt.J "lULU.
LLOYD A 'IUUN
CkAlC A. STONI
JAMU ^ l.:UH
M^"IA' ex""UTI
DANllLL SL'U.I''',",S
SflVIN D lNT01'"
eLls k GULL
CHlurC'HI" e C:lSS!1l
ILYSlI lOGtAS
;)IETTJil. JilVASS . WOODSIDE
A PROrDWlO:olALCORPORATION
ATTORSEYB AT LA.W
AStlUTH oo,,-.:se
MICHAl!. D Aut
,"0111'.1' P HAY'SU III
'AULA J LlteHT
DAYID ^ 'ITZSIM=SS
cur'IINIYINt',\SO
MICHAIL 0 PI'A
!tAU... N CQNJro,:l~ Y
"OIYN J ItATZM.o\S
JAYSON '", '#O!.1.:,"SC
SCOTT D Mookl
ANOA.Y J osn,:7SkJ
lLIZA'ITH M C....:':.\<<:","O
IMILYL LONG
:WOl SORTH FROST STREET
PO. BOX GllllO
HARRISBCRO. PA 17ll0-01l1lO
AITIUD
"Olu,r l woco:u:t
rl1.UHONI
C1lna3a.sooo
lAX
Cl11l 231.lIle
IUNO
23.IIISoo,
July 27, 1994
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO II FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First AdL'antage Mortgage Corporation v. Fred H. Ryerse and
M & T Mortgage
Dear Ms. Book:
Enclosed please find a certified copy of the Stipulation
for Confidentiality which we received from the Court today in the
above-referenced matter, I am in the process of designating
certain records as confidential and will provide you with our
discovery responses in the next several days, If you have any
questions on the enclosed Stipulation, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
CCC:gls
+6931
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
METTE, EVANS lit WOODSIDE
nJAAVI~~f.Vt
c~er C, Conner
JUL 2 9 1994
l,.,.,
Exhibit 7
.
JOHN O. ItRUCHKO'"
JAY R. FlUES"
GLENN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
LINDA McOlLL Mn.LER'
KAnnB!N A, TALTY'
STEVEN W, RAY"
SUSAN TAHERNlA'"
JOAN E. BOOK'.
lANE C. TUCKER'
IANID' L. BOYER.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Suite 202
7929 Wcslpark Drive
MeLnn. Vltlinia 22t02
Suite 606
28 WeS! Allesbeny Avenue
Ballimol'C. Marytand 21:!04
(703) 734-0554
Suite 900
60t PelllllylV&llla Avenue. 1'1, W.
WublnJlOn. D.C, 20004
(202) 347-6550
TelepboDe: (4tO) 321-73tO
Telccoplcr: (.10) 821.79t8
~ -WI) .VA #ClC .M
July 28, 1994
VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
METTE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantalle Mortllalle Corn. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
This lener is in response to your lener dated July 27. 1994 in which you indicated
that you will be responding to our discovery requests "in the next several days". As you
know, we sent Requests for Production of Documents to your clients. Fred H. Ryerse and M
& T Mortgage Corporation on April 19, 1994. Initially, we granted you an extension of
time to respond to the discovery requests in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. Pre-
complaint settlement was not successful.
On or about June 1, 1994. you stated you would be responding to the discovery,
however, your clients refused to produce the documents unless my client agreed to stipulate
to a confidentiality order. During our June 8, 1994 telephone conversation you confirmed
that you have the documents which are responsive to our discovery requests but you were
waiting to produce the documents until the question on confidentiality was resolved.
My client agreed to the stipulation for confidentiality and we executed the stipulation
on July 11, 1994. We agreed to grant you another extension to respond until July 22, 1994.
We have not yet received your clients' response to our discovery requests. In light of
the fact that you have had over two months to prepare your response and had assured me that
the documents would be produced on or before July 22, 1994, we will not grant your clients
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
July 28, 1994
Page 2
any further extension of time to respond to this discovery. Please be advised, that if we do
not receive a response to these discovery requests by Monday August I, 1994, we will me a
Motion to Compel.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
~
,"h uJ c!-. /,'
~__'N
loan E. Book '.
V
j~.~-
Exhibit 8
10HN O. KRUCHKO",
lAY R. FRIES"
oLENN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
LINDA Mc:On.L MD..l.ER'
KAnn.EEN A. TALTY'
STEVEN w. RAY,'
SUSAN TAHERN\A...
lOAN E, BOOK'.
lAN1IT L, BOYER.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Suice 202
7929 Weslpuk Drive
McL=!. Virginia 22t02
Suite 606
28 Well AlleshellY Aveoue
Balnmon:. Marylaad 21204
(703) 734-0"4
Telephooe. (~101 321.7310:
Telecopier: (~IO) 821.7918
Suite 900
60t Pennlylvania Avcouc. N,W.
WashioJlon. D,C. 20004
........ .\GJ ."''' .oc .'"
(202) 347.6"0
,
August 5. 1994
YJA FA.'\': AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Com. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
We have reviewed the documents your clients Fred H, Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation have submined in response to First Advantage Mortgage Corporation's Requests
for Production of Documents in the above-referenced maner. We note the following
deficiencies in response to the discovery requests:
A. . Resoonse of Defendant Fred H, Rverse to the Reauests for Production of
Documents
Request No. 14 states: "AJJ.yand all telephone bills for your home phone number or
car phone for the months of January, 1994 through the present, including, but not limited to
the itemized telephone call account statement page from that bill." Defendant Ry.erse did not
object to any portion bf this request but produced only phone bills from his car telephone.
Defendant's telephone bills for his home phone number may contain information which
demonstrates that Defendant's actions were violative of the fiduciary duty which he owed
Plaintiff. Consequently. the phone bills are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. .'
Request No. 18 states: "AJJ.y and all documents regarding and relating to your current
duty with M & T including, but not limited to, all documents relating to transactions with
prospective borrowers in the acquisition and processing of mortgages." Defendant objected
Christopher C, Conner. Esquire
August 5. 199*
Page 2
on the I!rounds of overbreadth and undue burden. This objection is unfounded. The request
goes d[;ectly to the issue of whether Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary duties to
Plaintiff by acquiring business opponunities for his own and Defendant M & T's adyantage
that were business opponunities of Plaintiff. These documents may demonstrate that
Defendant Ryerse was dealing with Plaintiffs borrowers but closing these mongage9 for
Defendant M & T. This is relevant information and a proper matter for discovery.
Therefore. it must be produced by Defendant Ryers.e.
Request No. 19 states: "Any and all documents regarding and relating to your efforts
on behalf of M & T relative to establishing a mongage operation in Pennsylvania in
Cumberland, York, Dauphin, Perry, or Lancaster counties." Once again, Defendant
objected on the grounds of over\lreadth and undue burden. Similarly, this objection is
groundless. Documents relating to Defendant Ryerse's actions on behalf of Defendant M &
T relative to establishing a mongage operation in this limited and specific geographic area
may contain information which demonstrates that Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff by engaging in activity to acquire business opponunities for his own and
Defendant M & T's advantage that were business opponunities of Plaintiff and by soliciting
Plaintiffs employees while Defendant Ryerse was still employed by Plaintiff. This is
relevant information and obviously discoverable, and consequently it must be produced by
Defendant Ryerse.
B. ReSDonse of Defendant :\1 & T Mortl!al!e CorDoration to the Reauests for
Production of Documents
Request No.5 states: "Any and all documents regarding or relating to the hiring and
subsequent employment of Defendant Ryerse with M & T including. but not limited to,
Defendant Ryerse's personnel file, application form. M & T's job offer letter to Defendant
Ryerse and any and all employment agreements or employment contracts between Defendant
Ryerse and Defendant M & T." Although Defendant M & T indicates that these documents
are attached, neither Defendant Ryerse's personnel file. application form. M & T's job offer
letter to Defendant Ryerse nor any and all employment agreements or employment contracts
between Defendant Ryerse and Defendant M & T were included in the documents produced.
Request No. 16 states: "Any and all corporate telephone bills or logs for the months
of January, 1994 through the present which show calls to individuals in Cumberland, Perry,
York, Dauphin or Lancaster counties in Pennsylvania." Defendant's objection on the
grounds of overbreadth and undue burden is unfounded. Defendant M & T's telephone bills
or logs for the months of January. 1994 through the present may contain information which
demonstrates that Defendant M & T was conspiring with Defendant Ryerse to learn
information by which Defendants would deal with and solicit Plaintiffs borrowers,
employees or business agents and associates in violation of Defendant Ryerse's fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff. To the extent that this information may show that Defendant M & T dealt
.
Christopher C. COMer. Esquire
August S. 1994
Page 3
with Plaintiffs employees. borrowers and business agents and associates. this information is
discoverable because it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, the request is neither overbroad nor does it cause unreasonable
annoyance, embarrassment. oppression. burden or expense .- it is limited to telephone
communications for those Pennsylvania counties where Plaintiff did business.
Request No. 19 states: "Any and all docum~nts regarding and relating to all persons
with whom Defendant has transacted business relative to the acquisition and processing of
mortgages in Pennsylvania in the counties of Cumberland. Perry, York. Dauphin or
Lancaster during the time period of January I, 1994 through the present." Once again,
Defendant's objection that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence is groundless. The request goes directly to Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants M & T and Ryerse engaged in a conspiracy whereby they agreed that Defendant
Ryerse would knowingly and maliciously breach the fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiff in
order to acquire business opportUnities for Defendant Ryerse's and Defendant M & T's
advantage that were business opportUnities of Plaintiff. This is relevant information and is
obviously discoverable. and consequently must be produced by Defendant ~[ & T. In
addition. Defendant's objection based on overbreadth and undue burden is unfounded. This
request is limited to the geographic area where Plaintiff did business.
Request No. 20 states: "Any and all documents regarding or relating to negotiations
and! or transactions during the time period of J anuar)' I. 1994 through the present aimed at
establishing a mortgage operation for M & T in Pennsylvania in Cumberland. York.
Dauphin. Perry. or Lancaster counties," As stated above. Defendant's objection on the
grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence is without merit. Documents relating to the establishment of Defendant M & T's
mortgage operation in central Pennsylvania may contain information which demonstrates that
Defendants M & T and Ryerse engaged in a civil conspiracy whereby they agreed that
Ryerse would breach his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by soliciting Plaintiff's employees while
Ryerse was still an officer of Plaintiff and by acquiring business opportUnities for Ryerse' s
and M & T's advantage that were business opportUnities of Plaintiff. This is relevant
information and a proper maner for discovery. Therefore. it must be produced by
Defendant. Likewise. the request is not overly broad or an undue burden but limited to the
area where Plaintiff had an established mortgage business.
Please have your clients produce the documents responsive to these requests. If your
clients claim there are no such documents. please indicate whether that is the case. If we do
not receive a full and compiete response to these discovery requests in ten days. we will me
a Motion to Compel.
Finally. in light of your agreement to grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file its
Complaint in this maner until such time that Defendants have responded completely and fully
Christopher C. Conner..Esquirc
August S. 1994
Page 4
to Plaintiff's discovery requests: it is our posture that Plaintiff's obligation to me a complaint
is held in abeyance until such time that this dispute is resolv!=d. If you, have any questions
concerning this matter. please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
.
By:
~~~/I~
E. Book I
..
.,......
.'
~ .
HOwau. e MITT'!
JAWU oa-' I\;.~SS
~O.u. r MC'CIU
CHAJ.LU I Z~ A1.1. Y
'1T1l J JUUUk
UC'I'D Il ,IIUI:N
ell"" ... nONI
JAMU ^ CUH
DANIIL L i\:U.I\',"!-i
iTlVlto: D 5,,".,01'"
GUW" CUl.:'
CHkISTC'Hl'" , C::"';~lll
u.nll kCCIU
AUG 18 1994
Exhibit 9
;)JETTE. EYASS . WOODSIDE
" PRorraalOSAL COR PO RATIOS
ATTORSE'.S AT LAW
30&01 :<ORTIl FRO:<T STREET
P.O. BOX 39110
IlARRISBl:RO. PA 17110'0950
1U00lklD
.~Ila.r I '.cecs;:t
rIU,HOSl
(1111 .nz.'OCQ
.''''Okl'' H OC'.a,'I.:"'C
MICHAl!. D kllD
kOllkf.. HAY,,"U III
"'~L^ J LlICHT
DAVID A P1rtSIMONS
CUY , IIN1V1NfM.Q
MICHAlI. D PIM
KAUW N C:ONN1U, Y
IlCIYN J l^ TZ)'M S
JA't10N k_ 'WOLPGASC
Korr D WOCU
AIIlDU'" J OSTkC"SKI
tLIZ"llTH M CALCAGNO
IMII. Y L LONG
PAX
111n 231.1118
IMWO
31'101'500'
August 16, 1994
VIA PACSIMILE
410/821-7918
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First Advantage Mortgage Corp, v. Fred H. Ryerse and M & T
Mortgage
Dear Ms, Book:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 5,
1994 which I received on August 8, 1994. In response to your
allegations of "deficiencies" in our recent responses and
objections to your discovery requests, I offer the following
observations in support of our original responses.
I. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, FRED H. RYERSE
Reouest No. 14
Defendant Ryerse's home telephone bills will be produced,
Reouest No. 18
This request could be interpreted to include a review of
every document currently located in Mr. Ryerse's office. It is
clearly objectionable as phrased, If you wish to limit your
request to the list of mortgages closed and the dates of closing
since the commencement of M&T's operation, I will reconsider our
. Joan E. Book, ESCiuire
August 16, 1994
Page 2
objection. As noted in our response to Request No. 17, Defendant
Ryerse did not acquire any documents from First Advantage which
pertain to First Advantage's borrowers, referring agents,
prospective borrowers or prospective referring agents.
Accordingly, the only discoverable documents in Mr. Ryerse's
current office are those documents which would identify mortgages
closed since the commencement of M&T's operation. If that is your
request, we can provide you with a summary of mortgages closed
through July 31, 1994, and we can resolve this particular
discovery issue.
Reauest No. 19
I offer the same comments which I offered in response to
Request No. 18. In addition, your request is not limited in time
and could be construed to include M&T's current marketing efforts
which are totally irrelevant to this litigation. If your request
is limited to those documents in Defendant Ryerse's possession
which refer or relate to Defendant Ryerse's initial start-up
activities, e,g., office lease negotiations, equipment
installation, ini:ial employment interviews, I will reconsider
this objection. Please be guided accordingly.
11. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT lrl&T iUORTGAGE CORPORATION
Reauest No.5
You already have most, if not all, of Defendant Ryerse's
personnel file, In addition, you have the calendar notations and
interview notes 0: those representatives of M&T who spoke with
Defendant Ryerse about an employment opportunity with M&T. To the
extent any additional, non-privileged documents exist in Defendant
Ryerse's personnel file, we will produce the same.
Reauest No. 16
I will attempt to provide you with a general description
of M&T's telephone system which should adequately demonstrate the
objectionable nature of your inquiry, which is a little like
asking McDonald's to identify the number of cheeseburgers sold in
central Pennsylvania.
Reauest No. 19-20
I offer the same observations set forth in Section I of
this letter with respect to Request Nos. 18 and 19 directed to
Defendant Ryerse.
"-.,.."",,"""".,..-.<<.,,..-.......-.'.-
~ . Joan E. Book, Esquire
August 16, 1994
Page 3
In response to your suggestion that you will file a
motion to compel within ten days if you do not receive documents
falling within the ambit of what we deem to be objectionable
requests, please be advised that the Cpurt of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County encourages counsel to work through discovery
objections prior to bringing the same to the attention of the
Court. In the spirit of amicable resolution, I suggest that you
reassess your position on the filing of a motion to compel.
Please indicate whether you intend to narrow the focus of what we
deem to be objectionable requests so that I may respond
accordingly with the additional documents identified above. I
look forward to hearing from you shortly in this regard.
Finally, this will confirm that your client has a limited
extension of time in which to file a Complaint in this matter
pending your receipt of our supplemental documentation. If we are
unable to resolve the pending discovery dispute without Court
intervention, I will likely set a specific deadline for the filing
of a Complaint. Please be guided accordingly.
Sincerely yours,
CCC:gls
+6995
Exhibit 10
..
10tL~ Q. KRt.'CHKO'"
lAY R. FRIES"
QLE:-~ p. tL~.
PALl. ~I. It.'SKY'
L!:'o'DA ~lcQILL Mn.LER'
K.-\TIU.EES A. TALTY'
STEVE.'i W. R.-\Y-'
SUS.....'i TAHER.'Io1A"-
IOA-'i E. BOOK"
1A-'IoU L. BOYER,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COt.'SSELORS AT LAW
Suite ~O~
79~9 WestPlllk Dn,'e
~lcLun, Vir,ini. ~~10~
Suite 606
~8 West .-\lIesheny A'enue
Baltimore, ~tar:land ~1=lJ.l
1703) 73.M'5~
Telephone: 1410, 3:1.~lIO'
Telecopoer. 1410. S:I.~9IS
Suite 900
60 I Pennsylvania Avenue. :oJ. W.
Walhin,ton. D.C, ~QOO~
I~O~) 3~7.6"0
~... ....0.\' _oc ."
August 18. 1994
Chrislopher C. Conner. Esquire
METTE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburl!. Pennsvlvania 17110-0950
~ '
Re: First Advanlal!e ~lortl!al!e Coru. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. at.
Civil Action No, 94-1648
Dear Christopher:
This letter confinns our August 18. 1994 telephone conversation resolving the dispute
regarding your clients Fred H. Ryerse and M & T ~[ortgage Corporation responses and
objections to First Advantage Mortgage Corporation's Requests for Production of Documents
in the above-referenced matter.
In summary. with regard to the Responses and Objections of Defendant Fred H.
Ryerse. Defendant Ryerse will submit his home telephone bills for the period requested in
response to Request No. 14. We have agreed that in response to Request No. 18. Defendant
Ryerse will provide a summary list of mortgages closed through July 31. 1994. The
summarv will include. the borrowers name. address. interest rate of the loan. loan amount.
loan type and date the loan closed. With regard to Request No. 19 which requested
documents regarding and relating to the establishment of M & 1's mortgage operation in
central Pennsylvania. we have agreed that the documents submitted will be limited to the
start-up of the operation. such as the office lease negotiations. equipment installation, initial
employment interview. As we discussed. the scope of M & 1's operations includes their
Lancaster office.
With regard to the Responses of Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation to the
Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant M & T will produce Defendant Ryerse's
persOMel file. excluding items for which a privilege is claimed, M & T will be providing a
._....nl
..
Christopher C, Conner. Esquire
August 18. 1994
Page 2
explanation of its telephone system to support its objection on the grounds of undue burden
to Request No. 16. We have agreed that in response to Request No, 18. M & T will provide
a summary list of mortgages closed through July 31. 1994. The summary will include. the
borrowers name. address. interest rate of the loan, loan amount, loan type and date the loan
closed, With regard to Request No. 19. we have agreed that the documents submitted wlll
be limited to the start-up of M & T's operation in central Pennsylvania, such as the office
lease negotiations. equipment installation. initial employment interview, As we discussed.
the scope of M & T's operations includes their Lancaster office.
We also discussed that although your clients are willing 10 produce the summary of
loans closed. disclosing this information may be a violation of the Privacy Act. You will be
investigating this issue to determine whether the Privacy Act applies to this situation. whether
our Stipulation for Confidentiality covers the privacy requirement of the Act or whether we
will need to get a separate court order.
We agreed that documents you have in your possession responsive to these requests.
~. Defendant Ryerse's telephone bills. his personnel tile. lease negotiations and other start-
up documents concerning ~I & T's Lemoyne office. will be submitted to me on Monday
August 22. 1994. The remaining documents. ~, summary of mortgages closed. start-UP
documents of the Lancaster office. will be submitted by the end of this month. If.your
clients have any difficultly providing these documents according to this time frame. you will
notify me.
If you have any questions concerning this resolution to the discoI'cry dispute. please
feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Bv'
"
rp.1 ~Aj
Jo E. Book
Elthibit 11
'l
H~"lL1. C. MITTt
':A.MU" IVASI
AOUR. r MCCk!
CHAl1.U' Z\lt'."LLY
'ITU, J ll(Juu.
uovo k .us!.:","
C"Ale ^ sro1'Ol
~^MlS ^ !:UH
:).'SIl1. L St.;LUVAS
snv!s Ci $SYCu.
GUN k Ck!LL
CHklSTCPHlk C CO,,",..U,
lLYU! l\~I"S
~!ETTE. EV.\.SS .. WOODS1DE
.\ PRorDMlo:-fAL t"ORPORATIO:"
ATTORSE\.'& AT LAW
30101 :"oiORTH FROST 8TREET
P.O. BOX ilOilO
HARRISBt:RO. PA 171l0'(l01lO
.. .
~~.~ Z 4 l>>j]
'A"
C711' ~38'1'1'
1U~IU:
It.':lur I 'r: ::UDl
,,1<Oglll'l' H OC'&':';'C
MIC:HA!~ D kilO
A..:ua T' HAYtrOU :11
',\1..1.... J LllCHT
DAVID A. Ptrzso.,:ss
en , IIN1Vl"1"." so
MICHAIL. D PIP."
"AUN N CON~~'f
1ll0lYto: J ,,^rz~.,s
JAlSOtt .. WCLfC.'SC
SCOTT D NCQU
^""OUT J OSU':'I.'SIt:
!UtA_ITH M CA~:."CS=
lMIL Y L Lowe
n:'1PHC!>ri1
e7111.ua.,coo
IlU NO
13.111$005
Auqust 22, 1994
Joan E. Book. Esquire
KRUCIiKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First Adt'antage Mortgage Corp. v. Fred H, Ryerse and M & T
Mortgage
Dear Joan:
Enclosed please find copies of the following documents:
1, Personnel file of Fred Ryerse. Please note that I have
removed two memoranda directed to Richard Lamert,
Esquire, M&T's General Counsel. I am claiminq the
attorney-client and work product privileges with respect
to these two memos.
2, The lease and floor plan for the Harrisburg office.
3. A draft of a press release in connection with the
Iiarrisburq office,
This will confirm our telephone conversation in which I
indicated that I would provide you with the home telephone bills
for Mr. Ryerse as well as additional documentation relatinq to the
establishment of M&T's mortqaqe operation in central Pennsylvania
(including the Lancaster Office). Finally, I agreed to provide a
r. .-
<.. -~.... .
Ltlt2Li~~:'~,< j
~
.Joan E. Book Esqu1re
August 22, 1994
Page 2
summary of mortgages closed through July 31, 1994 subject to the
restrictions of the Privacy Act. As I indicated to you by
telephone, I will make an effort to provide you with this
additional information by September 1.
If I have misstated the nature of our understanding,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Please consider this letter
and our enclosures to this letter as a supplemental response to
your discovery requests directed to the defendants in the above-
referenced matter, subject to (and without waiving any of) the
objections stated therein. If you have any questions on the above
discussion or the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
MBr\'i:::0/~DSIDE
~~~~,~\
Christopher C. Conner
CCC:gls
+7018
Enclosures
FIRST ADVANTAGE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACfION - LAW
FRED H. RYERSE, et al.
Defendants
94-1648 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1'-1' day of September, 1994, a Rule is issued on the defendant, M
& T Mortgage Corporation, to show cause why the plaintiffs motion to compel production of
documents should not be granted.
This Rule returnable twenty (20) days after service hereof.
BY THE COURT,
r4/c
/'
SEP IJ 9 00 MI '9~
JF ~ ICl
(if '.' ,; 10/, .I\~y
r:U!!, -' :',-'W tl~~lInr
;., t :~ If,:o': " " '-, '.~
,;~":.. '. :"~ . "-',- ,.~tf.l':i'
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
I Plaintiff,
I
l' v.
I FRED H. RYERSE, sulll.,
.
.
.
.
.
· Civil Action No. 94.1648
.
.
.
.
Defendants.
.
. ............... ............ ......... ......
ORDER SETTING HEARING
Considering Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation to
I
I
I
I at
,
I
I
Respond to Plaintiffs First Request For Production Of Documents and pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rules,
IT IS ORDERED that said motion be set for hearing before this Court, commencing
o'clock a,m.lp.m. on the _ day of
, 1994.
Order signed this
day of
,1994.
II
I
II
il
!j
I
II
II
I
!
I
Judge
r;,.:I' ,':'::., "
II
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
I CORPORATION
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Plaintiff.
I' v.
d
II
FRED H. RYERSE. 1<1111..
Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant M & T Mortgage
Corporation to Respond to Plaintiffs First Request For Production Of Documents and
I i Defendant's response thereto, it is this _ day of
[I
,1994,
ORDERED, that within ten (10) days. Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation shall
'I
::
I:
Ii provide the documents requested in Plaintiffs Request No. 14, RequestNo. 18 and Request
iI
I,
i! No. 19.
il
i!
Ii
II
II
d
II
II
iI
!l
I
I ~
,I
,I
:1
"
"
'I
II
Judge
I
'I
,
I:
:1
I'
.',,.. ,'" ~.,.".
I'
I
11
II
II
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13, 1994, a copy of Plaintifrs Motion to
Compel Defendant M & T Mongage Corporation to Respond to Plalntlfrs First Request For
'I
I
I
II
I
,
!
Production Of Documents, Memorandum In Suppon thereof, Order Selling Hearing and
Order were served by first class mall, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
MEETE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
I!
!I
L
Ii
II
I
I
I
I
i
i
II
'I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
.. .. .
II
I'
11
il
!I
Ii
Ii
I'
II
I
L
II v.
I,
;1
'II
I
I
I
'I
I
II
I!
II
"
~ I
~ I
"
II
II
II
II
1I
I,
,I
.,
!,
:i
,. -"0 . ......i.a..".
SEP 1~9\ I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
*
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Plaintiff,
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ ill.,
Defendants.
*
* * . * * * . * * * * * * . * * * * . * . * . * . * * * . . * * * * * . * * * * * * *
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 4019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advantage"). moves this Court to issue an Order
compelling Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation ("Defendant M & T") to produce the
documents requested in Request No. 16, Request No. 19 and Request No. 20 of Plaintiffs
First Request for Production of Document to Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation. This
i discovery request was propounded upon Defendant M & T on April 19, 1994.
'I
'.
The grounds for this Motion, as more fully set out in the accompanying Memorandum
I
I
I
I
I
attempts by Plaintiff to obtain proper responses to the requested discovery, Defendant M & T I
I
I
!! has engaged in dilatory tactics to avoid responding to the requests in a timely manner and has I
'I in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation to
Respond to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents, are that despite repeated
!'
:' unjustifiably failed to provide the documents which he committed to produce by
.
... ..' .
t:
b
i!J.
i'
I,
'~~'---!-~
II
I
I
,
I
I September I, 1994. Plaintiff is entitled to the documents requested and needs responses to
I these discovery requests In order to prepare adequately its Complaint and to prepare for trial.
Plaintiff submits this Motion In compliance with the discovery dispute procedure
encoumged in the Discovery Rules of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Producer. Plaintiff
has made a good faith informal allemptto resolve the dispute.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this court enter an Order compelling Defendant
M & T Mortgage Corpomtlon to promptly respond to Request No. 16, Request No. 19 and
i Request No. 20 of its First Request for Production of Documents.
I
Ii
Ii
I
,
I
II
II
II
:1
I,
II
:1
II
'I
I,
,
'I
II
II
"
if
II
I
I
I
I
I
Dated: September 13, 1994
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
By:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
(410) 821-7918 (fax)
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
II
II
,I
II
I,
,
,
'I
"
I'
2
'-
II
I
I
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ·
CORPORATION ·
.
Plaintiff, ·
.
.
.
.
.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
v.
II
11
II
11
"
ii
!,
"
I'
'I
: I' J,
"
II
II
I
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ W.,
Defendants.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advantage") filed its Praecipe
for Writ of Summons on April 4, 1994. Plaintiffs basis for this action is breach of fiduciary
I
!
" duty as an officer and employee of First Advantage of Defendant Fred H. Ryerse
"
~ I
'"I"
("Defendant Ryerse") and civil conspiracy of Defendant Ryerse and Defendant M & T
,
iI
I i Mortgage Corporation ("Defendant M & T) to eliminate First Advantage as a competitor in
i! the mortgage banking business in central Pennsylvania. Defendant Ryerse was served with
"
:!
the writ on April 7. 1994, and Defendant M & T was served on April IS, 1994.
On April 19. 1994. Plaintiff served its First Request for Production of Documents to
Defendant M & T and served its First Request for Production of Document to Defendant
Ryerse. Although Defendants' responses were due under the Pennsylvania Rules on May 19,
1994, Defendants requested an extension of time to respond to these discovery requests.
f' ~
allegedly in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. With the expectation that Defendants
i would pursue settlement negotiations, Plaintiff granted the requested extension of time.
I
II
,
"
I
I,
I,
I
\i
I!
I
I
I
I
,
Defendants, howevcr, did not propose any pre-complaint settlement but tiled a
Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint on May 31. 1994. In light of the fact that Defendants
had not submitted their responses to Plaintiffs pre-compliant discovery, Defendants agreed to
grant Plaintiff an extension in time for tiling Its Complaint until after pre-complaint discovery
II has been completed.
,I
"
iI
II
'I
II
I,
Ii
I,
il
I
,I
I'
,I
"
"
\l
ii
"
"
11
"
I'
!f
In addition, on June I, 1994, Defendants informed Plaintiff that although they had the
documents responsive to the discovery requests, they refused to produce these documents
unless Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to a confidentiality order.. Although Plaintiff verbally
informed Defendants it was not opposed to a proper confidentiality stipulation, Plaintiff was
required to make repeated demands (on June 3, 1994, June 8, 1994 and June 14, 1994) that
Defendants submit the proposed confidentiality order for Plaintiffs revlew.2 Defendants
eventually responded to these demands and on July 22, 1994, submitted to Plaintiff a draft
, confidentiality agreement for review and commentJ
On July 5, 1994, Defendants agreed to make certain revisions to the confidentiality
agreement and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendants another extension of time to respond to
it
· For the convenience of the Court, a copy of counsel for Defendants' June I, 1994
letter requesting a confidentiality stipulation is attached as Exhibit 1.
2 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of the letter summarizing Plaintiffs efforts
to resolve this discovery dispute is attached as Exhibit 2.
J For the convenience of the Court. a copy of this letter and draft confidentiality
agreement is attached as Exhibit 3,
2
I
,
II
I:
!i Its discovery requests until July 22, 1994.~ Counsel for Defendants specifically committed
!t
that he would respond to the document requests "on or before July 22, 1994".' Despite the
: fact that Defendants had the documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests available for
'I
II
,
ji
11
;
"
II
Ii
I
II
'I
It
II
I,
"
Ii
!I
'I
II
I.
II
II
I'
II
Ii
i'
'I
ti
Ii
"
I.
I.
production since June I, 1994, Defendants did not produce the documents requested on
July 22. 1994, but on July 27, 1994, informed Plaintiff that they would submit the
documents "in the next several days",6
Allhough Plaintiff attempted to resolve informally this discovery dispute and in light
of Defendants continued dilatory tactics and failure to cooperated in the pre-complaint
discovery process. Plaintiff advised Defendants that it would not grant any additional
extensions of time for response to the discovery requests but would file a Motion to Compel
if Defendants did not submit the requested documents by August I, 1994.7 Accordingly. on
July 29, 1994, Defendants submilled their Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Document
Requests.
Subsequently, on August 5, 1994, Plaintiff notified Defendants that there were several
. deficiencies in Defendants' responses to the document requests,S In light of the fact that the
I,
I
'I
I
:! 4 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of Plaintiff's letter agreeing to the
: i confidentiality stipulation and granting an extension of time to respond to discovery is
: I attached as Exhibit 4.
!!
:' ' For the convenience of the Court, a copy of Defendants' leller confirming that their
responses to discovery would be submilled on or before July 22. 1994, is attached as
I Exhibit S.
:1
I
:1
'I
,
6 For the convenience of the Court. a copy of Defendants' leller is attached as
Exhibit 6.
"
,
7 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of this leller is attached as Exhibit 7.
S For the convenience of the Court, a copy of this leller is attached as Exhibit 8.
3
t.:...,..,-...",. .-... ~A
I
I
"
"
II
I! discovery dispute regarding the production of documents already had extended over three
!I
II
I
1
II
II
II
j,
iI
'I
II
I
i
I
\1
II
I,
,
i
months, Plaintiff demanded that Defendants respond to the discovery within ten days,
Defendants contacted Plaintiff about this discovery dispute on August 16, 1994,9
On August 18, the parties agreed to a compromise regarding the discovery. Plaintiff
agreed to Jimitthe scope of certain requests and Defendants agreed to produce all the
documents by August 31, 1994.10 If Defendants had difficulty producing the agreed upon
documents by this date. Defendants' counsel assured Plaintiffs counsel that he would notify
Plaintiffs counsel about the delay.
Although Defendants produced some of the documents on August 22, 1994,11 several
responses remain outstanding. Defendants counsel has not advised Plaintiffs counsel that
Defendants have encountered any difficultly in producing the requested documents. Although
Plaintiff attempted to resolve this dispute informally, Defendants have consistently engaged in
'I
dilatory tactics to avoid producing the documents. There is no justification for Defendants'
iI
"
Ii
" failure to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. The discovery requests are relevant and
i!
,! germane to the subject matter of the litigation and in drafting of Plaintiffs Complaint and
Ii
I
authorized by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
4019, Counsel for Plaintiff presents this Motion to Compel Production of Documents.
;!
:i
'j
"
Ii
"
"
il
9 For the convenience of the Court, a copy of Defendants response Is attached as
i Exhibit 9.
10 For the convenience of the Court. a copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 10.
II For the convenience of the Court. a copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 11.
4
..---)
I
i
!
i
II. DEFENDANT M & T'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE I
TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REOUF..sTS IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED I
Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that
discovery may be obtained "regarding any malter, not privileged, which Is relevant to the
subject malter involved In the pending action". Pa,R.C.P. No, 4003.1. Rule 4003.1
"incorporates the broad Federal discovery rule," Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.1 Explanatory Note -
Ii
"
Ii
II
ii
II
II
I
,I
II
Ii
1978, and consequently, relevancy is broadly construed at the discovery stage of litigation.
Hickman v. Tavlor, 329 U,S. 495, 507 (1947); Szarmack v. Welch, 456 Pa. 293, 318 A.2d
707 (1974). A request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility
that the information sought may be relevant to the subject malter of the action or that it
:!
: i reasonably could lead to other malters that could bear on the issue that is or may be in the
,
case. ODocnheimer Fund. Inc. v, Sanders, 437 U.S. 370 (1978). Accordingly, discovery is
Ii
.1 not limited to information admissible at trial. Pa.R.C.P. No, 4003,1 Explanatory Note -
.1
Ii
;. 1978.
,
il
In addition, discovery is not limited or prohibited because it causes some annoyance,
., embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense. The annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
burden or expense must be unreasonable. Hal!v v. Premier Mfl!, Com., 404 Pa, 330, 172
A.2d 283 (1961). If the responding party is unable to furnish the information without
making an unreasonable investigation or without unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, burden or expense, the responding party must at least set forth all of the
information at his disposal and all that he can obtain without the employment of experts, as
well as set froth the facts which would show that further discovery would be unreasonable.
Rush v. Butler Fair & Al!ricultural Assn. 17 D & C2d 250, 260 (\958).
5
II
I
I,
Ii
II
11 & 1's alleged commitment to produce the documents as agreed. It continues to engage in
\1
il
II
,j
'I
11
II
:1
I'
II
II
\;
\'
,I
I'
II
:1
II
1:
"
I'
:\
Plaintiffs Counsel attempted to resolve the dispute informally, Despite Defendant M
dilatory tactics. Defendant M & T's refusal to produce the documents requested is
unwarranted and in contravention of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as shown
below:
PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REOUEST NO. 16
Any and all corporate telephone bills or logs for the months of January, 1994 through
the present which show calls to Individuals in Cumberland, Perry, York, Dauphin or
Lancaster counties in Pennsylvania.
RESPONSE
Objection. Request No. 16 is overly broad and Is not reasonably calculated to lead to
I,
II the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, a response to said Request would cause
'I
Ii,
! i unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense to Defendant M &
1
'I
"
T Mortgage Corp. and would require Defendant M & T Mortgage Corp to make an
unreasonable investigation.
ARGUMENT
Defendant M & T's objection to this discovery request Is unf:lUnded. These
documents may contain information which demonstrates that Defendant M & Twas
1 conspiring with Defendant Ryerse to learn information by which Defendants would deal with
and solicit Plaintiffs borrowers, employees or business agents and associates in violation of
,
ii
Defendant Ryerse's fiduciary duties to Plaintiff. See Exhibit 8, Nevertheless, Defendant M
6
':
.
"
..-..':':"1 .
& T continues to assert that providing such documentation Is unreasonable and has Slated that
it will provide Plaintiff with an explanation of Defendant M & T's telephone system to
support this contention. ~ Exhibit 9. As of the date of this Motion, Defendant M & T has
not submitted any explanation concerning its telephone system. Consequently, the Court
I
i I should order Defendant M & T to produce these documents or submit the explanation
II
!i
Ii
d
'I
I:
I
I'
I'
I!
1;
II
,I
regarding its claim of unreasonable burden.
REOUEST NO, 19
Any and all documents regarding and relating to all persons with whom Defendant
has transacted business relative to the acquisition and processing of mortgages in
Pennsylvania in the counties of Cumberland, Perry, York, Dauphin or Lancaster during the
time period of January I, 1994 through the present.
RESPONSE
Objection. Request No, 19 is overly broad and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, a response to said Request would cause
unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense to Defendant
M & T Mortgage Corp. and would require Defendant M & T Mortgage Corp. to make an
unreasonable Investigation.
i
"
I
,
ARGUMENT
;;
I,
I
As noted during the informal dispute resolution. this request Is not objectionable
,~ because it goes directly to Plaintiffs claim that Defendant M & T and Defendant Ryerse
were engaged in a conspiracy whereby they agreed that Defendant Ryerse would knowingly
'I and maliciously breach the fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiff in order to acquire business
7
II
'I
II
'I
I
'I
Ii
'I
I opportunities for Defendant M & T and Defendant Ryerse's advantage that were business
Ii
"
'I
!I
II
II
:1
I,
iI
II
Ii
I'
,I
'I
I:
!I
II
II
!/
II
II
ii
II
,I
I!
"
i
I
I
I
I
I
opportunities of Plaintiff. ~ Exhibit No, 8. These documents provide pertinent
infonnation, gennane to the central issue of the suit and are discoverable.
The parties resolved this dispute by agreeing that Defendant M & T will produce a
summary list of mortgages closed through July 31, 1994. The summary will include the
borrowers name, address, interest rate of the loan, the loan amount, loan type and date the
loan closed. 12 ~ Exhibits 10 & 11. Although Defendant committed to produce these
documents by August 31, 1994, as of the date of this Motion, Defendant has not produced
them. Defendant M & T provides no explanation for its failure to provide Plaintiff with
these documents, and therefore, its non-compliance with the discovery request is unjustified.
Consequently, the Court should order Defendant M & T to produce these documents within
ten days.
REOUEST NO, 20
Any and all documents regarding and relating to negotiations and/or transactions
during the time period of January I, 1994 through the present aimed at establishing a
mortgage operation for M & T in Pennsylvania in Cumberland, York, Dauphin, Perry, or
,) Lancaster counties.
:1
d
12 Defendants' counsel raised the issue that providing this infonnatlon may be subject to
the Privacy Act. Defendants' counsel stated he would investigate this Issue as wel1 as
whether the parties Stipulation for Confidentiality applies under these circumstances. As of
the date of this Motion, Defendants' counsel has not objected to providing this infonnation
based on the Privacy Act.
8
I
I
1
I
I
I
'I
II
I,
Ii
Ii
'I
li the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, a response to said Request would cause
II
,I
II
'I
II
il
,I
I
I:
"
RESPONSE
Objection. Request No. 19 is overly broad and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression. burden and expense to Defendant M &
T Mortgage Corp. and would require Defendant M & T Mortgage Corp. to make an
unreasonable investigation.
,
"
ARGUMENT
"
i I During the informal dispute resolution, Plaintiff explained that this request is not
objectionable because it may demonstrate that Defendant M & T and Defendant Ryerse were
I: engaged in a civil conspiracy whereby they agreed that Defendant Ryerse would breach his
"
II
"
i!
I'
,I
'I
I,
fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by soliciting Plaintiffs employees while Ryerse was still an
officer of Plaintiff and by acquiring business opportunities for M & T's and Ryerse's
: ~ advantage that were business opportunities of Plaintiff. See Exhibit No.8. This discovery
"
request provides pertinent information. germane to the central issue of the suit and is
'I
I! properly discoverable under State rules.
"
"
i' The parties resolved this dispute by agreeing that Defendant M & T will produce
!
! documents that reflect actions taken to start-up M & T's operation. such as the office lease
,
j'
I' negotiations, equipment installation, initial employment interviews, See Exhibits 10 & 11.
,!
L
II
'I
I
I
Although Defendant committed to produce these documents by August 31, 1994, as of the
date of this Motion, Defendant M & T has not produced them. Defendant M & T provides
no explanation for its continued delay in not providing Plaintiff with these documents, and
I
I
,
1
i
,
I 9
,
.,-.....,........'"'.
II
Ii
I
I
I therefore, his failure to produce these documents is unjustified. Consequently, the Court
,I
I,
'I
!,
II
I
I
I
II
I
il
I'
,I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
!I
11
'I
II
II
II
should order Defendant Ryerse to produce these documents within ten days.
Respectfully submitted,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
!-/
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
(410) 821-7918 (fax)
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
Dated: September 13, 1994
i
Ii
II
II
I'
II
il
'I
II
II
II
II
I:
I:
"
,
I
10
HOWau C MITn
.lANU" 'V^"olS
aOI... T Mooa.
CHAUIS I "... ALLY
Plna. J ausua
UOYD a. PlilSU""
c:a.Ale A sr~sl
JAMU A I.:UH
DANIU, L Sl:LUVAN
snVlN D SNYCII\.
eLl'" ... el\.lLI.
OCAtsrOPHl1\. c. CO""""'Ia.
I1't'SI L aoeus
Exhibit 1
JUN :J 1994
-"JETTE. E"ANS . WOODSJDE
A PRO"DIIIO~.u. CORPOR4TIO~
ATTOR:-IEY8 AT LAW
ANOa.IW H DO~~e
M!CHAR D I\.UO
1\.011a. r , HA't'NU IU
'AULA J UIC:Hr
OA VID A. ,rTZJIMONS
euy , IINIYlsr."SO
M!CHAI.L D PIM
KAklN .. CONSlU Y
kenN J KATz..'",^S
JAYSON I\. '>>'OLfGM':C
K.oTT D MOCI\.I
AliDU" J OSrl\.:"SKI
WZAlITM M- CAlCACNO
lMJL y 1.. LONG
:W01 NORTH FRONT IITR;U=T
P.O. BOX 511110
HARRISBURG. PA 17ll0'0Il1lO
Urll\.JD
a.ouar I WOOOSIDI
fll.I'HOHI
111n 2J2.IOOO
PAX
CII7) 331.1111
IJU )triO
23."1'005
June 1, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE
410/821-7918
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO Ii< FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: Fred H. Ryerse
Dear Ms, Book:
I have received documents from my client which are
responsive to your discovery requests in the above-referenced
matter. However, some of these documents contain confidential
information including, but not limited to, staff salaries, market
strategy, and other sensitive information. Accordingly, I
respectfully request your agreement to stipulate to a
confidentiality order prior to forwarding the documents.
I will forward a proposed confidentiality stipulation for
your review. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will
assume that we have a continuing extension of time to respond to
your discovery requests pending resolution of this issue,
Sincerely yours,
.....ar:
her C. Conner
CCC:gls
+6782
cc: Mark Metz, Esquire
Mr. Fred H. Ryerse
k. 'd. ..:.:1..
Exhibit 2
JOHN O. KRUCiKQ'"
JAY R. I'RIPS"
OIDIN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
IJNI)I. McOILL MILLER'
KATHU:EN A. TALTY'
stEVEN W. RAY"
SUSAN TAHERNJA..-
JOAN E. BOOK'.
JANE C, TUCKER'
JANm'L. BOYER-
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SullO 202
7929 WCSIp&Ik Drive
McLcall, VaPnIa nun
(703) 734-05$4
SullO 606
28 Well AIIe&heDY AveDue
Ballimore. Muylaad 21:!04
SullO 900
60t PeDDSylV&llla A_DC. N,W,
WuhiDIUlD. D,C, 2llOO4
(202) 347-6.550
Telopbo.o: (~10) 321.7310 :
Tolecopior. (410) 821.7918
June 14, 1994
...-. -!1m .V4 _DC ....
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. l\lAIL
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
MElle, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e COrD. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation of June 8. 1994 wherein you agreed
to gram First Advantage Mortgage Corporation an extension of time to me its Complaint in
the above-referenced matter until such time that Defendants have responded to First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation's discovery requests.
On April 19, 1994, we sent Requests for Production of Documents to your clients,
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation. We granted you an extension of time to
respond to the discovery requests in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. Pre-
complaint settlement was unsuccessful.
On June 1, 1994, you notified us that your clients have the documents responsive to
the discovery requests. You stated, however, that your clients would not produce these
documents unless my client agrees to stipulate to a confidentiality orger. You stated 'you
would be sending us a copy of the proposed confidentiality agreement and 'considered the-- .
extension of time to respond to the discovery requests to continue unless we mdicated
otherwise.
On June 3, 1994, we informed you that we had not received your proposed
confidentiality agreement and requested that you respond to the discovery requests by June 7,
1994. In our June 8, 1994 telephone conversation, you again conflmled that you have the
documents which are responsive to our discovery requests but requested that the parties enter
into a confidentiality agreement. Again, we requested that you send us a copy of the
proposed stipulation.
Christopher C. Conner, Esq,
JWIC 14, 1994
Page 2
We have not yet received the proposed confident~ity stipulation or your clients'
response to our discovery requests, Consequently, we would appreciate receiving a
telephone call from you to discuss this matter and resolve any disputes over the outstanding
discovery .
It continuC5 to be our understanding that our obligation to me a Complaint in this
matter is stayed pending your response to our discovery requests. As we discwsed, once we
have reviewed said response, we shall be in a position to me a complaint in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
cc: Ms. Ann Lichtfuss
~'
u.
WC'nU. ~ ><1:'1"
..~.u y, IV Am
a.c1D.~~OU
~Lrwlt:J."(
P!'i'Uo J. USSLD.
con... 'WC'N
o;MlC.... src:~a
JNd.i Ii. ttL.SH
..~ P. ccc:>;r."!':
:)A..~:"S::U"""V^}:
~l"!:'t"!N~ n:'f:Iu.
Cl.D' A. c;Ul.:.
~O'H:!Ac:.CONto:U.
li. I'll s. AOCDU
1-__ _...
J,j.;l.IoJ
.11t:\. \'f. Co' au... . .
~ uu. IlIOU
'U'IJ.' ~"u ....,.&....
Exhibit 3
:nETTE:. EVA:NS . WOODSIDE
... no.-zo:<.u. CORPOJUno"
.orroL"G:Ta 4T LAW
_1 :<oltTH rao><T IITJl.EET
r.o. JlO'" 118110
~C'JlO, PA 17U0'0811O
UT!U:l
kCID.n. WCOIUl:t
nL:I'HOlll
17ln~~.sooo
FAX
17171 2)"1'"
IlUI'O.
aJ..IUSOCS
A""C1IoI'T K. :>cr_-,..G
toCQ1M:. , JUID
..aaD.~ _. WAn.'I.S =
,^~:.:.z:an'
t)^V10 It. ~IMO~
CUT ,. 1Dt"lVno":" ..\NC
WlCNAZ:.1). "'^
c.AADlll,c.:'I)r4":::':'Y
a.c:,n:':'AA1'll4Jl.):
:^1'1C":L"C~^,":
SCOTT D. WCOIU
AA~"'f'C'J.Qs~a~
JU,%AL-n( M. C,N.:AC:NO
"""yt..LOl<C
.,
,
I
June 21, 1994
I
I
He:
Fred H. Rverse and lrl & T
.
VLA FACSIMILE (410/821-7918)
and U.S. MAIL
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO << J:RIES
suite 606
28 West Alleqheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
Dear Joan:
This will acknowledge receipt of your faz of June 14,
1994. Although I do not adopt your recitation of the procedural
matters in its entirety, this will confirm my willingness to grant
your client an eztension of time to file a COmplaint in the above-
referenced matter pending a resolution of the confidentiality
issue,
Attached you will find a proposed Confidentiality
stipulation for your review and comments.
Sincerely yours,
CCC:qls
+6822
Enclosure
1'm:n:c., EVUS Eo WOODSIDE
~
Chr1sto her C. Conner
':;;,::-" ,~,,~;:-.
~-~..
....L. '.11
.""""'" 6oo'au......
.........# .......
"'j j,j .-IV 616'"
@{jJIAI/lU
COURT OF COMMON I?LEAS OF 'CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
.
.
,
.
Plaintiff
.
.
.
.
v.
.
.
No. 94-l64B-Civil Term
:
FRED H. RYERSE and
M &; T MORTGAGE,
Defenda!l.ts
:
.
.
:
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4002, the parties
stipulate ana agree as follows:
1. Any aocument or oral testimony produced or given in
this action which is asserted by the producing party to
contain or constitute confidential information shall be so
designated by so producing party. Each such document or
transcript of testimony shall be clearly and prominently
marked on its face with the legend: .CONFIDENTIAL" or B
comparable notation.
2. In the absence of written permission from the
producing party, or. an order of the Court, any confidential
information produced in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph 1 above shall not be disclosed to any person other
than the following qualified recipients:
(a) Counsel for the receiving party or parties,
including necessary support personnel of counsel and
reporters taking testimony involving such confidential
information;
(b) Court employees;
rnill&~lJ
: I ~
'Q'717 ~: b Hb
.'lf1ll~. C.\
(c) Representatives of the parties who are e%pected to
testify at any deposition, hearing or trial in this
action; and
(d) outside e%perts engaged for the purpose of this
civil action by the party receiving this information, and
their support personnel.
3. Confidential information shall not be disclosed to
any person qualified under the terms of paragraphs 2 (c) and
(d) of this Stipulation unless they shall have first read this
stipulation for Confidentiality and executed the undertaking
attached hereto as Exhibit -A.- Clerical and secretarial
personnel of such outside experts and representatives need not
sign such an undertaking if their employers or superiors have
done so.
4. In the event that any confidential information is
included with, or the contents thereof are in any way
disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition" transcript or
other paper filed with the court, the confidential information
shall be filed under seal, prominentlY marked with ~he caption
of this case and the notation that the filed materials contain
protected information subject to a stipulation for
confidentiality.
5. A ?arty shall not be obligated to challenge the
propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent
challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this civil
action challenges, in writing, at any stage of these
proceedings, a confidential designation, the parties shall try
to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the
designation may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
6. Within thirty (30) days after final termination of
this action, each party shall assembly all documents and
things furnished and designated by any other party as
containing confidential information and copies made from such
documents and things furnished and designated by any other
party as containing confidential information, and shall either
(a) return such documents and things to the producing party,
or (b) destroy the documents and things. Counsel for each
- 2 -
......,-.."',-.
u"'........ .........
-... .... ....
...... - .....
party shall be entitled to retain'one copy of all pleadings,
motion papers, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition
transcripts (with the ezception of eXhibits thereto which are
designated by any party as confidential), and work product.
7. The provisions of this stipulation for
confidentiality shall survive termination of this civil
action, for whatever reason, and the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions hereof.
~Ul:i, EVARS &. WOODSIDE
By:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I. O. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. 0, Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants .
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
KRUCBKO &. FatES
By:
Joan E. Book, Esquire
sup. ct. I, D. #62020
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
.
'. ,,..,, .
Attorneys for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage
Corporation
APPROVED:
IJI
- 3 -
"
~ !;,;;1!',
j"
.--.-.
)~;o,_:~ ",'~ _
RYRTBIT -A-
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF <:UMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
.
.
.
.
plaintiff
.
.
.
.
v.
.
.
.
.
No. 94-l648-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M &. T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
:
.
.
.
.
AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
STIPULATION F-OR CONFIDENTIALITY
I have read the Stipulation for Confidentiality in this
litigation and agree: (a) to be bound by the terms and conditions
listed therein; (b) not to reveal information covered by the,order
to anyone other than another person designated to receive such
information; and (c) to utilize such information for the purposes
of this civil action and no other litigation.
Date:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
-
Exhibit 4
IOHN O. KRUCHKO",
lAY R. FRIES',
olBlN p. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
lJNI),l. Mc<lnJ. MILLER'
KATHLEEN A. TALTY.
STEVEN W. RAY"
SUSAN TAHERNIA'"
lOAN E. BOOK'.
lANE C. TUCKER.
IANET L. BOYER'
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Sullll 202
7929 Weslpllk Drive
McLeIll. V1tJinla 2210Z
Suite 606
28 West A1le,beaf Aveaue
Baltimore. MlIl)'lllId 21204
(703) 734-0''''
Telepboae: (~10) 321.7310 .
Tclecopier. (~IO) 121.7911
Sullll 900
601 PeDDSylV&llla AVClIua, N.W.
WubiDIlllD. D.C. 20004
(202) 347.mO
July 6. 1994
..... .WD .Y.\ ,oe aM
Christopher C. Conner. Esq.
METIE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PeMSylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Com. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94.1648
Dear Mr. COMer:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation of July 5, 1994 wherein we agreed to
revise the proposed confidentiality stipulation as follows:
Revise paragraph 2(c) to include representatives of the parties
who are on the litigation strategy team; and
Revise paragraph 6 to include all appeals ("Within thirty (30)
days after fmal termination of this action. including all
appeals").
You will be forwarding to me a revised stipulation for execution.
In light of the parties agreement regarding the confidentiality stipulation, we also
agreed that your clients will respond to the discovety requests by Friday, July 22, 1994.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
,,}
By: \. ~VC
an E. Book
cc: Ms. Ann Lichtfuss
HO_IU. c. MITTI
JAMU"" IVANS
kOaU. T MOCkl
CtMkLUI ZW^LI.Y
,eru. J a.USLU,
UOYO a. 'lkSUN
CI\AIG It. nONE
JAMU It. ULSH
M.A"'I^ P COCl'-iITTI
DANIEL L SULLIVAN
STlVlN D SNYDll\
GLlN k CULL
CHillS TO'Hlll. C COS,,"U.
l!L':"UII\OCEI\S
,. d~.
. ;~
.. o.~1!r-;':
Exhibit 5
>JETTE. E'"AS8 . "'OOD8IDE
A. PR0FDl810:-lAL CORPOkATtoS
ATTORS1C\"S AT LAW
301001 :<ORTH FRO:<T STREET
p,o, BOX GIIIlO
HARRIBBt.:RG. PA 17UO'OllllO,
klTIUD
1l01l'" r I "OODSl::!
nUIHONI
(111)>232.5000
'AX
171n 231..111
ASC"!'~' M t)O\\':':S~
MICHAl:' ~ kU:
kOlll\T II HAy~'.:tS:ll
MI.1.A J LIICHT
DAVIDA PlTZSIM':SS
CUY' ll'SIVINT.\SO
MICH^1L 0 'IP.~
KAIl.lW s COSS!~ y
kOIYN': It., rZM.'S
JAYSO"'; k \l"OLl":ASC
scorr C MCOIU
..\NDIUw,: osn.:wslU
!LIZAIl':'H M CA:':ACSO
IMIL Y 1.. :'OSC
IkSNO
2.).111'00'
July.7, 1994
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO &. FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: Fred H. Ryerse
Dear Ms. Book:
.'
, ,
Enclosed please find an amended Stipulation for
Confidentiality which I have revised pursuant to our recent
telephone conversation. Kindly sign the enclosed Stipulation and
return the same to me for Court approval and filing.
This will also confirm my willingness to forward our
discovery responses by mail on or before July 22, 1994. If you
have any questions on the above discussion or the enclosed, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
CCC:gls
+6870
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
v.
No. 94-l648-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M & T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
.
.
.
.
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4002, the parties
stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Any document or oral testimony produced or given in
this action which is asserted by the producing party to
contain or constitute confidential information shall be so
designated by so producing party. Each such document or
transcript of testimony shall be clearly and prominently
marked on its face with the legend: "CONFIDENTIAL" or a
comparable notation.
2. In the absence of written permission from the
producing party, or an order of the Court, any confidential
information produced in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph 1 above shall not be disclosed to any person other
than the following qualified recipients:
(a) Counsel for the receiving party or parties,
including necessary support personnel of counsel and
reporters taking testimony involving such confidential
information;
(b) Court employees;
t-.....-. _.~.-,-.,
(c) Representatives of the parties who are expected to
testify at any deposition, hearing or trial in this
action, as well as any party representatives who are part
of the party's litigation strategy team; and
(d) Outside experts engaged for the purpose of this
civil action by the party receiving this information, and
their support personnel.
3. Confidential information shall not be disclosed to
any person qualified under the terms of Paragraphs 2 (c) and
(d) of this Stipulation unless they shall have first read this
Stipulation for Confidentiality and executed the undertaking
attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Clerical and secretarial
personnel of such outside experts and representatives need not
sign such an undertaking if their employers or superiors have
done so.
4. In the event that any confidential information is
included with, or the contents thereof are in any way
disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition, transcript or
other paper filed with the Court, the confidential information
shall be filed under seal, prominently marked with the caption
of this case and the notation that the filed materials contain
protected information subject to a stipulation for
confidentiality.
5. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the
propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent
challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this civil
action challenges, in writing, at any stage of these
proceedings, a confidential designation, the parties shall try
to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the
designation may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
6. Within thirty (30) days after final termination of
this action, including all appeals, each party shall assemble
all documents and things furnished and designated by any other
party as containing confidential information and copies made
from such documents and things furnished and designated by any
other party as containing confidential information, and shall
either (a) return such documents and things to the producing
party, or (b) destroy the documents and things. Counsel for
each party shall be entitled to retain one copy of all
- 2 -
~t-.."
pleadings, motion papers, legal memoranda, correspondence,
deposition transcripts (with the e%ception of exhibits thereto
which are designated by any party as confidential), and work
product.
7. The provisions of this stipulation for
confidentiality shall survive termination of this civil
action, for whatever reason, and the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions hereof.
~~~~, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
KRUCHKO & FRIES
~ "
By:
an E. ~ook, Esquira
up. ct. I. D. #62020
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Attorneys for Plai~tiff
First Advantage Mortgage
Corporation
APPROVED:
IJI
- 3 -
. .
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
.
.
.
.
plaintiff
.
.
v.
No. 94-l648-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M & T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
.
.
~(;REEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
I have read the Stipulation for Confidentiality in this
litigation and agree: (a) to be bound by the term~ and conditions
listed therein; (b) not to reveal information covered by the order
to anyone other than another person designated to receive such
information; and (c) to utilize such information for the purposes
of this civil action and no other litigation.
Date:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
EXHIBIT '!A"
HOWUL C MIT'Tl
JAMU" IV Al'rU
'-011'-1' Moo",1
CHAAW' Z" ALLY
,ITIA J Jl"USLI",
UOYD" ",.SUN
C'-AICo A STONI
JAMU A \:UH
MA",IA P CQCNlrrl
DANI1L L SCLLIV M':
STlVIt.: D Sl'lYCIJl
CLI""'" C,.UL
CH",lSfO'Hl", C CO,..}.;I'"
ILYUl ~oc.u.'
Exhibit 6
>JETTE. EVANS . ""OODSIDE
It. PRorEIIII10SAL CORPOIlATION
ATTOR~EYa AT LAW
3401 :JORTH FRO:-iT STREET
PO, BOX 89110
KARRIBBt:RG. PA 17UO'091lO
UilUD
AOI"'.1' I "OODSI~1
TlU,HONI
(1171 213.!iOOQ
,All
C71n 231.1111
IUNO
21.I,noos
"NeklON H OO'l".:se
MICHAl!. D IUle:
,"oll,-r, HAY!'\iU III
'AUL.... J LlICHT
DAV1D A 'ITZSIM':S:S
CUY' IlNIVINT .,SO
MICHAIL D 'I'A
KAUN N CONtoO!:':' Y
,"OIYN J itA TZM.'S
JAYSON ,-. 'WOLl:.'NC
SCOTT D MCOAl
ANDU'>>' J OST"':TSItJ
IUZAIlTH M. CA:.:.o\CNO
lMIL Y L LONe.
July 27, 1994
Joan E. BOOK, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First AdL'antage Mortgage Corporation v. Fred H. Ryerse and
M & T Mortgage
Dear Ms. Book:
Enclosed please find a certified copy of the Stipulation
for Confidentiality which we received from the Court today in the
above-referenced matter. I am in the process of designating
certain records as confidential and will provide you with our
discovery responses in the next several days. If you have any
questions on the enclosed Stipulation, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
METrE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
n:wVl~'~
~~er C. Conner
CCc:gls
+6931
Enclosure
JUL 2 9 1994
, ...... .:.-.,..... ) ~
Exhibit 7
IOHN O. IOlUOlKO.,.
lAY R. FRIES"
OLENN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
lJNI),l. McOILL MILLER'
KATHLEEN A. TALTY'
STEVEN W. RAY.'
SUSAN TAHERNIA'"
lOAN E. BOOK'.
lANE C. TUCKER.
IANET L. BOYER.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Sullll 606
28 Wesl Alle,beDY Avenue
Baltimore. MlIl)'lllId 21:!04
Sullll 202
7929 Weslpllk Drive
Mclean. VItliDia 22t02
(703) 7J.l.O~~"
T.lepbaae: (~IO) 321.7310
Telaeoplcr. (~IO) 121.7918
Sullll 900
601 PeDDsylV&llla Avellue. N.W.
WubiDllon. D.C. 20004
(202) 347.6'~0
~ .WD .VA .DC ...
July 28, 1994
VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
METIE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PeMSylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Corn. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648 ..
Dear Mr. Conner:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 27, 1994 in which you indicated
that you will be responding to our discovery requests "in the next several days". As you
know, we sent Requests for Production of Documents to your clients. Fred H. Ryerse and M
& T Mortgage Corporation on April 19, 1994. Initially, we granted you an extension of
time to respond to the discovery requests in order to explore pre-complaint settlement. Pre-
complaint settlement was not successful.
On or about June 1. 1994, you stated you would be responding to the discovery,
however, your clients refused to produce the documents unless my client agreed to stipulate
to a confidentiality order. During our June 8. 1994 telephone conversation you conflmled
that you have the documents which are responsive to our discovery requests but you were
waiting to produce the documents until the question on confidentiality was resolved.
My client agreed to the stipulation for confidentiality and we executed the stipulation
on July 11, 1994. We agreed to grant you another extension to respond until July 22, 1994.
We have not yet received your clients' response to our discovery requests. In light of
the fact that you have had over two months to prepare your response and had assured me that
the documents would be produced on or before July 22, 1994, we will not grant your clients
":~;."I."; ...........~'<:l:.
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
July 28, 1994
Pagc 2
any funhcr extension of time to respond to this discovcry. Pleasc be advised, that if we do
not receive a response to these discovery requests by Monday August 1, 1994, we will me a
Motion to Compel.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
~
(J-t'-<u.J c3. ,'.-
10';;; E. Book "
t/
.
. .
Exhibit 8
IOHN O. KRUCHKQ.,.
lAY R. FRIES"
OU!NN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY'
lJNI),l. McOn.L MILLER'
KATHLEEN A. TALTY'
STEVEN W. RAY.'
SUSAN TAHERNtA.,.
lOAN E. BOOK'.
IANET L. BOYER,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Suile 606
~8 Well A1le,beoy Avenue
Balumore. Maryland 21~04
Suilll 202
79~9 Weslpllk Drive
McLeall. VItliDia 22102
(703) 734-0'5~
Telepha.e. (~IOJ 3~1.7310,
Tclccopier: (~IOJ 121.7911
Suilll 900
601 Penasylvanla Aveoue. N.W.
Wuhinllon. D.C. 20004
....... .WU .V4 'DC' .'"
(202) 347-65'0
.
August 5. 1994
YJA FAX AND FIRST CLASS l\ott' n.
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
METTE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. PeMSylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e COrD. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Mr. Conner:
We have reviewed the documents your clients Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation have submined in response to First Advantage Mortgage Corporation's Requests
for Production of Documents in the above-referenced matter. We note the following
deficiencies in response to the discovery requests:
A. Resnonse of Defendant Fred H. Rverse to the Reouests for Production of
Documents
Request No. 14 states: "AJ.1y and all telephone bills for your home phone number or
car phone for the months of January. 1994 through the present. including. but not limited to
the itemized telephone call account statement page from that bill." Defendant Ry.erse did not
object to any portion bf this request but produced only phone bills from his car telephone.
Defendant's telephone bills for his home phone number may contain information which
demonstrates that Defendant's actions were violative of the fiduciary duty which he owed
Plaintiff. Consequently, the phone bills are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. "
Request No. 18 states: . AJ.1y and all documents regarding and relating to your current
duty with M & T including. but not limited to, all documents relating to transactions with
prospective borrowers in the acquisition and processing of mortgages." Defendant objccted
,d._..
..- --
Christopher C. COMer. Esquire
August 5. 1994
Page 2
on the grounds of overbreadth and undue burden. This objection is unfounded. The request
goes directly to the issue of whether Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary duties to
Plaintiff by acquiring business opportUnities for his own and Defendant M & T's adyantage
th3t were business opportUnities of Plaintiff. These documents may demonstrate that
Defendant Ryerse was dealing with Plaintiffs borrowers but closing these mortgage9 for
Defendant M & T. This is relevant information and a proper matter for discovery.
Therefore. it must be produced by Defendant Ryers.e.
Request No. 19 states: "Any and all documents regarding and relating to your efforts
on behalf of M & T relative to establishing a mortgage operation in Pennsylvania in
Cumberland. York. Dauphin. Perry, or Lancaster counties." Once again. Defendant
objected on the grounds of overbreadth and undue burden. Similarly. this objection is
groundless. Documents relating to Defendant Ryerse's actions on behalf of Defendant M &
T relative to establishing a mortgage operation in this limited and specific geographic area
may contain information which demonstrates that Defendant Ryerse breached his fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff by engaging in activity to acquire business opportUnities for his own and
Defendant M & T's advantage that were business opportUnities of Plaintiff and by soliciting
Plaintiffs employees while Defendant Ryerse was still employed by Plaintiff. This is
relevant information and obviously discoverable. and consequently it must be produced by
Defendant Ryerse.
B. ReSDonse of Defendant M & T Mortl!a!!e Corooratlon to the Reouests for
Production of Documents
Request No.5 states: "Any and all documents regarding or relating to the hiring and
subsequent employment of Defendant Ryerse with M & T including. but not limited to,
Defendant Ryerse's personnel file. application form. M & T's job offer letter to Defendant
Ryerse and any and all employment agreements or employment contracts berween Defendant
Ryerse and Defendant M & T." Although Defendant M & T indicates that these documents
are attached. neither Defendant Ryerse's personnel file. application form, M & T's job offer
letter to Defendant Ryerse nor any and all employment agreements or employment contracts
berween Defendant Ryerse and Defendant M & T were included in the documents produced,
Request No. 16 states: "Any and all corporate telephone bills or logs for the months
of January. 1994 through the present which show calls to individuals in Cumberland, Perry,
York. Dauphin or Lancaster counties in PeMSylvania." Defendant's objection on the
grounds of overbreadth and undue burden is unfounded. Defendant M & T's telephone bills
or logs for the months of January. 1994 through the present may contain information which
demonstrates that Defendant M & T was conspiring with Defendant Ryerse to learn
information by which Defendants would deal with and solicit Plaintiffs borrowers.
employees or business agents and associates in violation of Defendant Ryerse's fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff. To the extent that this information may show that Defendant M & T dealt
.,
:,~......_...
..-...'.".......... ~~.~:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
August 5, 1994
Page 3
with Plaintiffs employees. borrowers and business agents and associates. this information is
discoverable because it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, the request is neither overbroad nor does it cause unreasonable
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense -- it is limited to telephone
communications for those PeMSylvania counties where Plaintiff did business.
Request No. 19 states: "Any and all documt;nts regarding and relating to all persons
with whom Defendant has transacted business relative to the acquisition and processing of
mortgages in Pennsylvania in the counties of Cumberland, Perry, York. Dauphin or
Lancaster during the time period of January 1. 1994 through the present." Once again,
Defendant's objection that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence is groundless. The request goes directly to Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants M & T and Ryerse engaged in a conspiracy whereby they agreed that Defendant
Ryerse would knowingly and maliciously breach the fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiff in
order to acquire business opportUnities for Defendant Ryerse's and Defendant M & T's
advantage that were business opportUnities of Plaintiff. This is relevant information and is
obviously discoverable. and consequently must be produced by Defendant ~[ & T. In
addition, Defendant's objection based on overbreadth and undue burden is unfounded. This
request is limited to the geographic area where Plaintiff did business.
Request No. 20 states: "Any and all documents regarding or relating to negotiations
and/or transactions during the time period of January 1. 1994 through the present aimed at
establishing a mortgage operation for M & T in PeMSylvania in Cumberland. York.
Dauphin, Perry. or Lancaster counties." As stated above. Defendant's objection on the
grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence is without merit. Documents relating to the establishment of Defendant M & T's
mortgage operation in central PeMSylvania may contain information which demonstrates that
Defendants M & T and Ryerse engaged in a civil conspiracy whereby they agreed that
Ryerse would breach his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by soliciting Plaintiffs employees while
Ryerse was still an officer of Plaintiff and by acquiring business opportUnities for Ryerse's
and M & T's advantage that were business opportUnities of Plaintiff. This is relevant
information and a proper matter for discovery. Therefore. it must be produced by
Defendant. Likewise. the request is not overly broad or an undue burden but limited to the
area where Plaintiff had an established mortgage business.
Please have your clients produce the documents responsive to these requests. If your
clients claim there are no such documents. please indicate whether that is the case. If we do
not receive a full and compiete response to these discovery requests in ten days. we will me
a Motion to Compel.
Finally, in light of your agreement to grant Plaintiff an extension of time to me its
Complaint in this matter until such time that Defendants have responded completely and fully
r~,..'''''~''.''''''">,,,,,,,,,..,..'..,,,~
Christopher C. Conner,.Esquire
August 5, 1994
Page 4
to Plaintiffs discov~ry requests: it is our posture that Plaintiffs obligation to file a complaint
is held in abeyance until such time that this dispute is resplved. If you have any questions
concerning this maner, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
.
By:
~nv4.;/~
~. "
E. Book I
:
.
.'
AUG 18 1994
Exhibit 9
HO"'W. I: ,"Ufn
JAMU" IVAS)
kOtllT MCCU
CH^"LIS , ZW ALL"
,lTlk J '-lULl"
UCYC .. ,u,.n:N
C,lAIC .0\ $TO,..1
JAMU .\ CUM
DM~IIL L. It:LL'.....'S
srtV(!'O D S,,"YDtk
GUN k CI\ILI.
CHkUTC'Hlk C COSSl"
11. YU L ,"CGU.S
>JETTE. E'"ASS . WOODSIDE
A PROrualOSAL CORPOIlATIOS
ATTORSEY8 AT LAW
:W01 SORTH FROST BTR&ET
P,O, BOX IlDIIO
HARRllSBCRO. PA 17110'09110
TlLI1HONI
Clln U2.5000
klilklD
R:llkr I 'weeDs::t
ANC..... H OQ'&'l,.llIiC
MICHAIL D kilO
kOIU,f, HATSU III
MULA J UICHT
DAVID ^' .ITZSIMONS
GUY P. I,NIVINT M:O
MICHAlL D. PI,...
KAkUl N CONNlU't
..OIYN J 'ATlMAN
JAYSON'" "OUG..."",
iCoTT 0 MOOIU
ANDU. J_ CSTAeWSll
lLlZAllTH M CALCAGNO
lMLL Y L LONG
'AX
1711' 2.11,1111
IkS NO
23.I,ISOOS
August 16, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE
410/821-7918
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO So FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First Advantage Mortgage Corp. v. Fred H. Ryerse and M & T
Mortgage
Dear Ms. Book:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 5,
1994 which I received on August 8, 1994. In response to your
allegations of "deficiencies" in our recent responses and
objections to your discovery requests, I offer the following
observations in support of our original responses.
I. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, FRED H. RYERSE
Reauest No. 14
Defendant Ryerse's home telephone bills will be produced.
Reauest No. 18
This request could be interpreted to include a review of
everv document currently located in Mr. Ryerse's office. It is
clearly objectionable as phrased. If you wish to limit your
request to the list of mortgages closed and the dates of closing
since the commencement of M&T's operation, I will reconsider our
i_,...... "silL..,
Joan E. Book, Esquire
August 16, 1994
Page 2
objection. As noted in our response to Request No. 17, Defendant
Ryerse did not acquire any documents from First Advantage which
pertain to First Advantage's borrowers, referring agents,
prospective borrowers or prospective ~eferring agents.
Accordingly, the only discoverable documents in Mr. Ryerse's
current office are those documents which would identify mortgages
closed since the commencement of M&T's operation. If that is your
request, we can provide you with a summary of mortgages closed
through July 31, 1994, and we can resolve this particular
discovery issue.
Reauest No. 19
I offer the same comments which I offered in response to
Request No. 18. In addition, your request is not limited in time
and could be construed to include M&T's current marketing efforts
which are totally irrelevant to this litigation. If your request
is limited to those documents in Defendant Ryerse's possession
which refer or relate to Defendant Ryerse's initial start-up
activities, e.g., office lease negotiations, equipment
installation, initial employment interviews, I will reconsider
this objection. Please be guided accordingly.
II. RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT M&T MORTGAGE CORP-ORATION
Reauest No.5
You already have most, if not all, of Defendant Ryerse's
personnel file. In addition, you have the calendar notations and
interview notes of those representatives of M&T who spoke with
Defendant Ryerse about an employment opportunity with M&T. To the
extent any additional, non-privileged documents exist in Defendant
Ryerse's personnel file, we will produce the same.
Reauest No. 16
I will attempt to provide you with a general description
of M&T's telephone system which should adequately demonstrate the
objectionable nature of your inquiry, which is a little like
asking McDonald's to identify the number of cheeseburgers sold in
central Pennsylvania.
Reauest No. 19-20
I offer the same observations set forth in Section I of
this letter with respect to Request Nos. 18 and 19 directed to
Defendant Ryerse.
!\t:<"4.<";:_Ji
"
Joan E. Book, Esquire
August 16" 1994
Page 3
In response to your suggestion that you will file a
motion to compel within ten days if you do not receive documents
falling within the ambit of what we deem to be objectionable
requests, please be advised that the ~ourt of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County encourages counsel to work through discovery
objections prior to bringing the same to the attention of the
Court. In the spirit of amicable resolution, I suggest that you
reassess your position on the filing of a motion to compel.
Please indicate whether you intend to narrow the focus of what we
deem to be objectionable requests so that I may respond
accordingly with the additional documents identified above. I
look forward to hearing from you shortly in this regard.
Finally, this will confirm that your client has a limited
extension of time in which to file a Complaint in this matter
pending your receipt of our supplemental documentation. If we are
unable to resolve the pending discovery dispute without Court
intervention, I will likely set a specific deadline for the filing
of a Complaint. Please be guided accordingly.
Sincerely yours,
CCC:gls
+6995
, !
i
Exhibit 10
IOH.'i 0, KRL'CHKO'.'
lAY R. FRIES"
OLE:o.;o; p, H.>.RE'
PAl.1. M, LCSKY'
Wo'DA ~tcOn.J. ~m.LER'
K...THLEE.'i A. TALTY'
STEVE.'i Vi, MY"
SUSA.'i TAHER."1A'.'
IOA.'i E. BOOK'.
IA."'ET L. BOYER.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COL'NSELORS AT LAW
SUIIC ZO:
79:9 WeslplSlk Dri'e
~lcLun. Vlr,inia ::10:
SUlle 606
:8 Wen Alle,heny ^"enue
Baltimore. ~llIl)'land :l:o.s
17031 73~.Q334
Telephone: 1410. 3:1."310'
Tcl.copicr. (410. S:I.~911
SUlle 900
601 Pennsvl''aI1la Avenu,. S. W,
Washi~llon. D.C. :~
1:0:) 3~7.63'0
,..... -\40 . ,,\ .DC ."
August 18. 1994
Christopher C. Conner. Esquire
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110-0950
Re: First Advantage Mortl!al!e Corn, v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Christopher:
This letter confirms our August 18. 1994 telephone conversation resolving the dispute
regarding your clients Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation responses and
objections to First Advantage Mortgage Corporation's Requests for Production of Documents
in the above-referenced matter.
In summary. with regard to the Responses and Objections of Defendant Fred H.
Ryerse. Defendant Ryerse will submit his home telephone bills for the period requested in
response to Request No. 14. We have agreed that in response to Request No. 18. Defendant
Ryerse will provide a summary list of mortgages closed through July 31. 1994. The
summaty will include. the borrowers name. address. interest rate of the loan. loan amount.
loan type and date the loan closed. With regard to Request No. 19 which requested
documents regarding and relating to the establishment of M & T's mortgage operation in
central Pennsylvania. we have agreed that the documents submitted will be limited to the
start. up of the operation. such as the office lease negotiations. equipment installation. initial
employment interview. As we discussed. the scope of M & T's operations includes their
Lancaster office.
With regard to the Responses of Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation to the
Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant M & T will produce Defendant Ryerse's
persoMel file. excluding items for which a privilege is claimed. M & T will be providing a
._...."1
Bv'
. .
r;~~j
Jo E. Book
Christopher C. Conner. Esquire
August 18. 1994
Page 2
explanation of its telephone system to support its objection on the grounds of undue burden
to Request No. 16. We have agreed that in response to Request No. 18. M & T will provide
a summary list of mortgages closed through July 31. 1994. The summary will include, the
borrowers name. address. interest rate of the loan. loan amount. loan type and date the loan
closed. With regard to Request No. 19. we have agreed that the documents submitted will
be limiled to the start.up of M & T's operation in central PeMsylvania. such as the office
lease negotiations. equipment installation. initial employment interview. As we discussed.
the scope of M & T's operations includes their Lancaster office.
We also discussed that although your clients are willing to produce the summary of
loans closed. disclosing this information may be a violation of the Privacy Act. You will be
investigating this issue to determine whether the Privacy Act applies to this situation. whether
our Stipulation for Contidentiality covers the privacy requirement of the Act or whether we
will need to get a separate ':OUrt order.
We agreed that do.:uments you have in your possession responsive to these requests.
~. Defendant Ryerse's telephone bills. his personnel file. lease negOtialions and other start-
up documents concerning ~I & T's Lemoyne office. will be submitted to me on Monday
August 22. 1994. The remaining documents. !WL. summary of mortgage~ closed. start-up
documents of the Lancaster office. will be submitted by the end of this month. If.your
clients have any difficultly providing these documents according to this time frame. you ~ill
notify me.
If you have any questions concerning this resolution to the discovery dispute. please
feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours.
KRUCHKO & FRIES
HOW-Ill C MITTI
JAMU .. I....^N~
-.OIU.T MCOllll
CHAk1U. Z_ALLY
PITI'" J "'1551.1'"
LLOYD "'. ,IUUN
C:"'AIC ^ $rONI
JAMU A l.:LSH
DAN1IL 1. S1.:LLIV A 1'01
SnVIN' D SNygt'"
CUN '" CULL
CHklSTOPHt'" C COSNI'"
ILYSf. l "'OGtM
Exhibit 11
')JETTE. E'"ANS . WOODSIDE
.\ PROFEBdIO:olAL CORPORA-TIOS
ATTOR:-iEYS AT LAW
3-101 SORTH FROST STREET
P,O, BOX 5950
IlARRIBBURO, Pol. 17110'0950
urn...:
"'Ollk1' 1 '.:::S:OI
AtoDU'S' H DC'I'~"'C
MICHAC. D IUle
",en" r , H^ VMS :11
'ACLA J UICHT
DAVID ^ flTZJIM:SS
CUY , 1l!<OIVIN':"~sO
MICH^I~ D '1'"
lA"'IN N CON~:a..:.;,y
,,"ons J l^TZM.~S
JAYSON'" WOl.P.G.l,SC:.
SCOTT D MOOU
AtoDlll'S' J CUl:'X'SK:
UIZAurH M CA~':,~':SO
EMILY L LONe
Tlt.!,HCS!
e1171 233.5000
'AX
(1111 331,la16
~::= z 4 is>1i
nu NO
2.1.1t850Q~
August 22, 1994
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Re: First Adt'antage Mortgage Corp. v. Fred H. Ryerse and M & T
Mortgage
Dear Joan:
Enclosed please find copies of the following documents:
1. Personnel file of Fred Ryerse. Please note that I have
removed two memoranda directed to Richard Lamert,
Esquire, M&T's General Counsel. I am claiming the
attorney-client and work product privileges with respect
to these two memos.
2. The lease and floor plan for the Harrisburg office.
3. A draft of a press release in connection with the
Harrisburg office.
This will confirm our telephone conversation in which I
indicated that I would provide you with the home telephone bills
for Mr. Ryerse as well as additional documentation relating to the
establishment of M&T's mortgage operation in central Pennsylvania
(including the Lancaster office). Finally, I agreed to provide a
,;"
Joan E. Book Esqu1re
August 22" 1994
Page 2
summary of mortgages closed through July 31, 1994 subject to the
restrictions of the Privacy Act. As I indicated to you by
telephone, I will make an effort to provide you with this
additional information by September 1.
If I have misstated the nature of our understanding,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Please consider this letter
and our enclosures to this letter as a supplemental response to
your discovery requests directed to the defendants in the above-
referenced matter, subject to (and without waiving any of) the
objections stated therein. If you have any questions on the above
discussion or the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
~r;/~AN~/~DSIDE
~~~~,~\
Christopher C. Conner
CCC:gls
+7018
Enclosures
.*'~ h
,,' ..',-""'r....'..>.~~,.......,...,'Ct":.",,.~....~..... ,', "".~''''.._...,~
I.. ,,:
~li~.
..
,
(c) Representatives of the parties who are expected to
testify at any deposition, hearing or trial in this
action, as well as any party representatives who are part
of the party's litigation strategy team; and
(d) Outside experts engaged for the purpose of this
civil action by the party receiving this information, and
their support personnel.
3. Confidential information shall not be disclosed to
any person qualified under the terms of Paragraphs 2 (c) and
(d) of this Stipulation unless they shall have first read this
Stipulation for Confidentiality and executed the undertaking
attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Clerical and secretarial
personnel of such outside experts and representatives need not
sign such an undertaking if their employers or superiors have
done so.
4. In the event that any confidential information is
included with, or the contents thereof are in any way
disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition, transcript or
other paper filed with the Court, the confidential information
shall be filed under seal, prominently marked with the caption
of this case and the notation that the filed materials contain
protected information subject to a stipulation for
confident.i a Ii ty.
5. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the
propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made,
and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent
challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this civil
action challenges, in writing, at any stage of these
proceedings, a confidential designation, the parties shall try
to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the
designation may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
6. Within thirty (30) days after final termination of
this action, including all appeals, each party shall assemble
all documents and things furnished and designated by any other
party as containing confidential information and copies made
from such documents and things furnished and designated by any
other party as containing confidential information, and shall
either (a) return such documents and things to the producing
party, or (b) destroy the documents and things. Counsel for
each party shall be entitled to retain one copy of all
- 2 -
l
\
.
pleadings, motion papers, legal memoranda, correspondence,
deposition transcripts (with the exception of exhibits thereto
which are designated by any party as confidential), and work
product.
7. The provisions of this stipulation for
confidentiality shall survive termination of this civil
action, for whatever reason, and the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions hereof.
By:
hIs',n'IS, EVARS & WOODSIDE
IYJJA- ~A
~her C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
ook, Esquire
up. Ct. I. D. #62020
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
Attorneys for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage
Corporation
7<4
APPROVED:
-z.r
I
AP-
IJI
- 3 -
L *.:;;'
.'
,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
v.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No. 94-l648-Civil Term
FRED H. RYERSE and
M & T MORTGAGE,
Defendants
.
.
AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
STIPULATION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
I have read the Stipulation for Confidentiality in this
litigation and agree: (a) to be bound by the terms and conditions
listed therein; (b) not to reveal information covered by the order
,
to any~ne other than another person designated to receive such
information; and (c) to utilize such information for the purposes
-
of this civil action and no other litigation.
Date:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
EXHIBIT '~"
l':-"'''''''''.'-
~~
tS_~.ai~
f
.
ii
Jl
~
~
,~
&
":r
;>.
"'~
i:!~
"'a'::;~
~:cc-
&a,;;Q(,,)~
'~;rQ;:
0--. ~-....J
I.:'J ':? :t,')..
.J..::-:.Q!~
~';'~"',:r:
. .t;:'"f4..1
J.,~u..
...'"
.;;~ (.."1-
~
~
I ..,_~
. .
.
provide additional documentation in an effort to amicably resolve
disputes over discovery objections interposed by Defendants. By
letter dated August 16, 1994, Defendants specifically agreed to
produce certain documents. Those documents were produced, in
part, by letter dated August 22, 1994. Additional documents were
produced by letter dated October 7, 1994 (copy attached).
Wherefore, Defendants respectfully request that this
Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's request for an Order compelling
Defendants to respond promptly to Request Nos. 14, 18 and 19 of
the Request directed to Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Request Nos.
16, 19 and 20 of Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents
directed to Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation.
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
topher C. Conner, Esquire
ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATE:ID)1~1
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
- 2 -
~TIPICATR OP SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated
below, which service satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with
first-class postage, prepaid, as follows:
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
cQfdj ~~ESqUire
Sup. Ct. I. D. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATE: I0/7/1~
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
- 3 -
,......-.'.._'._4".
,
... -
.
I,
I
HOWUL C ..If,rn.
JAMU 'IIr lVAHS
"OlDr WQOU
CHAIU.1S I- Z. ALL Y
,nll\ J unl.U
UOYD k. ,("-SUN
CI\AIG A STONI
JAMES ^ UUH
DAHilL L SUlliVAN
STEVIN D S.,VDlk
eUN 1\ GI\UJ.
CHa.ISTO'HUI. c. CONlollk
U TSE l I\OCllU
HI!ITTI!I. I!IVANH . WOODHIDI!I
A paOrDIIIlQNAL co.raHATION
ATTORNJCYH AT LAW
3401 NORTII FRONT BTRJl&T
P.O, BOX CIUllO
IIARRIBDURO. PA 17UO'09lI0
UTlklD
lOll... T I "001>>:01
TWPHONI
(7111 232.5000
fAX
l'ln :231.11..6
IU NO
23.1885005
ANDklY If DOWLING
MtcHAlL D ..liD
kOllkT p. HATNI) III
'AULA J. weHr
DAVID A. FITZSIMONS
CUY po HNIVINTANO
MICH^lL D PI'A
KARIN N CONNlLL Y
II.OIYN J KATZMAN
JAYSON" WOLfGANG
SCOTT D MOOU
ANDUY J OSTJl.OW1X1
WZ"IITH lot CALCAGNO
OOL Y L. LONe
October 7, 1994
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, Me 21204
Re: First Advantage Mortgage Corp. v. Fred H. Ryerse and M & T
Mortgage
Dear Ms. Book:
As a follow-up to my letter of August 22, 1994, enclosed
please find copies of Defendant Ryerse's phone records from
January 1, 1994 to July 31, 1994. As you will note from the
enclosed records, Mr. Ryarse was required to obtain duplicate
copies of his records because he did not keep all of his original
records. This explains the delay in providing you with these
records.
In addition, we are enclosing a listing of all loans
closed by Defendant Ryerse's branch from April 1, 1994 to July 31,
1994. Please note that all of these records have been marked
confidential. Finally, I am enclosing an explanation of M&T's
telephone billing system as set forth in the letter of Mark K.
Metz dated October 3, 1994. This letter provides an appropriate
explanation of M&T's inability to respond to Request No. 16.
(' .
..
Joan E. Book, Esquire
October 7, 1994
Page 2
.
I believe that the contents of this letter as well as the
contents of my letter of August 22, 1994 fully and completely
respond to the matters raised in your letter of August 5, 1994 as
clarified by my response of August 16, 1994 with the sole
exception of equipment leases and a lease plan for the NLancaster"
office. I am advised by Defendant Ryerse that any such leases
posted-dated the establishment of Defendant Ryerse's Lemoyne
office and, accordingly, I believe that these leases do not
materially impact on your Complaint preparation. For this reason,
I hereby demand preparation of your Complaint within twenty days
of the date of this letter. Further, I will consider the contents
of this letter as well as the contents of my letter of August 22,
1994 to represent a complete resolution of the matters raised in
your Motion to Compel unless I hear from you to the contrary.
Please be guided accordingly.
Sincerely yours,
CCC:gls
+7176
Enclosures
Christopher C. Conner
"
r-
, '- i.!..;~-
;~' ,I:; :::
,.:)"."
..::;;
Ol.,,'lo
~
E"
;...
...:->-
-[ ~...
1.4~' ~ ~ ~-;"Of
~'.c:r. :;:
h..(.,,\I",.-'.t:
;:;;:.:Cl:~
if:
~
('r)
0-
es
,
I
.f~
;.
f
i
,..
I
\
I
I
\
\ ,.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
...
...
...
...
...
... Civil Action No. 94-1648
.
...
...
Plaintiff,
FRED H. RYERSE, ~ Ill.,
Defendants. ·
...
................. ............... ..................... .......... ......... .......... .......... ........ ...........
I
\
,
I
1\ In June, 1994, First Advantage Mortgage Corporation forma\1y changed its name
\ \ to EntrUst Financial Corporation.
'I
II Dated: October 21, 1994
II Of Counsel:
II
11\ KRUCHKO & FRIES
\ Suite 606
1 28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
\ (410) 321-7310
\ (410) 821-7918 (fax)
1\
II
I,
I'
:\
II
'I
II
I,
Ii
~ !
~
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
/.
} E. Book
I) 'A Supreme Court
LD. No.: 62020
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
ii
..
II
Ii
;\
'I
Ii
"
d
'I
1\
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 21, 1994, a copy of the Line was served by
first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Christopher C. COMer, Esq.
ME'ITE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
II
I
I
II
II
il
I
I,
Ii
II
'I
I
II
II
II
i\
l.
II
2
-:r
en
-
~:o-
i:: ,~-;
1,1 ,",'t
~=
..~
,-
....
=
.- ,;.
, -'.
N
>-
"->
=
"t
J
. .
3. The basis for the claims set forth is the disclosure of
confidential business information and the acquisition of business
opportunities.
4. Plaintiff has specifically alleged:
(14) M & T understood that Ryerse was in a
position in which Ryerse had access to and could
acquire First Advantage's confidential business
information and information on First Advantage's
business opportunities in the Central
Pennsylvania area. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and, therefore, alleges that part of M
& TiS consideration for offering Ryerse
employment was Ryerse's ability to bring
confidential business information about First
Advantage and First Advantage's business
opportunities with him to M & T.
***
(17) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and,
therefore, alleges that during these meetings [of
February 22, 1994 and March 1, 1994 with M & T],
Ryerse and M & T discussed confidential business
information of First Advantage. .
(18) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and,
therefore, alleges that during these meetings [of
February 22, 1994 and March 1, 1994 with M & T],
Ryerse and M & T discussed business opportunities of
First Advantage in the Central Pennsylvania area.
(19) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and,
therefore, alleges that during the period
February 23, 1994 through March 14, 1994 while
Ryerse was still employed at First Advantage,
defendants Ryerse and M & T had additional
meetings and conversations in which they
continued to discuss Ryerse's soliciting of First
Advantage's employees to work for M & T and
Ryerse's acquiring First Advantage's confidential
business information and business opportunities
in the Harrisburg/camp Hill area for M & T.
- 2 -
"
. '
. .
***
Complaint, paragraphs 14, 17, 18 and 19.
5. Plaintiff identifies confidential business information as
"marketing strategies, expansion plans, budgeting information, profit
and loss statements, etc." Complaint, paragraph 9.
6. The plaintiff does D2t allege that there was a covenant not
to compete or other restrictive covenant imposed on the employees of
plaintiff, including Ryerse.
7. The plaintiff does D2t allege that confidential information
included any trade secrets, customer lists or protected product
information.
8. Plaintiff has also based the above-referenced causes of
action on an allegation that Ryerse and M & T solicited plaintiff's
employees to work for M & T and induce them to leave the plaintiff to
work for M & T. This motion does not address these allegations. The
motion is directed solely at the allegations of confidential business
information and business opportunities.
- 3 -
,', ;";41;
.........-.....,.....,.........
. .
D..urrer to Count I -- civil Conspiraoy,
Or. ID ~b. Alt.rDativ.. A Notion .or Mor. SD.aitia PI.adina
9. Plaintiff alleqes that as a basis for the claim of civil
consplracy "Ryerse revealed to M & T confidential business
information of First Advantaqe, inc1udinq but not limited to
information such as First Advantaqe's expansion plans, marketinq
strateqies and operational strateqies." Complaint, paraqraph 33.
10. Plaintiff further a11eqes that "Ryerse and M & T aqreed to
obtain confidential business information about First Advantaqe's
current and future operatinq and marketinq strategies. All parties
to the conspiracy agreed that the acquisition of First Advantage
confidential business information would begin while Ryerse was still
employed by First Advantage. . ." complaint, paragraph 34.
11. Plaintiff further alleges that Ryerse attended two produc-
tion and sales meetings in order to gain access to First Advantage's
marketing and operating strategies. Complaint, paragraph 35.
12. Plaintiff also alleges that Ryerse and M & T conspired to
obtain business opportunities of First Advantage. Complaint,
paragraph 36.
- 4 -
, .
13. Plaintiff has failed to allege disclosure of any confiden-
tial business information that would permit recovery under a theory
of civil conspiracy.
14. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which
relief can be granted for civil conspiracy based on disclosure or
acquisition of confidential business information.
15. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to provide
specific allegations of alleged confidential business information
sufficient to state a claim.
16. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for civil
conspiracy based on allegations of acquisition of business
opportunities.
17. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead specific
allegations regarding loss of business opportunities.
WRBRBPORB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T
Mortgage Corporation respectfully request the Court to grant the
demurrer and dismiss Court I -- civil conspiracy as it relates to
confidential business information and business opportunities, or, in
the alternative, require plaintiff to provide a more specific
- 5 -
pleadinq reqardinq confidential business information and business
opportunities.
Daaurrer to Count II -- Unfair competition, or,
In The Alternative. Motion ~or A More SDeoifio Pleadina
18. Plaintiff alleqes that M & T and Ryerse committed unfair
competition by "conspirinq to covertly acquire confidential business
information and business opportunities of First Advantaqe. . ."
Complaint, paraqraph 41.
19. Plaintiff further alleqes that "the purpose of unlawfully
acquirinq First Advantaqe's confidential business information and
business opportunities also was to cripple and destroy First
Advantaqe as a competitive mortqaqe corporation and to qain an unfair
market advantaqe in a qeoqraphic area which was entirely new to M &
T." Complaint, paraqraph 43.
20. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unfair
competition based on alleqations that Ryerse and M & T obtained
confidential business information.
21. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead specific
alleqations reqardinq confidential business information.
- 6 -
. '
22. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for unfair
competition based on the acquisition of business opportunities by
M , T and Ryerse.
23. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead specific
allegations regarding loss of business opportunities.
WBBRB~ORB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M , T
Mortgage Corporation respectfully request the Court to grant the
demurrer and dismiss Court II -- unfair competition as it relates to
confidential business information and business opportunities, or, in
the alternative, require that plaintiff to provide a more specific
pleading regarding "confidential business information and business
opportunities.
Demurrer to Count III -- Intentional Interferenoe
with Business Relations, Or, In The Alternative,
Motion for More SDeoific Pleadina
24. Plaintiff has alleged that Ryerse and M & T intentionally
interfered with the business relations of First Advantage by
soliciting employees from First Advantage to work for M & T.
25. To the extent that this cause of action incorporates
allegations that this conduct was designed to obtain confidential
- 7 -
~. .
,
i
f
f
j
I
,.
q
".,,',',',;',,-'.,: ~ '"
&.;;;'-~~~~i.:~i'~;:.~
business information and/or business opportunities, Ryerse and M & T
seek a demurrer to this count.
26. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for
intentional interference with business relations based on acquisition
of confidential business information and/or business opportunities.
27. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead specific
allegations regarding confidential business information and loss of
business opportunities.
WHERBFORB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T
Mortgage corporation respectfully request the Court to grant the
demurrer and dismiss Court III
intentional interference with
business relations, or, in the alternative, require that plaintiff to
provide a more specific pleading regarding confidential business
information and business opportunities.
Demurrer to Count IV -- Breaoh of Duty of Loyalty,
Or. In The Alternative. Motion for A More Soeoifio Plea4ina
28. Plaintiff claims that Ryerse breached a duty of loyalty to
First Advantage by "divulging and attempting to acquire First
Advantage's confidential business information for M & T and by
divulging and attempting to acquire First Advantage's business
- 8 -
hZ~~,:::,~,i;v..,~,~
, :~
opportunities for M & T while he was still an employee of First
Advantage. . ." Complaint, paragraph 52.
29. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for breach
of duty of loyalty based on divulging and attempting to acquire
confidential business information and business opportunities.
30. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead with
sufficient specificity a breach of duty of loyalty based on
acquisition of confidential business information and/or business
opportunities.
- 9 -
WHEREFORE, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T
Mortgage Corporation respectfully request the Court to grant the
demurrer and dismiss Court IV -- breach of duty of loyalty as it
relates to confidential business information and business
opportunities, or, in the alternative, require that plaintiff provide
a more specific pleading regarding confidential business information
and business opportunities.
Demurrer to Count V -- Breach of Fiduciary Duty as
Officer of First Advantage, or, In The
Alternative. Motion for A More sDecific Pleadina
31. Plaintiff alleges that Ryerse breached a fiduciary duty to
First Advantage for divulging and attempting to acquire confidential
business information and business opportunities of First Advantaqe
for M , T. complaint, paraqraph 57.
32. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for breach
of fiduciary duty as officer of First Advantaqe based on alleqations
of acquirinq and divulqinq confidential business information and/or
business opportunities.
33. In the alternative, plaintiff has failed to plead specific
alleqations of confidential business information and business
opportunities.
WHERBFORB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T
Mortqaqe Corporation respectfully request the Court to qrant the
demurrer and dismiss Court V -- breach of fiduciary duty as officer
of First Advantaqe as it relates to confidential business information
and business opportunities, or, in the alternative, require that
plaintiff provide a more specific pleadinq reqardinq a confidential
business information and business opportunities.
Motion To Strike Pursuant to Pa. R.C.S. 1021fb)
34. Plaintiff has pled a specific dollar amount in the addendum
clause of each count.
- 10 -
_~.W j;",.' ,:':.,. '.........,.~.:--....."",.",..,. ;', ""';',., .
35. Defendants request the Court to strike the addendum clause
as violative of Pa. R.C.P. 1021(b).
WBBRB~OaB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T Mortgage
corporation respectfully request the Court to strike the addendum
clause of each count to the ext~nt that the complaint alleges a
specific dollar amount for compensatory and punitive damages.
Demurrer to Attornev. Fe..
36. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for
attorneys fees pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 52503 (1981).
WBBRBFOaB, Defendant Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant M & T Mortgage
Corporation respectfully request the Court to grant the demurrer and
dismiss any claim for attorneys fees.
o~-~~
Chr stopher C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. ct. I. D. #36407
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
Sup. ct. I. D. #55694
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATE: November 9, 1994
Attorneys for Defendant
Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant
M & T Mortgage Corporation
!i
i
"<1
- 11 -
+
':",.'1'.'.
.....'-,..~.
,
J
CBR'l'II'ICA'l'B 01' SBRVICB
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated
below, which services satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United
states mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Joan E. Book Esquire
KRUCHl(O & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
By:
t)~
r sopher C. conner, Esquire
Sup. ct. I. D. #36407
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
Sup. ct. I. D. #55694
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
MBT'l'B,
WOODSIDB
Attorneys for Defendant
Fred H. Ryerse and Defendant
M & T Mortgage Corporation
DATE:
November 9, 1994
14618_1
_"t.
~~"'......._......""",,",' ,..____..- _""~'___"'~ ..............____;..""'.~,. V~C" f
'""'"
l:-'
~.-
,..
~~5~~
..-...:
a
~;;~~~
. ~ '" '"1
0,
, '
t:"'>
.J
,l'!:'':
. "
-;...
,.,.
C,
=
~'"
","
r;~::
,.fl"'" .,,',
~...'..."
-!"',t<o. .
. ;
~1E. .:'
hV'9f ~Jo~<.. ,Utzj 06 rp.
V.
Trc.tL ?l. Rv-er:;e- ~
fA- f -riJ{~ d11
,.
I
,
t
q 4-- /CrA-? ~ ~LAV"-
/D--JI-q4 ~~{iJ-JI- j;6L ~('~
(J:3 sh(U{[of.eL ~ CLpPt7JvU.- ty ~
o-f-~r4 (~_~ 7- Jr--crq by JLL~
ilJl r'\ A- !-Ie-'%' .
.
,
,
I.
'I
I
,
1
I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ...
CORPORATION ...
8910 Route 108 ...
Columbia, Maryland 21045 ...
...
Plaintiff, ...
...
v. ... Civil Action No. 94-1648
...
FRED H. RYERSE ...
318 10th Street ...
New Cumberland, PeMsylvania ...
17070 ...
...
Defendant ...
...
and ...
...
M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION ...
1 Fountain Plaza ...
Ninth Floor ...
Buffalo, New York 14203 ...
...
Defendant ...
I
II
'I
!I
II
Ii
Ii
I'
II
"
II
II
I'
II
,
'II
,
"
I:
j;
il
i:
"
'I
II ...
Ii .................................................................................................................................
"
II
,I
II
I
,I
!,
Ii
!,
II
II
I,
I
i
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice
are served. by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing
with the court your defenses or objeclions to the claims set forth against you. You are
warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be
. '
,
Ij
II
,
'I
I, entered against you by the court without further notice for any other claim or relief requested
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET LEGAL HELP.
II
Ii
,I
II
II
II
d
,!
II
I,
d
,
Court Administrator
Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
(717) 240-6200
I
Ii
I
I
jl
!;
'i
"
!!
q
!l _,IIOIU
.
,
,
'!
1!
+."'Y' " ,
..10:":
,
I,
Ii FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
I'
~,.I CORPORATION
'I 8910 Route 108
Columbia, Maryland 21045
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
...
...
...
...
Plaintiff.
...
...
...
... Civil Action No. 94-1648
...
...
...
...
...
i
i
I, v.
:1
II
11
II
'I
II and
II M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION
ill Fountain Plaza
! I Ninth Floor
II Buffalo. New York 14203
I
;j
'I Defendant
I, ...
II
I: .................................................................................................................................
II
II
II
II
'I
II undersigned counsel, and states:
"
II
FRED H. RYERSE
318 10th Street
New Cumberland, PeMSylvania
17070
COMPLAINT CONTAINS
PROTECTED INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO A CONFIDENTIALITY
STIPULATION AND IS FILED
UNDER SEAL
Defendant
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation, by and through its
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advantage") is an Ohio
corporation, with its principle place of business in Maryland. At all times relevant to this
action. First Advantage had a branch office at 214 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill. Pennsylvania
!
II 17011-2301 ("Camp Hill Office") and a satellite oflice at 930 Red Rose Court, Lancaster,
I
I,
II
!i
I,
ij
II
II
!I
II
II
Ii
"
'I
II
II
11
i,
II
II
,I
:1
ii
I!
II
II
II
I'
II
II
II
Ii
Ii
II
,I
!i
!I
I.
,
Pennsylvania, 17601 ("Lancaster Office").
2.
Defendant Fred H. Ryerse ("Ryerse") is an individual residing at 318 10th
Street, New Cumberland. Pennsylvania, 17070.
3.
Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation ("M & T") is a corporation with its
principle place of business at I M & T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203. M & T does
business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has an office at 645 North 12th Street,
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. 17043 and an office at 930 Red Rose Court. Suite 200, Lancaster,
PeMSylvania, 17601.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
This is a civil action at law in which the claim of relief is in excess of
$25,000. The jurisdiction and venue of this Court is invoked pursuant to Rules 1006, 1021
and 2179 of the PeMsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5.
First Advantage is a corporation engaged in the practice of mortgage banking.
From August 31, 1992 through March 31, 1994. First Advantage operated a branch office in
Camp Hill. Pennsylvania. This office processed mortgage loans in Central PeMSylvania for
Cumberland. York, Perry, Dauphin and Lancaster counties. During March, 1994, First
Advantage employed seven mortgage loan representatives. four loan processors, one closer,
"
I
I; one branch operations supervisor and one Assistant Vice President/Mortgage Branch
IJ
Manager at its Camp Hill Office.
1;
il
I'
"
2
:i
/
6.
On or about, July 20. 1992. Ryerse was hired by First Advantage as Assistant
Ii
!I
II Vice President/Mortgage Branch Manager. Ryerse was assigned to First Advantage's Camp
II
I.
II
11
I
I'
II
I'
Ii
I
I
I
I
Ii
d
Ii
I
II
II
"
II
Ii
I
Hill Office. Ryerse was employed continuously as the Assislanl Vice President/Branch
Manager at the Camp Hill Office until March 14, 1994. when he resigned from employment
with First Advantage,
7.
In his position as Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager of the Camp Hill
office, Ryerse was responsible for the administration and operation of the Camp Hill office,
and therefore, he had the authority to enter into contracts wilh suppliers, vendors, etc. on
behalf of First Advantage. In addition, he was responsible for ensuring that the office was in
compliance with all federal and state laws and regulations governing the operation of
mortgage banking. Ryerse was accountable for the profitability of and expenses incurred by
the office. He developed and monitored the budget for the Camp Hill office.
8.
In his position as Assistant Vice PresidentlBranch Manager. Ryerse also was
responsible for the entire personnel function of the Camp Hill office. He was accountable
for staffing the office and had the aUlhority to hire. fire, suspend, discipline and promote
. I employees. He developed the projected budget for each loan mortgage representative.
Ii
!.
I
i
9.
Ryerse also supervised and participated in the solicitation of all types of loans
and he had access to confidential business information of First Advantage. such as its
marketing strategies. expansion plans, budgeting information. profit and loss statements, etc.
for the entire company. not just his branch office. Ryerse was not only responsible for the
operation of the Camp Hill office but also for assisting First Advantage to develop and to
expand its presence in the Central Pennsylvania area. During February and March, 1994,
:!
3
I
,I Ryerse on behalf of First Advanlagc was pursuing thc cxpansion of Camp Hill office Into the
II
II
I
State College. Pennsylvania area.
10.
During thc period DL'Ccmber, 1993, through Mareh. 1994, First Advantage
I was involved in Icase ncgotiations for the Camp Hili Office. Due to the growth of the
Ii
I
I'
,
business at the Camp Hili Officc. First Advantage was negotiating a lease for larger office
space. Ryerse was involved in these lease negotiations and was In a position to Influence the
I choice of location.
ii
1.11.
II Corporate Management Advisors, Inc.. an employment placement agency, about a position
,I
Ii
II with M & T Mortgage Corporation. M & T planned to expand its operation into the Central
II
II PeMSylvania area. Corporate Management Advisors, Inc. invited Ryerse to interview with
'I
il M&T.
I'
,I
I, 12.
!I
'I business for First Advantage. Ryersc mct with M & T representatives to discuss his
:1
II employment opportunities with M & T and to discuss how hc would be able to assist M & T
"
11
i i in establishing a branch office for M & T in the Harrisburg/Camp Hili area. Ryerse
I submitted time shcets to First Advantage for February 17th in order to be compensated by
i
,
I First Advantage for his job ncgotiations with M & T.
!I
ii
II
I! Advantage employees to leave employmcnt with First Advantagc. Plaintiff is infonned and
11.
While Ryersc was stili employcd by First Advantage, he was approached by
On Tuesday. February 17. 1994. while Ryerse should have been attending to
13.
M & T understood that Ryersc was in a position to influence othcr First
,
!l
: I belicves, and, therefore, alleges that part of M & T's consideration for offering Ryerse
i:
I'
I
1;
! ~
4
~
I'
I
employment was Rycrsc's ability to bring cxpcrienced First Advantage employees with him
I to M & T for employment.
I
II
I
II
I
I
,
I
i
,
il
II
I
14.
M & T undcrstood that Rycrse was in a position in which Ryerse had access to
and could acquire First Advantage's confidenlial business infonnation and infonnatlon on
First Advantage's business opportunities in the Central Pennsylvania area. Plaintiff is
infonned and believes, and, therefore, alleges that part of M & T's consideration for offering
Ryerse employment was Ryerse's ability to bring confidential business infonnalion about
First Advantage and First Advantage's business opportunities with him to M & T.
15.
On Tuesday, February 22, 1994, and on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, while
Ryerse should have been attending to his duties for First Advantage, Ryerse was meeting
with several M & T representatives at M & T's offices in Buffalo, New York. Ryerse
submitted time sheets to First Advantage for February 22, 1994 and March 1, 1994 in order
I
,
11'0 be '::"""""" by Fm' Ad""'., rOl h, joh ~.o,;";o,, with M & T.
I
!
II
I
!I
I
II
1 ~
I!
II
II
Ii
"
I'
II
I
I
Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and. therefore. alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed not only his employment with M & T but also the
prospect of staffing the proposed M & T office with First Advantage employees.
17.
Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and. therefore, alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed confidential business infonnation of First Advanlage.
18.
Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and. therefore. alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed business opportunities of First Advantage in the
central Pennsylvania area.
5
II
II
II!,
19. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and, therefore. alleges that during the
II period February 23. 1994 through March 14. 1994, while Ryerse was still employed by First
Ii
II Advantage, Defendants Ryerse and M & T had additional meetings and conversations in
11
:1 which they continued to discuss Ryerse's soliciting of First Advantage employees to work for
I'
I
!I M & T and Ryerse's acquiring First Advantage confidential business infonnation and
,I
., business opportunities in the Harrisburg/Camp Hill area for M & T.
:1
Ii
,.
I'
;;
Ii week of March, 1994, Ryerse accepted employment with M & T.
I
,I
!I
i I that he would be working for M & T Mortgage Corporation.
:1
II
:1
Ii
,I
:1
I,
I i paragraphs 1 through 21 inclusive above. and further states and alleges as follows:
22. Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and therefore, alleges that during the
20.
Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and. therefore. alleges that during the first
21.
On March 14. 1994. Ryerse notified First Advantage that he was resigning and
COUNT I -- CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Plaintiff rea lieges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
I,
1j
'I
ij
I, various meetings and numerous telephone conversations between Defendants Ryerse and
i.
Ii M & T, Defendants Ryerse and M & T agreed to a course of business conduct with
II
!l
:i
!, knowledge that implementation of their business plan would injure. cause damage to and ruin
'I
,
!;
First Advantage's Central Pennsylvania operation. Specifically, Defendants Ryerse and
,
i
11
"
:,
I
"
ji
,
M & T agreed to solicit all First Advanlage's employees. except Barbara Kern, to work with
Ryerse for M & T at its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill office. All parties to the conspiracy
Ii
,
agreed that the solicitation of employees would begin while Ryerse was still employed by
"
6
I', ,,',,_.r';~.
First Advantage. Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware Ihat such action would breach
the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed Firsl Advantage by Ryerse.
23. In furtherance of this conspiracy and while Ryerse was still employed by First
Advantage, Ryerse, idenlifying himself as Assistant Vice President of M & T, submilled to
Nicholas L. Buscaglia ("Buscaglia"), Administrative Vice President, Residential Mortgage of
M & T, a confidential memorandum summarizing "Potential Employee Biographies". This
I memorandum was dated March 8, 1994 and transmitled to M & T through First Advantage's
I'
,i
1I
I
facsimile machine. In the memorandum, Ryerse identified as potential employees individuals
who at the time were employed by First Advantage and an individual whom he had been
recruiting for First Advantage for its proposed State College. Pennsylvania office. In the
I'
II memorandum, Ryerse outlines each individual's background. strengths, weaknesses, and
II
I'
I!
I,
I'
I'
I
II
11
"
Ii
I
!
II
current salary. Ryerse also noted whether the individual would be better suited for a
different position in M & T's operations. See copy of Memorandum dated March 8, 1994.
Exhibit 1.
24.
Plaintiff is informed and believes. and, therefore, alleges that while still an
employee of First Advantage and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Ryerse did solicit First
Advantage employees to leave First Advantage and to come with him to M & T. Even
! before Ryerse submitted his resignation from employment to Firsl Advantage. Ryerse had the
,
,
II commitment of several employees to follow him to M & T.
I,
q
!! 25. In furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to induce First Advantage
i employees to leave First Advantage and to recruit First Advantage employees for M & T,
Defendants Ryerse and M & T agreed to schedule a meeting on or about March 15, 1994. in
.j
7
I
I
I
,I the Harrisburg/Camp Hill area during which Ryerse and representatives from M & T would
II
I meet with First Advantage employees to induce them to work for M & T. Defendants made
Ii
I i preparations for this meeting on or nboul March 10. 1994.
26. Plnintiff is informed nnd believes. and, therefore. nlleges that on or about
II .......y. M.rell 12. 1994. willi. Ryo", w" "Ill '" omp10yo. of Fl~1 Ad"",,.. ,,'" 10
I
,I
II
II
I'
furtherance of the conspiJ"dcy;Ryerse held a meeting with all First Advantage mortgage loan
representatives at First Advantage's Camp Hill office. At this meeting, Ryerse solicited all
the mortgage loan representatives to leave First Advantage and to work for M & T.
I
,
!. employee of First Advantage and in furthemnce of the conspiracy, Ryerse let it be known to
I
,
I
I.
II
I'
1I
I:
iI
Ii
,I
II
"
I,
I.
"
Ii
I'
"
,I
,
"
Ii
"
il
,
!i
,
iI
'I Ryersc continued his efforts in furlhcrance of thc conspiracy \0 solicit First Advnntage
II
"
Ii employecs to work for M & T. Ryerse approached all First Advantage employees, except
27.
Plaintiff is informed and believes. and, therefore. alleges that while still an
First Advantage employees that M & T would be in town on March 15. 1994, to meet with
First Advantage employees to discuss employment for its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill
area office. Ryerse asked all First Advantage employees. except Barbara Kern, to meet with
M&T.
28.
Plaintiff also is informed and believes. and. therefore, alleges that in
furtherance of thc conspiracy and in ordcr to induce employees to resign from First
Advantage and to join M & T, Ryerse made derogatory commcnts to First Advantage
employees about the manner in which First Advantage treated its employees.
29.
On March 14, 1994, while still officially an employee of First Advantage,
Ii
"
'I Barbara Kern. and set up a time for them to meet with M & T on Tuesday, March 15, 1994.
:;
8
:~
c.
I
I, Using work time which should have been devoted to First Advantage business and First
I
I
I
II
I'
II
I
i
II
!I
I
I
'I
I
I
,
'I
II
Ii
II
,/
I
!i
Advantage equipment and materials, Ryerse faxed a memorandum to Nicholas Buscaglia,
Administrative Vice President of M & T, confirming the March IS, 1994 scheduled meetings
with First Advantage employees. In addition. Ryerse informed Buscaglia that he had the
verbal commitment of all First Advantage employees with whom he already spoke that they
would follow him to M & T. In Ihis memorandum, Ryerse identified himself as Assistant
Vice President of M & T. See copy of Memorandum dated March 14, 1994, Exhibit 2.
30.
On March 15. 1994. Ryerse and representatives of M & T met with First
Advantage employees as planned.
31.
On or about March 15. 1994. M & T officially confirmed the offers of
employment it made to all Firsl Advantage employees, except Barbara Kern.
32.
On March 18, 1994, eleven of the thirteen employees who worked at First
Advantage's Camp Hill Office turned in their resignations. Eight of these employees
commenced employment with M & T.
lj
I:
li
II
I
I,
II
"
!I
I,
I
i
i
,
33.
In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that
during the various meetings and conversations belween the Defendants, Ryerse revealed to
M & T confidential business information of First Advantage. including but not limited to
information such as First Advantage's expansion plans; marketing strategies; and operational
strategies.
I
34.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that Defendants
Ryerse and M & T agreed to obtain confidential business information about First
Advantage's current and future operating and marketing strategies. All parties to the
::
9
conspiracy agreed that the acquisition of First Advantage confidential business infonnation
I'
il
'I
II
II
I
II
I
,
II
"
I
i
Ii
"
II
II
I,
Ii
'I
I.
I
I' .".:,~~,
would begin while Ryerse was still employed by First Advantage. Defendants Ryerse and
M & T were aware that such action would breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed
First Advantage.
35.
While Ryerse was still an employee of First Advantage and as part of the
conspiracy to covertly gain access to First Advantage marketing and operating strategies,
Ryerse wrongfully attended First Advantage's production and sales meeting on March 9,
1994 and March 10, 1994. without telling First Advantage that he had accepted employment
with a competitor, M & T. During this meeting, First Advantage presented its sales
strategies and reviewed marketing issues and production goals for the entire company.
36.
Plaintiff also is infonned and believes, and. therefore. alleges that during the
various meetings and conversations between the Defendants, Ryerse revealed business
opportUnities of First Advantage to M & T. Moreover, Defendants knew that by soliciting
I all First Advantage employees to work for M & T, First Advantage would not be able to
Ii
! i process loans which were in the pipeline and these loans would become available to M & T
"1
i for closing.
1;
I:
"
37.
Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and, therefore. alleges that Defendants
Ii
II
i I Ryerse and M & T agreed to solicit and acquire for themselves these business opportUnities
I,
II
It
'i
11
"
which rightfully belonged to First Advantage. All parties to Ihe conspiracy agreed that the
acquisition of First Advantage business opportunities would begin while Ryerse was still
employed by First Advantage. Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware that such action
, would breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed First Advantage.
j(
10
t:,. '''-~'''.'''''-'<
1\
I .
38.
The conduct of Defendants Ryerse and M & T to engage in a conspiracy to
I
I
I. breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed First Advantage by soliciting First
I
I.
il
I
II
,I
Advantage employees, by soliciting First Advantage busincss opportunities, and by obtaining
First Advantage confidential business Infonnation while Ryerse was still employed by First
Advantage was intentional, willful and calculated to cause damage to First Advantage's
i i business. Defendants knew that by inducing all First Advantage employees to leave First
!i
II
I'
II
"
Ii
I.
II
il
II
I'
Ii
I'
Advantage and join M & T. First Advantage would be forced to close Its operation in
Central Pennsylvania. In addition. by soliciting First Advantage business opportunities and
acquiring First Advantage's confidential marketing and strategy plans, M & T acquired a
significant market advantage in a geographic area where it had no prior business experience.
39.
As a direct result of the Defendants' conspiracy, First Advantage was forced
to close its Camp Hill Office and its Lancaster Office and was compelled to curtail any
expansion efforts and to cease doing business in the Central Pennsylvania area. First
I
II
,I
"
"
"
,
Advantage suffered severe economic injury. including loss of experienced employees, loss of
busincss. lost profits, and other compcnsatory damages.
40.
In intentionally conspiring to solicit First Advantage employees and to acquire
:i
II First Advantage confidential strategic operating and marketing infonnation and business
ii
i i opportunities, Dcfcndants Rycrse and M & T acted with actual malice, ill-will and spite
"
II
i I toward First Advantage. First Advantage is entitled to punitive damages as a result of
Ii
,I Defendants' intentional. willful. malicious and wrongful actions against it.
"
"
; i WHEREFORE. Plaintiff First Advantage requests that this Court enter judgment
,
"
i I against Defendants Ryerse and M & T In an amount not less than Three-Hundred.Seventy-
"
!!
11
.'
k.~~-'l: ,~,r,
",,,,..,,-',..'
t.t....~~ ...'.,.
~-~",.
I'
l' .
, Five-Thousand dollars ($375,000) compensatory damages and Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousand
I
I
i
I
I
,
dollars ($250,000) punitive damages. with interest. costs and attorneys' fees.
COUNT II .w UNFAIR COMPETITION
Plaintiff rea lieges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
I paragraphs I through 40 inclusive above. and further states and alleges as follows:
II
II
Ii
I
I
i
,I
I!
II
,I
:1
!I
I
"
I
,I
It
ii
"
II
Ii
!I
II
I
1
41.
Defendants Ryerse and M & T engaged in unfair competition by conspiring to
systematically induce First Advantage's employees to resign from First Advantage and
undertake employment with M & T both before and after Ryerse's own departure from First
Advantage and by conspiring to covertly acquire confidential business information and
business opportunities of First Advantage. with full knowledge that these actions were a
violation of Ryerse's fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to First Advantage.
42.
The purpose of thi~ enticement of all First Advantage employees was to
cripple and destroy First Advantage as a competitive mortgage operation rather than to obtain
the services of particularly gifted or skilled employees. By inducing and encouraging all
First Advantages employees to leave First Advantage and begin working for M & T.
Defendants anticipated that they would force First Advantage to cease its operation in Central
I Pennsylvania and Defendants anticipated that the former First Advantage employees would
,
d
i solicit and bring First Advantage business contacts and potential mortgage clients with them
I
to M & T.
43. The purpose of unlawfully acquiring First Advantage's confidential business
information and business opportunities also was to cripple and destroy First Advantage as a
I,
"
"
12
competitive mortgage operation and to gain an unfair market advantage in a geographic area
I
II
i
I
I
which was entirely new to M & T.
44.
Defendants' motive in taking these actions was intentional, willful, and
calculated to cause damage to First Advantage's business in Central Pennsylvania and to gain
an unfair competitive advantage in Ihe mortgage banking business in Central Pennsylvania.
45. As a direct result of Defendants' conduct, First Advantage has suffered severe
economic injury, including loss of experienced employees, loss of business, lost profits and
I other compensatory damages.
J
II
Ii
II
Ii
Ii
Ii
'I
Ii
\1
1
i
I
i
I'
il
!I
II
q
Ii
'I
I,
I
I.
Ii
,I
I
Ii
Ii
i\
I,
I'
II
"
"
lj
46.
In systematically inducing First Advantage employees to resign from First
Advantage and undertake employment with M & T and in unlawfully acquiring First
Advantage confidential business information and business opportunities, Defendants Ryerse
and M & T acted with actual malice, ill-will and spite toward First Advantage. First
Advantage is entitled to punitive damages as a result of Defendants' intentional, willful,
malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff First Advantage requests that this Court enter judgment
against Defendants Ryerse and M & T in an amount not less than Three-Hundred-Seventy-
Five-Thousand dollars ($375,000) compensatory damages and Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousand
dollars ($250,000) punitive damages, with interest. costs and attorneys' fees.
COUNT II1-- INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs I through 46 inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
13
"
,
I
I
II'
I
I
I
"
1'1 intentionally interfered with the business relations of First Advantage.
I
'I
I
47.
Defendants Ryerse and M & T by their conduct hereinabove described,
48.
While Ryerse was still employed by First Advantage, Defendants intentionally
interfered with First Advantage's business relations with its employees with the intent to
~ I improperly staff its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill area office with experienced persoMel
II
'i
!I
Ii
il
I'
"
II
.,
I'
I!
II
"
I'
,
II
!,
:1
I'
,
I'
,I
il
d
II
q
I,
I:
!I
II
II
I,
II
I
Ii
.,
II
:I
"
Ii
:1
,
i;
,I
who were knowledgeable about mortgage banking and who had established business contacts
in the Central PeMsylvania area. and with the further intent to strip First Advantage of
skilled workers and to destroy First Advantage's lawful business in the Central PeMSylvania
area.
49.
The conduct of Defendants Ryerse and M & T in systematically soliciting and
inducing First employees to quit their employment with First Advantage and to join M & T
was intentional. willful and calculated to cause damage to First Advantage's lawful business.
By depriving First Advantage of its established workforce, Defendants knew they would put
First Advantage out of business in Central Pennsylvania. As a result, approximately eleven
employees of First Advantage resigned their employment with First Advantage and eight of
these resignees went to work for M & T. Consequently, First Advantage was forced to
terminate its mortgage banking business in Central Pennsylvania.
50.
As a result of Defendants Ryerse and M & T's conduct. First Advantage has
suffered severe economic injury. including loss of employees, loss of business. lost profits,
and other compensatory damages.
51.
In intentionally interfering with First Advantages business relations,
Defendants acted with actual malice, ill-will and spite toward First Advantage. First
14
II Advantage is entitled to punitive damages as a result of Defendants' intentional, willful,
I
I
II
malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage requests that this Court enter judgment
against Defendants Ryerse and M & T in an amount not less than Three-Hundred-Seventy-
Five-Thousand dollars ($375,000) compensatory damages and Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousand
dollars ($250,000) punitive damages. with interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
COUNT IV -- BREACH OF DUTY OF LOYALTY
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
paragraphs 1 through 51 inclusive above. and further states and alleges as follows:
52. By soliciting First Advantage employees for M & T, by divulging and
attempting to acquire First Advantage confidential business infonnation for M & T and by
! I divulging and attempting to acquire First Advantage business opportunities for M & T while
'I
I
Ii
II
'I
i
I
I
I
Ii
,
I
I
he was still an employee of First Advantage. Defendant Ryerse breached the duty of loyalty
he owed First Advantage.
53.
The conduct of Ryerse in soliciting First Advantage employees and in
divulging and attempting to acquire First Advantage confidential business information and
business opportunities for M & T was intentional, willful and calculated to cause damage to
First Advantage's lawful business.
54.
By virtue of Ryerse's breach of the duty of loyalty, First Advantage has
suffered severe economic injury, including loss of employees, loss of business, lost profits,
and other compensatory damages.
II
I
J;
"
"
"
,I
"
I,
q
I
;1
I
I,
il
I'
i
15
,.... ,'''-'
-:5
~ .
In breaching the duty of loyally, Defendant Ryerse acted with actual malice,
II
ill-will and spite toward First Advantage. First Advantage is entitled to punitive damages as
1
I
a result of Defendants' intentional, willful. malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff First Advantage requests that Ihis Court enter judgment
, against Defendant Ryerse in an amount not less than Three.Hundred-Seventy-Five-Thousand
dollars ($375,000) compensatory damages and Two.Hundred-Fifty-Thousand dollars
($250,000) punitive damages, with interest. costs and attorneys' fees.
COUNT IV .- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
AS OFFICER OF FIRST ADVANTAGE
I
I
I
.1 paragraphs I through 55 inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
II
!I
"
Ii
:1
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
56.
At all times relevant, Defendant Ryerse was an Assistant Vice
President/Branch Manager of First Advantage. In his position as Assistant Vice
'I
: I President/Branch Manager. Ryerse had a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of First
"
[I
!,
I,
I
:1
!I
Advantage with loyally and good faith, without any self-Inlerest or self-dealing.
57.
Ryerse breached his fiduciary duties to First Advantage by acting contrary to
the best interest of First Advantage by soliciting First Advantage employees and by divulging
I
i and attempting to acquire confidential business information and business opportunities of
i
il
I' First Advantage for M & T while he was still an Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager of
,
1)
! I First Advantage.
II
I
Ii
!
II
:;
16
.
Jj.
[' .c..
...~.,'. .... "-'- ",-"'---
,~. .h, .__ .
58. By virtue of Ryerse's breach of his fiduciary duties owed to First Advantage,
First Advantage has suffered severe economic injury, including loss of employees, loss of
business, lost profits, and other compensatory damages.
59. In breaching the duty of loyalty, Defendant Ryerse acted with actual malice,
ill-will and spite toward First Advanlage. Firsl Advantage is entitled to punitive damages as
a result of Defendants' intentional. willful, malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage requests that this Court enter judgment
i against Defendant Ryerse in an amount not less than Three-Hundred-Seventy-Five-Thousand
I
II dollars ($375,000) compensatory damages and Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousand dollars
,
i ($250,000) punitive damages. with interest. costs and attorneys' fees.
I
,
I
I Dated: October 17, 1994
II
,I
II Of Counsel:
II KRUCHKO & FRIES
II Suite 606
!: 28 West Allegheny Ave
'I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
I (410) 321-7310
I, (410) 821-7918 (fax)
:1
II
II
"
I'
Ii
I
I
I
!
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
(}
)0 E. Book
(.J A Supreme Court
LD. No.: 62020
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
17
,
" '
I
,
, :' 'I~
,..."'.u .,~
..,c:. . _.,..Lo "::"MJ
-~;./'.~ ..,"'':'"
.......................... ,..\'''
:'.."t."~ ..(.':~
#:....~l;,t . ~'':..
'.- ,f ;.'f" !i'Ji.
". .>>,\'7
. J r-7
..0;-.
.
,
,
,
.
, .
"
17177309~08 CAMP HILL
555 P01
MAR 08'94 17:31
1-..0. '"Pr.!.
It - r". ~ noM(. f-AI!
:r.u.r-'G' -..." ,... '-po"" ~ ~---
L.. KO~''''" ~ ~ .....~ ~"c-..:.:..'. .,.
. Ii ,. U."...... ~ ,,-~,'
~. 11ft"'''.'''' ~.... ,__~'
1>. Qru../'l(..I't'II~ c..~-
'D ... t.LaItr- - I.-
'B L.4.1/:1~'1. ~." ~
t~\,,~t
Memorandum
SubJ~ct? '
./(~...
"c.t.) :...
. ~~. .
:1'. .
Date: March 8. 1994
To:
Nicholas L. Buscaglia, Administrative Vice President
EXHIBIT
1
I
.~.
I
cc:
~
F . Itanl Vice President
potential Employee Biographies
From:
,.
- 1). Janet LJIle ':"Mortgage Loan Officer in the Harrisburg area. In 1993 her production
was $17 million. She started work for me in November 1992. Prior to First
Advant8se she wa" employed as a settlement officer/relocation director for a
Hearthstone Better Homes and Garden. She is an intensely private individual. Let her
- - -
tell you about yourself; witbout disclosing what I am telling you here. Strength.-
Passionate about great customer service, plays the numbers well, and bas an extremely
loyal following ofRea1tors. Weakness' - Very little, passion can sometimes get
negatively out of control.
2)' Linda Kosich - Mortgage Loan Officer in the Lancaster area. Linda is my most recent
hire (February 1994). Her husband transferred to the Lancaster area from Boston. In
Boston she was an operations supervisor ofMol1lLage COll!2!ation of the East, which
did approximately $100 million in 1993. She isa dynamo of activity, with areal
potential of being a super star in mortgage banking:-Thave her budgeted to do $12
million in 1994. Strengths - Great product knowledge, super personality, the
complete package as a loan officer. Weakness' - Again very little, new to the area.
.3) .Pamela Fisher - Operations ~.2.!lrvisor. Pam was my first hire in September of 1992.
She is probably mymost loy employee, She brings with her a wealth of experience
from 10 years at Central Pennsylvania Savings Bank in their mortgage department. In
what can be an extremely harried business, she brings with her an element of calm in
the eye of the stann. She has the respect of her employees. and is able to get the most
out of people. Current sa/a,>' : S30K pillS quarterly 11Icentll'l! based on office
production. she made one Incentive in 1993 of$900. StrenKtbs - Loyalty, employee
relations. Weakness' - Doesn't tend to be a self starter at looking at the efficiency of
the operation and making changes, also doesn't tend to be technically minded,
however she does know where to get the answers. .- -
4) . Ron Heberlig - Mortgage Loan Officer in Harrisburg area. Ron started with me in
March or1993. He was managed the comrnercialloan division ofCCNB bank for
over 20 years: The transition from comrncrciallending to retail mortgage banking has
been slower for Ron. however he has a huge contact base from his years in the area.
In 1993, Ron originated S~ Million from May u~til the end of the year. Significantly,
,.:.: ~..i"':'"
..,., , ~""'I._" tc.
't'l I ,.. -:J~4"~:"
-:"Cl"":..."..,,, .,..,
~.-,.,. "r. .
..~~.~.;'\.-4...: ~.
Cu-tr...'!
,. -
--
,- -
.'
,.
.,_.,.t~.'~'-
~
, .
.
555 POZ
MAR OS''='4 171:!:1
17177:309808 CAr1P H t LL
,
, .'
,:T,....':
Ron originated S8,QQ,OOO this past February, Ron would benefit greatly with a
competitive co~tionlpcnn product. He has ,ignificant contacts in the building
industry which is relatively speaking untapped. Strenath, - ContlCts, detail oriented.
Weakness' - Longer learning curve, not an overly aggressive salesmar..
- --
5) DOMa GOS5 - Mortgage Loan Officer in the Harrisburg area. I hired DOMa in 1.YJy of
1993. Donna's previous experience was as real estate agent and settlement officer for
Century 21 Breneman for a number of years. She produced approximately S2.5
million for the six month period. Over the last four months of the year she was
averaging approximately 5750,000 a month in new loans. She has significant contacts
in the real estate industry, a quick mind and a-great attitude. Strengths - Attention to
detail, self starter, Weakness' - Too much attention to detail, not as polished.
6), Patti Greene - Mortgage Loan Officer in the Hershey areL I hired Patti in October of
, ~ 1993, She worked for 15 years as a loan officer for Central Pennsylvania Savings
, Bank. She has a good base of contacts in the Hershey market area. I have Patti
budgeted to do S8.5 million for 1994. She certainly has the potential of doing much
more than that. Strengths - Well polished, attention to detail, great product
knowledge. Weakness' - Independently wealthy, sometimes lacks raw sales hunger.
'I. 7) Michelle Cronrath - Mortgage Processor. Michelle was hired in December 1992 with
3 years previous experience at Central PeMsylvania Savings Bank. She is easily my
most dedicated employee. She is frequently complimented on the quality of her work
by the main office. Michelle will work until the job is done, she gives 150%. She has
develaped a complete product knowledge. She was my employee of the year far
1993. Cummr salar)',' 52/K. Strengths - Dedication to doing a great job.
Weakness' - Not as polished, sometimes comes across wrong with customers.
8) Joan Cook - Closing Coordinator. Joan was hired in March, 1993 as a receptionist.
She has taken over a new fUnCtion for First Advantage and is now the prototype for
the corporation. In the M&T scheme of things, she needs to be a closer. Right now
she gathers all the documents (Title binder, termite, well. septic. compliance
inspections), coordinates the date with all pal1ies and assists in clearing conditions.
This only thing she is not doing is drawing the settlement package and cutting the
check. Current salary,', SJ6.5K. Strengthf:;'Attention to detail, good customer
service. Weakness' - none: _ . . ~' '"
"'9)'~ 'Barb Kern - Senior Loan Processor. I hir;d Ba~b in January of 1994. Barb worked
for 4 years with Sears Mortgage Corporation, and prior to that a number of years with
.-:\: GMAC mortgage, She brings v.ith her a tremendous knowledge base of mortgage
processins, Current salary,' S2iK. Strengths - Great product knowledge.
Weakness' - Tends to be opinionated. somewhat set in ways. (don't read tao much
into this, just be conscience of it)
10) Stacey Haldennan-Harbst. Loan Processor. I hired Stacey in August of 1993. Stacey
is easily my most polished loan processor. She pre\iously worked for PHEA(the
PeMsylvania student loan servicins center, Stacey is young. extremely intelligent. and
~..t'
...~ to":'
:.. -;~:: ;..' ....
" .~.,1:
."
, '
.
17177~09S0S CAMP HILL
MAR OS'94 1';'1:!:~
555 P0~
"
I,
dedicated. Current salary: $J6K. Strenath. .lntelliaence and good customer
1CI'V\c:c instincts. Weakneu'. Relative incxpcnenc:c in mortgage banking.
II)P. Wac:hipi San. Monsage Proc:cssor. I hired Chipl in July of 1993. She also worked
for PHEA. Chipl had a baptism of fire in mortgage banking. With no direct mortgage
ban\clng experience, she immediately stepped into a caseload of SO cases. While her
lack ofproduc:t knowledge showed through, she caught on beautifully. She is easily
the most intelligent person on staff. She is a sraduate of Messiah College with honors,
and the valedictorian oCher high school class. Current Stllary : $17K. Strengths.
Great customer service, and at this point a good working knowledge base.
Weakne,,' . relative ineltpericnc:c level.
12) Dan McCuen. Mortgage Loan Oflic:cr in the Lancaster area. I hired Dan in A~.ISt of
1993. Prior to working forPirst Advantage, Dan was a mortgage loan offic:crwith
First Lancaster Fu.!!,ding Corpo~tion. Dan has been a consistent $10 million a year
loan "'"OM"c:cr for his prior linn, and produced S4 million for the last S months of 1993
with First Advantage. Strenath.. Good image, 10+ years in real estate/mortgage
banking. Weaknes,'. Not technica1ly strong.
/ 1'3) Barbara Loviskcy - Mortgage Loan Officer in State College. Barb currently works for
PNC mortgage. I have heavily recruited Barb to come work for First Advantage, and
I bolieve she is 9oo!. there towards making that decision. I am due to meet with her
this Friday. I obviously don't know how she will react to my leaving. She has only
been in mortgage banking for six months, however she has done 5S million during the
last six months of 1993. and prior to that spent 19 years as a real estate broker in State
College.
FHR
.
. ,
,.
-
.~
171773139808 C~MP HILL
629 pel
M~R 14'94 113:32
Cate:
To:
cc:
From:
SubJect:
EXHIBIT
flIemorandum
I
2
Marcn 14. 1Vll4
Nick Buscaglia. AdmlnlstraUve Vice President
CONFIDfNTlAV
F/4 erse III, Asslslant Vice President
Items to bling
Wowlll I hope you arc prepared for an Instant office, We have 10 ha\'e the ability ofbeing up in
operation by the end of the wcdc, I am going to deliver these people 10 you, and I don't mind saying that fit?'
they arc a Uale scared. The following Is a list of items that would be good to brint:. /',:.,,.. :~,
1. AIl)' Human lWowcc infotmation to get my people processed through this departmenlllS quickly lIS \
poSSlole.
2. The advertising and marketing binder that I was prlveleged to see In Bulfalo. ./
3. All paperwork nec:essary to take loan applications.
4. Product Reference guides.
I have had a leak O\'er the wc:ckend. DOMa Gess bas dCl:ided to go \\ith SC3J'IPNC Mortgage, and has
already lnConned them of what my office Is planning 10 do. Janet Lane and I are c,\uemely concerned thaI
she will be able to capltilizc on the downtime in between companies with our clients. lnilially, I was
hoping for an e.'lUemely quick two week trlInsition period. No\\', I believe we have a \\indo\\' of
opponunlty of no nlon: than a lightning fast one week.
On a more posith'e note, Linda K05ich and Ron Heberlig ha\'e verball>' aifCed to remain with me. along
\\ith evtl)'body elsc J have 13lIccd 10 to date in my office. Today. I am infonnlng Stace~' Halderman.
BarbS!, Chipi San. Barb Kern. and Dan McCuen.
Your itincraI)' for Tuesday 50 far :
Janet Lane .
. 12:00
. 1:00
~.~
. 3:30
'l~";!C
. ~:30
FHR
Ron Hcbcrlig
J)o',~ C"'C1~ S
Linda Kosich
,,~ n '-c...,c!'\ .
Pam Fisher, -
c;.~-
~i2_ ~.
/, 7--' ~,1I'71lC(-r
.1/1 ,J J
.-.c:r.i&o.'t>oer- r-e-.b.$r
g':?-::J
~.
l t",.
-
;?~I"'"
1 :, :' , "" ..... ....;'.
,r:;~.;'J'~:'':_:-:!':'>~''~ , '-,
. .l t
STATE OF MARYLAND
)
)
)
ss:
COUNTY OF HOWARD
AFFIDAVIT
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, on the 17th day
of October
, 1994, personally appeared James W. Raker
who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is Executive
Vice President
of the First Advantage Mortgage Corporation, the within
named plaintiff. and the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct
to his personal knowledge, information and belief.
(~ wet
!
II
I
II
I' Subscribed and sworn before me this 17th day of October
I
.
,1994.
II
II
I
I My Commission expires: 9/1/95
Ii
q
II
!I
Ii
i'
.1
,
il
,
I!
:l
"
.') 4 I
J"t c..' t-' ~\.....-J..
o~ Public
'-."
olOSEPHINE E GECKlE
NOTARY PUillJC STATE OF IoWM.ANl
artm,"Q'3S'ONEXF.Ia3SEPTEUllal t. lDllS
.. .
~
I
I
II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY Ihat on Octoher 17. 1994. a copy of Notice to Defend and
Complaint were served by first class mail, postagc prepaid, upon the following:
I
I
I
Christopher C. Conner, Esq.
METIE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Fron! Strcct
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pcnnsylvania 17110.0950
.. ct7 /J ,/ -
W ./CJ~
;' Joan/E:1fook
,
,
,
, /
V
I
I
I
r:
Ii
~
en
-
.....
;.:-'"(
~
....
en
";>-
..r:.-
~
, ..t
~~ \~
--,
........
-
u
=
-
.
-..,
,
r, y 91 ;1 ,ltia" ("j'-- /A I J 0, 'l' .
v.
p"rett. ;-t. ~('l VS~ ~
!l). ~ T fvturLtja..j- Crrp.
r.,; ,
( . ,
. Ii,
q ~- 1(P4~ ~II-I I .
o ..o'f
r ;
11- 0l.1- fir Pfa.fn-&fl; IJSfJ&I'r1)"- 'Id
'o-e~-G ( Pt). 5 16 [Jln'1I1-l., rlJ.
(Y-IWf l.J..u:C +, LLJ.. ~r S u../ 0. .\
54:-, p.u ( tAb L tL-J' O-f P /<Jv-.J hy
() I-M.Y 0 {~-t JxbL 7-0(0'- '1'4-
hI( J;..Jj<- K- iM ~, rJ 5$".
JOHN O. KRUCHKO.,.
lAY R. PRIES..
OLENN P. HARE'
PAUL M. LUSKY.
LINDA McOnJ. MILLER'
STBVEN W. RAY"
KAllfLEEN A. TALTY'
SUSAN TAHI!IlNIA'"
lOAN B. BOOK..
JASON M. BRANCIPORTE,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Sullll 202
7929 Wellpllk Drive
Mclean. VllIlnl. 22102
Suite 606
28 Well Alle,heny Avenue
Baldmore. Maryland 21204
(703) 734-0'54
Telephone: (410) 321.7310
Telaeopier: (410) 821.7918
Suite 900
601 PeDnlylvanl. Avenue, N.W.
WuhlnllDn. D,C. 20004
A-.... 'NO +VA 'DC .FA
November 28, 1994
(202) 347.6"0
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Court House
1 Court House Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387
Re: First Advantal!e Mortl!al!e Com. v. Fred H. Rverse. et. al.
Civil Action No. 94-1648
Dear Sir:
Please fim.! enclosed the original and one copy of Response of Plaintiff First Advantage
Mortgage Corporation to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint in the
above-referenced matter. Please file this document under Seal with the Court as per the July 25,
1994 Stipulation of Confidentiality. Please return a conformed copy to me in the enclosed self-
addressed stamped envelope.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
~~j
Jo . Book
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
Enclosures
cc: Christopher C. COMer, Esquire
_~107>>.1
.f .
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE ·
CORPORATION ·
.
I
I
i v.
I
I'
i
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
q
II
Ii
I
Plaintiff,
.
.
· Civil Action No. 94-1648
.
· RESPONSE CONTAINS PROTECTED
· INFORMATION SUBJECT TO A
· CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION
· AND IS FILED UNDER SEAL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FRED H. RYERSE. ~ llI..,
Defendants.
RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO
DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advantage"),
by and through its undersigned counsel, and files its response to Defendant Fred H. Ryerse's
and Defendant M & T Mortgage Corporation's preliminary objections to Plaintiffs
Complaint:
1. On November 9, 1994, Defendants Fred H. Ryerse ("Ryerse") and M & T
I Mortgage Corporation ("M & Tn) filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint.
I
11 2. Defendants objected on the ground of legal insufficiency in the nature of
L
I! demurrer, or, in the alternative, a motion for more specific pleading to Count I -- Civil
:1
i i Conspiracy. Count II -- Unfair Competition. Count III -- Intentional Interference with
iI
I
I Business Relations, Count IV -- Breach of Duty of Loyally and Count V -- Breach of
Fiduciary Duty as Officer of First Advantage.
3. Defendants mischaracterize the basis of Plaintiffs claims as "the disclosure of
confidential business information and the acquisition of business opportunities". Preliminary
t'
,
II
!
Obiections of Defendants Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortval!e Comoration To Plaintiffs
Complaint (hereinafter "Defendants' Preliminarv Obiections"), , 3. Defendants preliminary
II objections are limited to allegations by Plaintiff in its Complaint that Defendants attempted to
acquire and/or disclose First Advantage confidential business information and First
Advantage business opportunities in Count I, Count II, Count III, Count IV and Count V of
I
Ii
II
Ii
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I ~
!I
II
II
II
\'
!
I
I
I
Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants' Preliminarv Obiections, , 8.
4.
Plaintiff admits that part of its causes of action are based upon Defendants'
actions which involve Defendants' improper acquisition and disclosure of confidential
business infonnation. Plaintiff denies that its Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
supports its causes of action.
5.
Plaintiff has alleged specifically that part of the grounds for Count I -- Civil
Conspiracy and Count II -- Unfair Competition is the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty
Ryerse owed First Advantage. Comolaint. " 34, 37, 38.
6.
Plaintiff stated that Ryerse had a "fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of First
Advantage with loyalty and good faith, without any self-interest or self-dealing." Ryerse
breached this duty by various conduct which included but is not limited to soliciting First
Advantage employees; by divulging and attempting to acquire confidential business
infonnation; and by divulging and attempting to acquire business opportunities of First
Advantage for M & T. All these actions occurred while Ryerse was still an Assistant Vice
President/Branch Manager of First Advantage. Comolaint," 56 & 57.
7. Defendants also are in error when they assert that the basis of Plaintiff s
claims for intentional interference with business relations, breach of duty of loyalty and
2
, ,
I
I, breach of fiduciary duty as officer of First Advantage does not adequately include
1\
II
\,
Ii
:1
II
II
I ~
"
il
I,
I'
:1
!I
II
'I
Ii
iI
I'
:1
I,
'I
II
,:
I:
,I
II
i
i
I
I
.1
I,
confidential business information. Defendants' Preliminal)' Obiections, " 25, 26, 29 & 32.
Moreover, Defendants are wrong when they state that causes of action based on breach of
duty of loyalty or breach of fiduciary duty as officer of a corporation must be limited to
statutorily defined confidential infonnation, such as trade secrets, customer lists or protected
product infonnation. Defendants' Preliminarv Obiections, , 7.
8.
Plaintiff has alleged specifically that Defendants' conduct in divulging and/or
attempting to acquire First Advantage confidential business infonnation, that is loans in the
pipeline, First Advantage's business contacts and potential mortgage clients, underpin its
causes of action for intentional interference with business relations, breach of duty of loyalty
and breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty as officer of First Advantage. Comolaint, " 36, 48,
52, & 57. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' actions in divulging and/or
attempting to acquire other infonnation relating to First Advantage's business operations
which First Advantage classifies as confidential business information (marketing strategies,
budgeting infonnation. profit and loss statements) while Defendant Ryerse was still an
"
, employee and an officer of First Advantage demonstrates disloyalty and is a breach of the
!i
II "
i: fiduciary duty Ryerse owed First Advantage. Comolaint, 53 & 57.
"
11
"
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COUNT I AND
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
I:
,
I'
I;
"
II
!I
i! conspiracy based on the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed First Advantage.
Ii
j!
\
9.
Plaintiff has pled specifically facts that support a cause of action for civil
Comolaint, " 34, 37 & 38. The facts which establish sufficiency are set forth below:
3
10.
Plaintiff has provided specific allegations of facts which demonstrate disloyalty
I
I
"
i'
I,
Ii
I:
I:
i!
I!
I
I
,
Ii
II
II
il
I
I.
II
d
"
II
Ii
'f
Ii
Ii
i!
q
I'
i'
p
II
f,
h
'I
I
i
!
i
I
ii
34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges
that Defendants Ryerse and M & T agreed to obtain confidential
business information about First Advantage's current and future
operating and marketing strategies. All parties to the conspiracy
agreed that the acquisition of First Advantage confidential
business information would begin while Ryerse was still
employed by First Advantage. Defendants Rverse and M & T
were aware that such action would breach the fiduciarY dutv of
loyalty Ryerse owed First Advantal!e.
37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges
that Defendants Ryerse and M & T agreed to solicit and acquire
for themselves these business opportunities which rightfully
belonged to First Advantage. All parties to the conspiracy
agreed that the acquisition of First Advantage business
opportunities would begin while Ryerse was still employed by
First Advantage. Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware
that such action would breach the fiducial)' dutv of loyalty
Ryerse owed First Advantal!e.
38. The conduct of Defendants Ryerse and M & T to enl!al!e
in a conspiracv to breach the fiduciarY dulY of 10vallY Ryerse
owed First Advantal!e by soliciting First Advantage employees,
bv solicitinl! First Advantal!e business opportunities. and bv
obtaininl! First Advantal!e confidential business information
while Ryerse was still emoloved bv First Advantal!e was
intentional, willful and calculated to cause damage to First
Advantage's business. Defendants knew that by inducing all
First Advantage employees to leave First Advantage and join
M & T, First Advantage would be forced to close its operation
in Central Pennsylvania. In addition. bv solicitinl! First
Advantal!e business oooortunities and acauirinl! First
Advantal!e's confidential marketinl! and stratel!V olans. M & T
acauired a sil!nificant market advantal!e in a l!eol!raohic area
where it had no orior business exoerience. (emphasis added).
I: and which are contrary to the best interests of First Advantage. The paragraphs in the
, Complaint which set forth these facts are as follows:
'i
12. On Tuesday, February 17. 1994, while Ryerse should
have been attending to business for First Advantage. Ryerse met
4
"
\tti,~~~
II
!i
'I
I'
II
II
I
I
with M & T representatives to discuss his employment
opportunities with M & T and to discuss how he would be able
to assist M & T in establishing a branch office for M & T in the
Harrisburg/Camp Hill area. Ryer5e submitted time sheets to
First Advantage for February 17th in order to be compensated
by First Advantage for his job negotiations with M & T.
II
I,
II
II
II
I
I
I
I,
II
II
I
I
I,
II
II
'I
II
q
I
IS. On Tuesday, February 22, 1994, and on Tuesday, March
1, 1994, while Ryerse should have been attending to his duties
for First Advantage, Ryerse was meeting with several M & T
representatives at M & T's offices in Buffalo, New York.
Ryerse submitted time sheets to First Advantage for February
22, 1994 and March 1, 1994 in order to be compensated by
First Advantage for his job negotiations with M & T.
17. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and, therefore, alleges
that during these meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed
[marketing strategies, expansion plans, budgeting information,
profit and loss statements. etc.] of First Advantage.
18. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and, therefore. alleges
that during these meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed
business opportunities of First Advantage in the central
Pennsylvania area.
19. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and, therefore, alleges
that during the period February 23, 1994 through March 14,
1994, while Ryerse was still employed by First Advantage,
Defendants Ryerse and M & T had additional meetings and
conversations in which they continued to discuss Ryerse's
soliciting of First Advantage employees to work for M & T and
Ryerse's acquiring First Advantage confidential business
infonnation and business opportunities in the Harrisburg/Camp
Hill area for M & T.
I'
33. In addition, Plaintiff is infonned and believes. and,
therefore. alleges that during the various meetings and
conversations between the Defendants, Ryerse revealed to
M & T confidential business infonnation of First Advantage,
including but not limited to infonnation such as First
Advantage's expansion plans; marketing strategies; and
operational strategies.
I,
,
:1
"
:!
5
-~
,'-...-.....
." .,,"cS
,,'
j.
I
I'
35. While Ryersc was still an employee of First Advantage
and as part of the conspiracy to covertly gain access to First
Advantage marketing and operating strategies, Ryerse
wrongfully attended First Advantage's production and sales
meeting on March 9, 1994 and March 10, 1994, without telling
First Advantage that he had accepted employment with a
competitor, M & T. During this meeting, First Advantage
presented its sales strategies and re..iewed marketing issues and
production goals for the entire company.
:1
I
i
36. Plaintiff also is infonned and believes, and, therefore,
alleges that during the various meetings and conversations
between the Defendants, Ryerse revealed business opportunities
of First Advantage to M & T. Moreover, Defendants knew that
by soliciting all First Advantage employees to work for M & T,
First Advantage would not be able to process loans which were
in the pipeline and these loans would become available to
M & T for closing.
I
I
I
II
,I ComDlaint," 12, 15, 17, 18, 19,33,35 & 36. See also ComDlaint, "34,37 & 38~.
I,
II
I'
I
I,
"
'I
!I
:!
11.
Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted for civil conspiracy. Defendant knowingly and with the intent to hann First
Advantage engaged in a conspiracy to breach Ryerse's fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to First
II
Ii
Advantage, that is, to act with loyalty and good faith, without any self-interest or self
i
i dealing. ComDlaint. " 34 & 38.
,
,I WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation requests that this
Ii
,i Court deny Defendants' demurrer and deny Defendants' motion for a more specific pleading
"
I
': as to Count I -- Civil Conspiracy.
II
;1
"
,
II
i
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COUNT II AND
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
6
> I,
II
II
'I
I
I
I
I Advantage. ComDlaint, , 41. The paragraph in the Complaint which sets forth these lacts is
j:
tI
"
II
Ii
I
I,
"
II
II
II
d
I
II
j!
II
q
I'
as follows:
41. Defendants Rverse and M & T enl!al!ed in unfair
comoetition bv conspirinl! to systematically induce First
Advantage's employees to resign from First Advantage and
undertake employment with M & T both before and after
Ryerse's own departure from First Advantage and by conspiring
to covenlv acauire confidential business infonnation and
business ODDortunities of First Advantal!e. with fun knowledge
that these actions were a violation of Rverse's fiduciarv dulY of
lovaltv owed to First Advantal!e. (emphasis added).
13.
In addition, Plaintiff has provided specific allegations of fact which
demonstrate disloyalty and which are contrary to the best interests of First Advantage. As
Plaintiff states, by such actions Defendants gained an unfair competitive advantage and
! I caused substantial and irreparable hann to First Advantage. The paragraphs in the
il
il
I'
d
"
,
! ~
Ii
II
II
'I
I,
I'
"
q
I'
,I
II
Complaint which set forth these facts are as follows:
9. Ryerse also supervised and participated in the solicitation
of all types of loans and he had access to confidential business
infonnation of First Advantage, such as its marketing strategies,
expansion plans, budgeting infonnation, profit and loss
statements, etc. for the entire company, not just his branch
office. Ryerse was not only responsible for the operation of the
Camp Hill office but also for assisting First Advantage to
develop and to expand its presence in the Central PeMSylvania
area. During February and March, 1994. Ryerse on behalf of
First Advantage was pursuing the expansion of Camp Hill office
into the State College, PeMSylvania area.
13. M & T understood that Ryerse was in a position to
influence other First Advantage employees to leave employment
with First Advantage. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and,
therefore, alleges that part of M & T's consideration for
offering Ryerse employment was Ryerse's ability to bring
experienced First Advantage employees with him to M & T for
employment.
;i
"
7
,.,.
II
>I
II
"
It
,I
il
II
i
i
,
i
!
!j
II
"
I,
"
II
it
,
"
"
,I
[:
,I
II
,.
I'
'I
I,
!
I
I
I
i'
I
il
I
II
!I
il
I
d
'I
I,
"
,
'I
"
'I
Ii
;-',
,-
17. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and, therefore, alleges
that during these meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed
confidential business infonnation of First AC'/antage.
Comolaint, 119, 13, 17; see also Comnlaint, 11 18,33,34,35, 36,37,38 & 39, WUJl.
14. Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted for unfair competition based on Defendants' conspiracy to breach Ryerse's fiduciary
duty of loyalty owed to First Advantage. By acquiring confidential business information as
to First Advantages' marketing strategies, expansions plans, profitability, ~, Defendants
gained an unfair competitive edge in a market where they had no prior experience.
Comolainl. 135.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation requests that this
Court deny Defendants' demurrer and deny Defendants' motion for a more specific pleading
as to Count II -- Unfair Competition.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COUNT m AND
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
15. Plaintiff has pled specifically the facts which fonn the basis of an intentional
interference with business relations cause of action. Plaintiff states that the Defendants
wrongfully interfered with Fir:;t Advantage's business relations with its employees.
Comolaint, 1 48.
16. Plaintiff has also alleged adequately that this intentional interference with First
.1
Advantage's business relations was designed to obtain First Advantage confidential business
"
., infonnation (First Advantage's business contacts and potential clients) and to result in a
~ l
"
direct loss of business opportunities and loss of profits. Plainliff states in Paragraph 36 that
8
II
I'
,
II
II "Defendants knew that by soliciting all First Advantage employee to work for M & T, First
il
I,
II
II
II
il
il
II
~ :
Advantage would not be able to process loans which are in the pipeline and these loans
would become available to M & T for closing" and Paragraph 42 states: "By inducing and
encouraging all First Advantages employees to leave First Advantage and begin working for
M & T, Defendants anticipated that they would force First Advantage to cease its operation
in Central Pennsylvania and Defendants anticipated that the former First Advantage
'I
I,
'I
'I
'I
I,
'I
I
I
,
,
il
"
I
'i
I:
.1
i'
I
II
Ii
d
!l
Ii
!j
I
employees would solicit and bring First Advantage business contacts and potential mortgage
clients with them to M & T".
17.
Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted for Intentional Interference with Business Relations. Confidential infonnation and
loss of business opportunities are properly alleged in this cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation requests that this
Court deny Defendants' demurrer and deny Defendants' motion for a more specific pleading
as to Count III -- Intentional Interference with Business Relations.
:l
I;
I
II
1I
I'
I
i,
Ii
:1
!
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COUNT IV AND
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
18.
Plaintiff denies that is has not pled facts to support is breach of loyalty cause
of action based. Disloyalty is demonstrated when an employee engages in acts of self-
Ii interest or acts which contravene the interests of an employer. Divulging or attempting to
I
acquire an employer's confidential business information for the purpose of advancing a
competitor's business and/or gaining a position with that competitor constitutes disloyalty.
"
,
9
I
,I
II
I! 19. Plaintiff properly alleged facts that demonstrate Defendants engaged in such
! I actions. The confidential infonnation which Defendant Ryerse acquired or attempted to
I acquire and disclosed to Defendant M & T includes but is not limited to First Advantage:
I
I
II
I
II
I
,
I
I
,
infonnation on employees and employee salaries; business contacts; First Advantage potential
mortgage clients; marketing strategies; expansion plans; and budgeting infonnation.
ComDlaint, " 14, 17, 19, 33, 34. 35, 36, 38 & 39, WlIil.
20.
Plaintiff also properly pled facts demonstrating Defendants actions in divulging
and/or attempting to acquire business opportunities which are properly those of First
I Advantage for M & T. The paragraphs of the Complaint which set forth these facts are as
,\
11
II
I
I
follows: ComDlaint, " 14, 18, 19, 36, 37. 38 & 39, 5!!lll'.!. Such behavior is an act which
clearly demonstrates disloyalty and constitutes an act in contravention to the interests of First
Advantage, supporting Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of duty of loyalty.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation requests that this
'I Court deny Defendants' demurrer and deny Defendants' motion for a more specific pleading
!I
II
II
il
Ii
II
II
!i
,
,I
j'
as to Count IV -- Breach of Duty of Loyalty.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COUNT V AND
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
20.
Plaintiff denies that if has not stated facts to support its cause of action for
breach of fiduciary duty as officer of First Advantage. Divulging or attempting to acquire
infonnation which is confidential, such as infonnation on employees and employee salaries.
i I business contacts, potential mortgage clients, marketing strategies, expansion plans, and
,I
,
I
budgeting infonnation, while still an employee and officer of that employer is an act of
10
C4","".".~
#..,'/''''.,'.,..'
J.,;;"~..';c;-~~'
."', ,
-, "";:,.;','.,.-
disloyalty and an act contravening the interests of First Advantage. Plaintiff properly alleged
that such actions are a part of its breach of fiduciary duty as an officer of First Advantage
I
I cause of action. ComDlaint, " 14, 17, 19, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 & 39, Wllll.
I 21. Divulging or attempting to acquire business opportUnities which are properly
I those of First Advantage, for M & T is an act of disloyalty and an act contravening the
"
I interests of First Advantage. Plaintiff properly alleged that such actions are a part of its
I breach of fiduciary duty as an officer of First Advantage cause of action. Complaint, "14,
I
118, 19,36,37,38 & 39, mm,.
I WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation requests that this
I Court deny Defendants' demurrer and deny Defendants' motion for a more specific pleading
, as to Count V -- Breach of Fiduciary Duty as Officer of First Advantage.
, Dated: November 28, 1994
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
~~
Supreme Court
J.D. No.: 62020
By:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
i. (410) 321-7310
Ii (410) 821-7918 (fax)
'\
!I
I:
,I
!,
'I
'I
!I
II
I,
II
l'
I'
,
Ii
I'
I
i
Counsel for Plaintiff
First Advantage Mortgage Corp.
11
I
I.
!
I
, '
. .
II
I
I
I
,
I
,I
I'
I
I First Advantage Mortgage Corporation to Defendant Ryerse's and Defendant
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28, 1994, a copy of Response of Plaintiff
M & T's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint was served by first class mall,
postage prepaid, upon t....e following:
Christopher C. COMer, Esq.
SCOlt D. Moore, Esq.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
,}~~
~ Joa E. Book
I
II
I
I
I
I
l/
I
I
,
i.
.'
II
II
'I
II
ij _!110m.'
!I
II
I,
!/
I
,
;' ,~
'f
r
I
:
'.';
.."..
c:n
-
:c
.~..,
>-,..
v;_
'. -
lout:.;:!
(,) ':,; ~ -:' :.c
'~~? .~-:~:
~. ;.~ ~~~:;
'. -.~
N
""
0')
<n
<'o.,J
>
c::J
:;.::
-,'J
'.f.
.,
".. :'?
"'-
...
PRAECIPE FOR LISn::-oC CASE FOR ARCL'~IE:'JT
\}Iusr be rypewrinen .llld submined in dupllc::utI
TO THE PROTHONOTARY, OF CL'~IBERL,.\.'iD COt:~TY:
Ple2M :ls1 the within :nm.r (or :h. nu::
-
, ,
.
-
P:..T:i:Li .-yaU:n,nl CJun
!E
AlJllm.nl CIJUrl
-----------------------
. CAPTION OF CASE
('nlln caption mUll be Slill.d In NIl)
First Advantage Mortgage Corporation
~~
r-l1~
C'>
J' ,
(.I..)
(PIalnlit'O
f-'
...~
~
VI.
.~;
-
t.lJ
..c:.
Fred H. Ryerse
and
M&T ~Iortgage Corporation
(Dti.ndanl)
YS.
Civil Action No.: 94-1648
I.
Sial. matter 10 be ilIJU.d (L c., jllainlifi's modon for new IrW.
de{endallt's demumr 10 ~omplaint. 'IC.):
. Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint
Identify cOllllSlI who will U1U' ~:lSI:
(a) {or jl1aindff: Joan E. Book, Esquire... KRUCHKO & FRIES
28 W. Allegheny Ave.,~uite 606,
Address: Ba 1 t imore, MD 21204
(b) ior c1ei.ntbnl: METTE EVANS & WOODS IDE
Address: 3401 *orth Front Street... P.O. Box ,5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0~50
I wW nOllfy tit parlin ill ''''riting WI:l1ln two days :!Iill :his ~:lSI has :e.n
Usud (or ilIJUm.nt._
Argument Court Date: February 1, 1995
Call of Argument List Date: J nuary 12,
..
-
J.
4.
:
Dalld: December 23, 1994
~-'
I
I
I
II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 23. 1994, a copy of Praecipe For Listing
Case For Argument was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the fOllowing:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
Christopher C. Conner. Esq.
Scott D. Moore, Esq.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PeMsylvania 17110-0950
fJ-~~
,I' .....
FIRST ADVANTAGE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
94.1648 CIVIL TERM
FRED H. RYERSE, M & T
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
BEFORE HESS AND OLER. JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER
ORDER
I ..'
AND NOW, this uo day of April, 1995, the defendants' preliminary objections to the
plaintifrs complaint arc DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
4~' A /L
Kevin A. Hess, J.
;
Joan Book, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
~ ~ t//'7j4~
~.f.
Christopher Conner, Esquire
For the Defendants
:rlm
'II "" l
. .
.",.
,~'..,' ...~,.....
oJ
.'
FIRST ADVANTAGE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
94-1648 CIVIL TERM
FRED H. RYERSE, M & T
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant
C1V1LACfION. LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECfIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
BEFORE HESS AND OLER. JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's preliminary objections to plaintiffs complaint.
Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation (now Entrust Financial Corporation) sued
defendants Mr. Ryerse and the M & T Mortgage Corporation alleging civil conspiracy, unfair
competition, and intentional interferencc'wilh business relations. The complaint alleges additional
counts of breach of loyalty and fiduciary duty against Mr. Ryerse. The claims raise questions as to
the propriety of ccrtain alleged events surrounding Mr. Ryerse's resignation from the plaintiff
mortgage company and resulting employment with the defendant business competitor. As delimited
at oral argument on February 1, 1995, thc sole remaining issue is whether plaintiff has sufficiently
pleaded that defendant Ryerse disclosed confidential busincss information to M & T.
Defendant's preliminary objeelion is in the nature of a demurrer, claiming that the facts as
alleged in the complaint fail 10 slatl~ a eausc of action for which the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A
demurrer should be sustained, of eoursc. only in eascs that arc clear and frec from a doubt that the
law will not permit rCClwery by Ihc plainliff. Gekas v. Shapp. 469 Pa. 1, 364 A.2d 691 (1976);
Jackson v. Garland. 424 Pa.Supcr. 378,381.622 A.2d 969, 970 (1993).
i'
I
I
~
,
r
t-t:Jl"'_'''''-~->;'>
94.1648 CIVIL TERM
The Plaintiff here alleges that defendant Ryerse disclosed, to defendant, M & T Mortgage,
"confidential business information of First Advantage, such as marketing strategies, expansion plans,
budgeting information, profit and loss state men Is, ete." (Complaint, para. 9) Defendant Ryerse
argues that these disclosures do not rise to Ihe level of trade seerels so as to support plaintiffs cause
of action. (Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paras. 6- 10)
Confidential business information "has been held to be property in the nature of a 'trade
secret' for which an employer is entitled to protection, independent of a non.disclosure contract,
either under the law of agency or under the law of unfair trade practices." Morl!an's Home
Eauioment Corn. v. Martucei, 390 Pa. 618,623,136 A.2d 838, 842 (1957). Pennsylvania has adopted
the definition of trade secret given in the Restatement of Torls:
A trade seerel may consist of any
formula, patlern, device or compilation
of information which is used in one's
business, and which gives him an
opportunity to obtain an advantage
over competition who do not know or
use it. It may be a formula for a
chemical compound, a process of
manufacturing, treating or preserving
materials, a pattern for a machine of
other device, or a list of customers ....
A trade secret is a process or device
for continuous use in the opera lion of
the business.
The Restatement of Torls section 757, comment b (quoted in Air Producl~ and Chemicals. Inc. v.
Johnson, 296 Pa.Super. 405, 418. 442 A.2d 1114, 1120.21 (1982)). The Courl in Morl!an's. supra,
went on to describe that confidential business information was not restricted solely to trade seerels:
[t )he character of the secrels, if they
be peculiar and important to the
business. is not material. They may be
secrets of trade, · · · or any other
2
4
94-1648 CIVIL TERM
sccrcts important to thc busincss of
thc cmploycr. Thcy, howevcr, must be
thc particular sccrcts of thc
complaining cmployer, not gcncral
secrcts of the tradc in which hc is
engagcd.
Id. Thus, wc arc satisficd that plaintiff First Advantage's claims with rcspcct to thcsc disclosurcs fall
sufficiently within thc broad scope of confidcntial busincss information for thc purpose of dcnying
preliminary objcctions. Sec Morl!an's Homc Eauinmcnt Corp.. 390 Pa. 618, 136 A.2d 838 (1957);
BIEC Int.t v. Global Steel Scrvices. Ltd.. 791 F.Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
The casc rclicd upon by dcfcndants to arguc otherwisc is Obcf!! Industrics. Inc. v. Finney.
382 Pa.Supcr. 525, 555 A.2d 1324 (1989). Without thc dcvclopmcnt of a factual rccord, wc cannot
say that this case is appositc. Thc cmployer, in Obcrll, David Finncy, had bcgun work with thc
plaintiff company as a grinder but was ultimatcly promotcd to the position of gcncral salcs manager.
Along thc way, he, naturally, cducatcd himsclf with rcspcct to thc affairs of his cmploycrs. In the
course of his cmployment, hc also came into posscssion of thrcc Icngthy reports containing dctails
of thc plaintiffs business dealings. Thc court concludcd that therc was, in Obcrl!. no cvidcnce that
Finney had takcn the reports with him or that he had rcvcaled thc contcnts of thcsc rcports to his
new employcr. Thc court dcclincd to conclude that Finncy's cxpericnce and cducation, standing
alonc, constitutcd confidcntial busincss information. At first blush, thc spccific busincss information
rcfcrrcd to in thc plaintiffs complaint, in the instant mattcr, appcars to bc particular sccrcts of thc
cmploycr as opposed to gcncral secrcts of thc tradc and thus would bc the propcr subjcet mattcr of
this kind of lawsuit.
3
~
->
94.1648 CIVIL TERM
ORDER
AND NOW, this
~.
" day of April, 1995, thc dcfcndants' prcliminary objcctions to thc
plaintifrs complaint arc DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Joan Book, Esquirc
For thc Plaintiff
-<i--rl J-
Kcvin A. Hcss, J.
/
Christophcr Conncr, Esquirc
For thc Dcfcndants
:rlm
4
'"",
t!'...'~-""
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE *
CORPORATION *
*
Plaintiff. *
*
v. * Civil Action No. 94-1648
*
FRED H. RYERSE. lU Ill., *
*
DefendanlS. *
*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . * . * . * . . . . . * * . * . * . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JmE
I
I
I! .__00"", mal.. "."'".. D.r"",,.' ."Um)""y objo<tto", 10 """tW, Compl"",
II
Ii
II
"
,
I
,
Pursuant to a stipulation agreed to on February I. 1995, during argument in the
Plaintiff hereby files ilS Amended Complaint striking the specific dollar amount in the
addendum of each count and striking its request for attorney's fees.
Dated: April 20, 1995
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Of Counsel:
~(!~
~n E. Botyk
A Supreme Court
1.0. No.: 62020
i KRUCHKO & FRIES
I Suite 606
I
I 28 West Allegheny Ave
I Baltimore, Maryland 21204
! (410) 321-7310
I (410) 821-7918 (fax)
II
II
!I
II
II
'I
II
II
.,
By:
Counsel for Plaintiff
Entrust Financial Corporation
i
I i
.
, I
,
J
:1
:,.1
d
~\'\l 2\ iU Zll "\'\ I~S
,1""
\'1.':
...'
.
, .
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE -
CORPORATION -
8910 Route 108 -
Columbia, Maryland 21045 -
-
Plaintiff, -
-
v. - Civil Action No. 94-1648
-
FRED H. RYERSE - COMPLAINT CONTAINS
318 10th Street - PROTECTED INFORMATION
II New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 - SUBJECT TO A CONFIDENTIALITY
- STIPULATION AND IS FILED
- UNDER SEAL
Defendant, -
-
and -
-
M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION -
Ninth Floor -
One Fountain Plaza -
Buffalo, New York 14203 -
-
Defendant. -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation, now Entrust
I Financial Corporation. by and through its undersigned counsel. and states:
I
II
PARTIES
Plaintiff First Advantage Mortgage Corporation. who is now doing business as I
Entrust Financial Corporation ("Entrust"). is an Ohio corporation. with its principle place of I
II business in Maryland. At all times relevant to this action. Entrust had a branch office at 2i4 II,.
Ii
Ii
,I
:1
,
1.
'.~
1
I
j
l
I
t
II
"
II
II s,... ^ """'. "'mp /j 11/. ""''''y I"", 170 II .230 I "C'mp /j ii' om",,) "'d , ".m.
'I
II
Ii .m"" 930 SoJ "'" Coo,. Lo"""'''. P""'yJ""" 17"'1 "Lao",., Olf"",).
II
II Slreel. New Cumberland, PennsYlvania 17070.
"
II
./
'I
I,
iI P,J..JpJ, pJ", 'fb"'J,,,,,, 0,,, M & T PI",. B.ff.,.. Now y". /4203. M & T....
if
I'
., ""J"""" 0, C""'''''',''''',,, .r "","',,"",. ,"" ... "" orr"" " 645 Nonh '2" S_.
Ii
"
Ii
Ii I.o""'YOO. "",,"'" ''''''. , 7043 ."" .. .m" " 930 Rod R,,", CO,". S"1e 200. ...........,
Ii
'I
I, Pennsylvania 17601.
II
I
II
II
II
I! $25.000. The M",,,,,o, ."" "'''''' "r d," C.,," " ""'.oJ p""'" to S",,, J 006. IIl2J
:1 """ 2 J 79 or 0, P""'yJ ",. S ",,, or c, ," P,""",re.
I.
'! I
'I ,
II I
II
II !
/I 5. ,
iI I
.1 i I ^"go" 3/. 1 "2 ".."" M""" 3/. 1994. E.."" 'P<"lod . ""00" om" J, Comp HiJI. "
II P""yl "',.. V"'"m", P"''''''''d "0'...., I.... J, C,,,,,, ""'"y I"",. ro, I
II C""""""". Y"'. """y. o."p"" ."" Lo,,,,,.. "'''''''. O""og M_, '!l94. E.",,, I
II '''''Oy<<! "''''' "0""" I.., rep""",,",,,,,,. '0", '''' p""",",~, ... oJ_. 0", "",re"
II
,1 _"10.. '",..,,""."" 0.. A...","" Yk, p'''''''''"M...,.., B"""h M'",,,,, J.
II
'I
I i Camp Hill Office.
:/
II
j;
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
2.
Dor,,,,,,,,, F"", H. SYOB' "SYO~") ".. ''''''''d".' ""dJog" 318 Jlhh
3.
Dor""""" M & T M..."" Co""",,~, I'M & V') ". _J"" wJ" J.
4.
JURISDICTION ANI) VENf,lJj;
TlJis is a civil action at law i/l which the claim of relief is in excess of
STATEMENT OF FACTS
E,,,,,, " · "''''''''''''''' ",.,oJ " lire '''"lee .r """... "'.'og. From
2
i!
'I
I
I
I
I i President/Mortgage Branch Manager. Ryerse was assig/led to Entrust's Camp Hill Office.
I
II
6.
On or about, July 20, 1992, Ryerse was hired by Entrust as Assistant Vice
Ryerse was employed continuously as the Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager at the
Camp Hill Office until March 14, 1994, when he resig/led from employment with Entrust.
7. In his position as Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager of the Camp Hill
II
I! office, Ryerse was responsible for the administration and operation of the Camp Hill office,
II
I
,
"
I!
'i
I,
II
Ij
Ii
ii responsible for the entire personnel function of the Camp Hill office. He was accountable
'I
1/
'I
'I
II
II
"
Ii
Ii
'I
I:
l!
I'
Ij
and therefore, he had the authority to enter into contracts with suppliers, vendors, etc., on
behalf of Entrust. In addition, he was responsible for ensuring that the office was in
compliance with all federal and state laws and regulations governing the operation of
mortgage banking. Ryerse was accountable for the profitability of and expenses incurred by
the office. He developed and monitored the budget for the Camp Hill office.
8.
In his position as Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager, Ryerse also was
for staffing the office and had the authority to hire. fire, suspend, discipline and promote
employees. He developed the projected budget for each loan mortgage representative.
9.
Ryerse also supervised and participated in the solicitation of all types of loans
and he had access to confidential business information of Entrust, such as its marketing
strategies, expansion plans. budgeting information, profit and loss statements, etc., for the
entire company, not just his branch office. Ryerse was not only responsible for the operation!
of the Camp Hill office but also for assisting Entrust to develop and to expand its presence in i
the Central Pennsylvania area. During February and March. 1994, Ryerse on behalf of
3
'i
i
i
I
i Entrust was pursuing the expansion of Camp Hill office into the State College, Pennsylvania
:1
'I
II
II
II
I'
,I
II
II
II
ii
Ii
Ii
II
ii
;1
Ii
'I
II
"
i'
Ii
'I
Ii
II
,I
:1
:!
area.
10.
During the period December, 1993, through March, 1994, Entrust was
:
involved in lease negotiations for the Camp Hill Office. Due to the growth of the business at i
,
the Camp Hill Office, Entrust was negotiating a lease for larger office space. Ryerse was
involved in these lease negotiations and was in a position to inlluence the choice of location.
11.
While Ryerse was still employed by Entrust, he was approached by Corporate
Management Advisors, Inc., an employment placement agency, about a position with M & T
Mortgage Corporation. M & T planned to expand its operation into the Central Pennsylvania:
,
:
area. Corporate Management Advisors, Inc. invited Ryerse to interview with M & T.
12.
On Tuesday, February 15, 1994. while Ryerse should have been attending to
business for Entrust, Ryerse mel with M & T representatives to discuss his employment
opportunities with M & T and 10 discuss how he would be able to assist M & T in
establishing a branch office for M & T in the Harrisburg/Camp Hill area. Ryerse submitted
time sheets to Entrust for February 15th in order to be compensated by Entrust for his job
negotiations with M & T.
13. M & T understood that Ryerse was in a position to influence other Entrust
I employees to leave employment with Entrust. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and,
therefore, alleges that part of M & T's consideration for offering Ryerse employment was
Ryerse's ability to bring experienced Entrust employees with him to M & T for employment. :
!I
!i
"
i'
4
I
,I
Ii
It
ii
"
II
II
II
I and could acquire Entrust's confidential business information and information on Entrust's
,I
II
I
Ii
II
I
I
,I
Ii
II
il
I
I
I
i
11
!I
I
!
,
,I
,I
II
I,
d
II
L
:1
il
I!
i'
14.
M & T understood thllt Ryerse was in a position in which Ryerse had access to
business opportunities in the Central Pennsylvania area. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and, therefore, alleges that part of M & T's consideration for offering Ryerse employment
was Ryerse's ability to bring contidential business information about Entrust and Entrust's
business opportunities with him to M & T.
15.
On Tuesday, February 22. 1994, and on Tuesday, March I, 1994, while
Ryerse should have been attending to his duties for Entrust, Ryerse was meeting with several
M & T representatives at M & T's offices in Buffalo, New York. Ryerse submitted time
sheets to Entrust for February 22, 1994 and March I, 1994 in order to be compensated by
Entrust for his job negotiations with M & T.
16.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and. therefore, alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed not only his employment with M & T but also the
prospect of staffing the proposed M & T office with Entrust employees.
17.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore. alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed confidential business information of Entrust.
18.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that during these
meetings, Ryerse and M & T discussed business opportunities of Entrust in the cenlral
Pennsylvania area.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and, therefore, alleges that during the
period February 23, 1994 through March 14, 1994, while Ryerse was still employed by
Entrust, Defendants Ryerse and M & T had additional meetings and conversations in which
5
I
I,
"
I!
;]
'I
! I they continued to discuss Ryerse's soliciting of Entrust employees 10 work for M & T and
JI
I' I
II Ryerse's acquiring Entrust confidential business information and busines5 opportunities in the
'I
II Harrisburg/Camp Hill area for M & T. I
II I
II
,
I
i
I
20.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that during the first
week of March, 1994, Ryerse accepted employment with M & T.
21.
On March 14, 1994, Ryerse notified Entrust that he was resigning and that he
would be working for M & T Mortgage Corporation.
COUNT I - CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Plaintiff realleges and incorporales herein by reference as though fully set forth
paragraphs I through 21 inclusive above. and further states and alleges as follows:
I
'1
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore, alleges that during the
various meetings and numerous telephone conversations between Defendants Ryerse and
M & T, Defendants Ryerse and M & T agreed to a course of business conduct with
,
I, knowledge that implementation of their business plan would injure, cause damage to and ruin I
,I
q Entrust's Central Pennsylvania operation. Specifically, Defendants Ryerse and M & T
I,
I,
II,
agreed to solicit all Entrust's employees, except Barbara Kern, to work with Ryerse for
11
ii
! i M & T at its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill office. All parties to the conspiracy agreed
I,
"
.,
II that the solicitation of employees would begin while Ryerse was still employed by Entrust.
!,
I i Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware that such action would breach the fiduciary duty
I
,
/
I of loyalty owed Entrust by Ryerse.
23. In furtherance of this conspiracy and while Ryerse was still employed by
Entrust, Ryerse, identifying himself as Assistant Vice President of M & T, submitted to
6
Nicholas L. Buscaglia ("Buscaglia"), Administrative Vice President, Residential Mortgage of
M & T, a confidential memorandum summarizing "Potential Employee Biographies". This
memorandum was dated March 8, 1994 and transmitted to M & T through Entrust's
facsimile machine. In the memorandum, Ryerse identitled as potential employees individuals
who at the time were employed by Entrust and an individual whom he had been recruiting
for Entrust for its proposed State College, Pennsylvania office. In the memorandum, Ryerse
outlines each individual's background, strengths, weaknesses, and current salary. Ryerse
also noted whether the individual would be better suited for a different position in M & T's
operations. See copy of Memorandum dated March 8, 1994, Exhibit I.
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that while still an
employee of Entrust and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Ryerse did solicit Entrust
employees to leave Entrust and to come with him to M & T. Even before Ryerse submitted
his resignation from employment to Entrust, Ryerse had the commitment of several
employees to follow him to M & T.
I
I i leave Entrust and to recruit Entrust employees for M & T, Defendants Ryerse and M & T
,j
II
.,
'i
,
I
25.
In furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to induce Entrust employees to
agreed to schedule a meeting on or about March 15, 1994, in the Harrisburg/Camp Hill area
during which Ryerse and representatives from M & T would meet with Entrust employees to
induce them to work for M & T. Defendants made preparations for this meeting on or about
Ii
! March 10, 1994.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that on or about
Saturday, March 12, 1994, while Ryerse was still an employee of Entrust and in furtherance
7
. . '~\1:.a:".'"''
,...y.".,,,_,.,.i.,,.~_. .:~~.".),
of the conspiracy, Ryerse held a meeting with all Entrust mortgage loan representatives at
Enlrust's Camp Hill office. At this meeting, Ryerse solicited all the mortgage loan
representatives to leave Entrust and to work for M & T.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that while still an
employee of Entrust and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Ryerse let it be known to Entrust
employees that M & T would be in town on March 15, 1994, to meet with Entrust
employees to discuss employment for its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill area office. Ryerse
asked all Entrust employees, except Barbara Kern, to meet with M & T.
28. Plaintiff also is informed and believes. and, therefore, alleges that in
furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to induce employees to resign from Entrust and to
join M & T, Ryerse made derogatory comments to Entrust employees about the manner in
which Entrust treated its employees.
29. On March 14, 1994, while still officially an employee of Entrust, Ryerse
continued his efforts in furtherance of the conspiracy to solicit Entrust employees to work for
i
III
M & T. Ryerse approached all Entrust employees, except Barbara Kern, and set up a time
"
Ii
Ii
II
,I
I'
,I
j'
Ii
"
Ii
Ii
'I
I,
I
II
.,
Ii
Ii
II
"
I:
!I
I!
ii
i:
,
for them to meet with M & T on Tuesday, March IS, 1994. Using work time which should
have been devoted to Entrust business and using Entrust equipment and materials, Ryerse
faxed a memorandum to Nicholas Buscaglia, Administrative Vice President of M & T,
confirming the March 15, 1994 scheduled meetings with Entrust employees. In addition,
Ryerse informed Buscaglia that he had the verbal commitment of all Entrust employees with
whom he already spoke that they would follow him to M & T. In this memorandum, Ryerse !
8
,
II
II identified himself as Assistant Vice President of M & T. See copy of Memorandum dated
Ii
I
March 14, 1994, Exhibit 2.
30. On March IS, 1994, Ryerse and representatives of M & T met with Entrust
employees as planned.
31.
On or about March IS, 1994, M & T officially confirmed the offers of
I
I employment it made to all Entrust employees, except Barbara Kern.
Ii
I
I
I
I
32.
On March 18, 1994, cleven of the thirteen employees who worked at Entrust's
Camp Hill Office turned in their resignations. Eight of these employees commenced
employment with M & T.
33. In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that
II during the various meetings and conversations between the Defendants, Ryerse revealed to
'I
II M & T confidential business information of Entrust, including but not limited to information
I,
,
I i such as Entrust's expansion plans; marketing strategies: and operational strategies.
II
I
Ii
"
'I
Ii
"
I!
I
,
I
34.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that Defendants
Ryerse and M & T agreed to obtain confidential business information ab?ut Entrust's current
and future operating and marketing strategies. All parties to the conspiracy agreed that the
acquisition of Entrust confidential business information would begin while Ryp.~se was still
I
I
I
I
I
35. While Ryerse was still an employee of Entrust and as part of the conspiracy to I
covertly gain access to Entrust marketing and operating strategies, Ryerse wrongfully I
I
i
employed by Entrust. Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware tbat such action would
breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed Entrust.
attended Entrust's production and sales meeting on March 9, 1994 and March 10, 1994,
9
;~~:?
r~"""'~~:,^'" . .,...,_
without telling Entrust that he had accepted employment with a competitor, M & T. During
this meeting, Entrust presented its sales strategies and reviewed marketing issues and
production goals for the entire company,
36. Plaintiff also is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that during the
various meetings and conversations between the Defendants, Ryerse revealed business
opportunities of Entrust to M & T. Moreover, Defendants knew that by soliciting all Enlrust
employees to work for M & T, Entrust would not be able to process loans which were in the
pipeline and these loans would become available to M & T for closing.
37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and, therefore, alleges that Defendants
Ryerse and M & T agreed to solicit and acquire for themselves these business opportunities
which rightfully belonged to Entrust. All parties to the conspiracy agreed that the acquisition
of Entrust business opportunities would begin while Ryerse was still employed by Entrust.
Defendants Ryerse and M & T were aware that such action would breach the fiduciary duty
of loyalty Ryerse owed Entrust.
I
I
Ii breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty Ryerse owed Entrust by soliciting Entrust employees, by
II
I
I
,
I
Ii
I
\,
Ii
I'
i!
)i
Ii
!
li
lj
.1
38.
The conduct of Defendants Ryerse and M & T to engage in a conspiracy to
soliciting Entrust business opportunities, and by obtaining Entrust confidential business
information while Ryerse was still employed by Entrust was intentional, willful and
calculated to cause damage to Entrust's business. Defendants knew that by inducing all
Entrust employees to leave Entrust and join M & T, Entrust would be forced to close its
operation in Central Pennsylvania. In addition, by soliciting Entrust business opportunities
10
-'""!.".
I
I
I
I
!I
II
'I
"
I
I,
I!
Ii
!I
, "
, I,
:1'.
, !(
, II
1:
and acquiring Entrust's confidential marketing and strategy plans, M & T acquired a
significant market advantage in a geographic area where it had no prior business experience.
39. As a direct result of the Defendants' conspiracy, Entrust was forced to close
its Camp Hill Office and its Lancaster Office and was compelled to curtail any expansion
efforts and to cease doing business in the Central Pennsylvania area. Entrust suffered severe
economic injury, including loss of experienced employees, loss of business, lost profits, and
other compensatory damages.
40. In intentionally conspiring to solicit Entrust employees and to acquire Enlrust
confidential strategic operating and marketing information and business opportunities,
Defendants Ryerse and M & T acted with actual malice, ill-will and spite toward Enlrust.
Entrust is entitled to punitive damages as a result of Defendants' intentional, willful,
malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Entrust requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants Ryerse and M & T in excess of $25,000, together with interest and costs.
COUNT II - UNFAIR COMPETITION
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
paragraphs I through 40 inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
41. Defendants Ryerse and M & T engaged in unfair competition by conspiring to
systematically induce Entrust's employees to resign from Entrust and undertake employment
with M & T both before and after Ryerse's own departure from Entrust and by conspiring to
covertly acquire confidential business information and business opportunities of Entrust, with
11
I,
full knowledge that these actions were a violation of Ryerse's fiduciary duty of loyalty owed
to Entrust.
42. The purpose of this enticement of all Entrust employees was to cripple and
destroy Enlrust as a competitive mortgage operation rather than to obtain the services of
particularly gifted or skilled employees. By inducing and encouraging all Entrusts employees
to leave Entrust and begin working for M & T, Defendants anticipated that they would force
Entrust to cease its operation in Central Pennsylvania and Defendants anticipated that the
former Entrust employees would solicit and bring Entrust business contacts and potential
mortgage clients with them to M & T.
43. The purpose of unlawfully acquiring Entrust's confidential business
information and business opportunities also was to cripple and destroy Entrust as a
I competitive mortgage operation and to gain an unfair market advantage in a geographic area
I
I
I
I
I
II
,I
'I
Ii
Ii
I
i
!
which was entirely new to M & T.
44.
Defendants' motive in taking these actions was intentional, willful, and
calculated to cause damage to Entrust's business in Central Pennsylvania and to gain an
unfair competitive advantage in the mortgage banking business in Central Pennsylvania.
45.
As a direct result of Defendants' conduct, Entrust has suffered severe
economic injury, including loss of experienced employees, loss of business, lost profits and
other compensatory damages.
46. In systematically inducing Entrust employees to resign from Entrust and
undertake employment with M & T and in unlawfully acquiring Entrust confidential business
information and business opportunities, Defendants Ryerse and M & T acted with actual
12
'i
Ii
I malice, iII.will and spite toward Entrust. Entrust is entitled to punitive damages as a result
I
I
I
It
,I
I
I
I
of Defendants' intentional, willful, malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Entrust requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants Ryerse and M & T in excess of $25,000, together with interest and costs.
COUNT III --INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
I i Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs I through 46 inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
47.
Defendants Ryerse and M & T by their conduct hereinabove described,
I intentionally interfered with the business relations of Entrust.
I
II
I
!I
48.
While Ryerse was still employed by Entrust, Defendants intentionally
interfered with Entrust's business relations with its employees with the intent to improperly
i i staff its proposed Harrisburg/Camp Hill area office with experienced personnel who were
II
I
Ii
:1
Ii
i!
.,
I'
II
d
i
t
!
knowledgeable about mortgage banking and who had established business contacts in the
Central Pennsylvania area, and with the further intent to strip Entrust of skilled workers and
to desfroy Entrust's lawful business in the Central Pennsylvania area.
49.
The conduct of Defendants Ryerse and M & T in systematically soliciting and
inducing First employees to quit their employment with Entrust and to join M & T was
: I intentional, willful and calculated to cause damage to Entrust's lawful business. By
I
I
I
,
depriving Entrust of its established workforce, Defendants knew they would put Entrust out
of business in Central Pennsylvania. As a result, approximately eleven employees of Entrust
I.
j;
I
/
!
,
resigned their employment with Entrust and eight of these resignees went to work for
I:
13
: ~
II
,I
II
Ii M & T. Consequently, Entrust was forced to terminate its mortgage banking business in
II
I'
,
,
,
Central Pennsylvania.
so.
As a result of Defendants Ryerse and M & T's conduct, Entrust has suffered
severe economic injury, including loss of employees, loss of business, lost profits, and other
compensatory damages.
II
'I with actual malice, ill-will and spite toward Entrust. Entrust is entitled to punitive damages
II
L
Ii
'I
l.
ii
I
I
,
I
II
II
I,
51.
In intentionally interfering with Entrusts business relations, Defendants acted
as a result of Defendants' intentional, willful, malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Entrust requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants Ryerse and M & T in excess of $25,000. together with interest and costs.
COUNT IV -- BREACH OF DUTY OF LOYALTY
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
paragraphs I through 5 I inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
52. By soliciting Entrust employees for M & T, by divulging and attempting to
acquire Entrust confidential business information for M & T and by divulging and attempting
to acquire Entrust business opportunities for M & T while he was still an employee of
Entrust, Defendant Ryerse breached the duty of loyalty he owed Entrust.
53. The conduct of Ryerse in soliciting Entrust employees and in divulging and
attempting to acquire Entrust confidential business information and business opportunities for
M & T was intentional, willful and calculated to cause damage to Entrust's lawful business.
14
15
I
I
54. By virtue of Ryerse's breach of the duty of loyalty, Entrust has suffered severe I
,
economic injury, including loss of employees, loss of business, lost profits, and other
compensatory damages.
55. In breaching the duty of loyalty, Defendant Ryerse acted with actual malice,
iII.will and spite toward Entrust. Entrust is entitled to punitive damages as a result of
Defendants' intentional, willful, malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Entrust requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendant Ryerse in excess of $2S,OOO, together with interest and costs.
COUNT IV.. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
AS OFFICER OF ENTRUST
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth
I paragraphs I through SS inclusive above, and further states and alleges as follows:
I,
56.
At all times relevant, Defendant Ryerse was an Assistant Vice
President/Branch Manager of Entrust. In his position as Assistant Vice President/Branch
Manager, Ryerse had a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of Entrust with loyalty and good
faith, without any self-interest or self-dealing.
57. Ryerse breached his fiduciary duties to Entrust by acting conlrary to the best
I
I
I
I
,
II
II
I
I
',' I
I
r I
r II
Ii
[ Ii
i-:. d
t .,
Ii
/: ..
" :1
! '1
,
interest of Entrust by soliciting Entrust employees and by divulging and attempting to acquire
confidential business information and business opportunities of Entrust for M & T while he
was still an Assistant Vice President/Branch Manager of Entrust.
, ,.
(A, .,
58. By virtue of Ryerse's breach of his fiduciary duties owed to Entrust, Entrust
has suffered severe economic injury, including loss of employees, loss of business, lost
profits, and other compensatory damages.
59. In breaching the duty of loyalty, Defendant Ryerse acted with actual malice,
ill-will and spite toward Entrust. Entrust is entitled to punitive damages as a result of
Defendants' intentional, willful, malicious and wrongful actions against it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Entrust requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendant Ryerse in excess of $25,000, together with interest and costs.
Dated: April 20, 1995
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By:
Of Counsel:
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Ave
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310
(410) 821-7918 (fax)
Counsel for Plaintiff
Entrust Financial Corporation
__..Ulnl
16
F;tar;_i'~';c'.
".,-, .' ';-;C'~:'''''r..-
410-740-1715 lADU MTG COLUMBIA MD
800 Pel
FlPR 20 '95 14153
S'1",\'fE Ol" M i\.1( \' I.AM)
COUNTY OF HO\\'ARV
I
I
)
s:t:
U'J::.!J.L~'i. L(
Oeron: (lie:, a N~'IlU'l> Puhhc in and for ~aitl ":\ll111I)' and ~lul~, Iln thl.: lOlll ,lilY
of April, 1995, rcrsO)lllllly appeared lames W. Rakl:l \Vb} beillg rltll)' sworn llc~urdj~
to law. depusc~ and ~a)':; tllM he b lhe r.xt'tulive Yke President of F.!ltl'Usl fiuallcial
CUl'JXlratiou, tho within nliJl1l:u plai.ntiff. und lhe ia.:t:: ~Cl f(!lth in the farcaoing
Amended Coroplnintllle Irll" and COl~Cl tl' hi& 1l!;'1~"na! knowledge, in(omlatioll :Lud
belief.
f
.. __ :0;l1~JlL~j -.. .~.__.-
My Conulli~si(.)n c:xpire~: M,~Il"'Io., !llphs'FetmlCllV 1l ,~
j
,
,
, ,,:,: I~
_c. 3.,J.o;.l ~i-';J'
-~~~.,'':'"
..................... ,.,-
~. t."':~ t...:
""i ,.,
......i-~.' ~ ,~..
".- ".:r' ~?,
rJoJ jV'~'
. " ,.J'
.:.;~
'.
.--'" "'---,".
17177309~~8 CAMP HILL
555 P01
MAR 08'94 17:3:
1-..0. 1>,..1..
-tt or. ~",M(. M' _
::r.u.~e-.... ,.... '-...... v-. ~--
L. KO"'t." II- -s" voL cJ.~c..a .,.
"II 1\--':.01.....1+ ~.lL&IW-~ ,...=-~
". .... ,,..c.. ..
1>. ElrtL'k- 1't"I~ c. $-
'D I"'C,UJ..... - L.-
1; 1...:11/)1:1.., - !Il'."II
t'U\~'~~~
Memorandum
From:
SubJ~ct?
.)I~"
,.t':'" ,.'
~:' : c.:..... .
Dale: March 8, 1994
To:
Nicholas L Buscaglia, Admlnistralive Vice President
EXHIBIT
1
cc:
I'
,'.
.~~
,~.
J
~
F " . lilt Vice President
Potenlial Employel Biographies
. 1). Janet L!Ile ':"Mortgage Loan Officer in the Harrisburg area. In 1993 her production
was S 17 million. She started work for me in November 1992. Prior to First
Advantage she was employed as a senlement officer/relocation director for a
Hearthstone Better Homes and Garden. She is an intensely private individual. Let her
- - -
tell you about yoursel~ without disclosing what I am telling you here. Strengths-
Passionate about great customer service, plays the numbers well, and has an extremely
loyal fotlowing ofRea1tors. Weakness' - Very linle, passion can sometimes get
negatively out of control.
2)' Linda Kosich - Mortgage Loan Officer in the Lancaster area. Linda is my most recent
hire (February 1994), Her husband transferred to the Lancaster area from Boston. In
Boston she was an operations supervisor ofMo.nJUlge COlJ!2!ation of the East, which
did approximately $]00 million in 1993. She is a dynamo of activity, with a real
potential of being a super star in mortgage banking:-Tbave her budgeted to do 512
million in 1994. Strengths. Great product knowledge, super personality, the
complete package as a loan officer. Weakness'. Again very little, new to the area.
,3) .Pamela Fisher. Operations ~~rvisor Pam was my first hire in September of 1992.
She is ,probably mymost loy employee, She brings v,;th her a wealth of experience
from] 0 years at Centrai Pennsylvania Savings Bank in their mortgage depanment. In
what can be an extremely harried business, she brings with her an element of calm in
the eye of the storm. She has the respect of her employees. and is able to get the most
out of people. Currenr sala')' : S30K pillS quarterly illcentil'l! based on office
production. she math one incentive in 1993 of 5900. Stren~hs - Loyalty, employee
relations. Wefillmess' - Doesn't tend to be a self starter at looking at the efficiency of
the operation and making changes, also doesn't tend to be technically minded,
however she does know where to get the answers. .- -
4) . Ron Heberlig . Mortgage Loan Officer in Harrisburg area. Ron started with me in
March orl993 , He was managed the commercial loan division of CCNB bank for
over 20 years: The transition from conunerciallending to retail mortgage banking has
been slower for Ron. however he has a huge contaet base from his years in the area.
In 1993, R.on originated S:l,MilIion from M!'y ul!til the end of the year. Significantly,
-:.: ..~..;, .
"", , '.~~:..' .~., ~
'IS' .......0...._
~..:-u..:. "'.1'.,,, to t'
Oz-.~.' ,r.
...t..........~
r._._..'.. .
--.::;...~
------ ..'
~ -
~.
. . -,.:~:.
.. ...,~.
...." ~-
17177309808 CAr1F ,-lIl..L...
555
MAR ~S'9...t 17:3:
J-
...
:r,.....~
Ron originated S8OO,000 this past February. Ron would benefit greatly with a
compctitivc con~tionlpenn product, Hc has significant contacts in thc building
industry which is rclativcly sp'CaKing untapped. StrenKth. - Contacts, dctail oricnted.
Weakness' . Longcr learning curve, not an overly aggressive salesman.
- --
5) DOMa Goss . Mortgagc Loan Officcr in the Harrisburg area. I hired DOMa in J,yJy of
1993. DOMa's previous expcricnce was as rcal estate agcnt and settlement officer for
Century 21 Brencman for a number of years. She produced approlcimately $2.5
million for the si~ mOllth period. Over the last four months of the year she was
averaging approximately S72.Q..Q90 a month ~ new loans. She has significant contacts
in the real estate industry, a quick mind and a great attitude. Strengths. Attention to
detail, selfstaner, Weakness'. Too much attention to detail, not as polished.
6<. Patti Greene. Mortgage Loan Officer in the Hershey area. I hircd Patti in October of
, 1993. She worked for IS years as a loan officer for Central Pennsylvania Savings
Bank. She has a good base of contacts in thc Hershey market area. I have Patti
budgeted to do S8.5 million for 1994. She certainly has the potential of doing much
more than that. Strengths - Well polished, attention to detail, great product
knowledge. Weakness' - Independently wealthy, sometimes lacks raw sales hunger.
'1., 7) Michcllc Cronrath . Mongage Processor. Michellc was hired in December 1992 with
3 years previous experience at Central PeMsylvania Savings Bank. Shc is easily my
most dedicated employee. She is frequcntly complimentcd on the quality ofhcr work
b)' thc main office. Michelle will work until the job is donc, she gives 150%. She has
developcd a complete product knowledge. She was my cmployce of the ycar for
'.' 1993. CurrclIr salary : S21K. Strengths - Dedication to doing a great job.
Weakness' - ~ot as polished, sometimes comes across v.Tong with customers.
8) Joan Cook - Closing Coordinator. Joan was hircd in March, 1993 as a receptionist.
She has takcn ovcr a new fUnCtion for First Advantage and is now the prototype for
the corporation. In the M&T scheme oCthings, she needs to be a closer. Right now
she gathers all thc documcnts (Titlc bindcr, tennite, wcll. septic. compliance
inspections), coordinates the date v.ith all parties and assists in clearing conditions.
This only thing she is not doing is drawing thc senlement package and cutting the
check. Current'valary: SJ6.5K. Strengths-'-Attention to detail, good customer
servicc. Weakness' - none' _.-.
- '.
'9)~ "Barb Kcm - Senior Loan Processor, I hired Barb in January of 1994. Barb worked
for 4 years v.ith Sears Mortgage Corporation. and prior to that a number of years with
',. <': GMAC mortgage, She brings v.ith her a tremendous knowledge base ofmongage
processing, Current sa/ary: S2iK. Strengths - Great product knowledge.
Weakness' . Tends to be opinionated, sOlllewhat sct in ways. (don't rcad too much
into this, just be conscience of it )
t""'." T'
,.. '...
,': t..
10) Stacey Haldennan.Harbst . Loan Processor, I hired Staccy in August of 1993. Stacey
is casily my most polished loan proccssor. She prc\;ously worked for PHEA(the
PCMsyl\1lnia student loan servicing center. Stacey is young, el\.1remely intelligent, and
17177309808 CAMP Hl~~
555 ~03
MAR OS''='4 17:3-"
, .
dedicated. Cu"ent salary: SJ6K. Strenllth.. Intelligence and good alstomer
servicc instincts. WeakneJl' - Rclative inexpericnce in mortgage ban1cing.
II)P. Wachipi San - Mortgage Processor. I hircd Chipi in July of 1993. She also worked
for PHEA. Chipi had a baptism of fire in mortgage banking. With no direct mortgage
banking experience, she immcdiatcly stepped into a caseload of'SO cascs. While her
lack of'product knowledge showed through, she caught on beautifully. She is easily
the most intelligcnt person on staft: She is a graduate of Messiah College with honors,
and the valedictorian of her high school class. Cu"ent .salary: SJ7K. Strengths-
Great customer service, and at this point a good working knowledge base.
Weakness' - relativc inexperiencc Icvel.
12) Dan McCuen - Mortgage Loan Officcr in the Lancaster area. I hired Dan in Au~st of
1993. Prior to working for First Advantage, Dan was a mortgage loan officer with
First Lancaster FlI!!.ding Corpo!!tion. Dan has been a consistent S 1 0 million a year
10anOilicer for his prior firm, and produced S4 million for the last S months of 1993
"ith First Advantage. Strengths - Good image, 10+ years in real estate/mortgage
banking. WealaJess' - Not technically strong.
,/ 13) Barbara Loviskey. Mortgage Loan Officer in State Collegc. Barb currently works for
PNC mortgage. I have heavily recruitcd Barb to cornc work for First Advantage, and
I believe she is 90% there towards making that decision. I am due to meet with ber
this Friday. I obviously don't know how she will react to my leaving. She bas only
been in mortgage banking for six months, however she has done S5 million during the
last six months of 199j, and prior to tbat spent 19 years as a real estate broker in Statc
Collcge.
FHR.
1?17730ge~8 CAMP HILL
...~'El ~Ol
MAR 104'<;104 101:;':
Wowll! 1 hope you arc prepared Cor an InsIant ol!1ce, We have to have the abUlly ofbeln, up in
operation by the end of the wedt, 1 am going 10 deliver these people to you, and 1 don't mind A);III \hat ~??'
they are a Iiale scared. The Collo\\ing Is a list of items that would be food to bnllll. IA'''' :':Ib.
1. An)' Hwnan R:sowce inConnation to Jel my people procelScd throuJh this departlRent AS qulclcly IS \
poJIllllc.
2. The a4venlsing and marketing binder thai I v.'U prlvelelled 10 lee In BlI&1o. .;
3. All paJlCf"'Ork necessary to talce loan oppli~tJons.
4. Produa R.eCerence lUides.
1 have hod a leak O\'er the ....eekend. DOMa Closs lws d"lded 10 jO wlth Sw1l'NC ~fun'Ait, and Iw
already lnConned them oC....bat m)' ot5c:e Is plllnning 10 do, Janet Lane and I are t:\'l1.mely concerned that
she will be able to C:Jpitilize on the downtime in bet....een campanili with our cUrnu. Inhlall)', J w:u
hopillJ Cor an extremely quick twO "uk tr.IIIslllon pcnod. Now. J believe \\1:ll.'I\'e 3 \l1ndow oC
opponunil)' oC no more than a lightning fasl one week.
On a more posllh,: note. Linda KOlich and Ron HeberUll ha\" verball)' amed to remain with me, a1on,
with Cl'Cl)Wdy dsc J have tI1lcc4 to to c1ntc In my office. Today, I ani inConnln; SIAc:e~' Halderman-
Harbst, Chipi San. Barb Kem. and Dan McCuen.
Your ltineral)' for Tuesda~' so Car :
Janet l.3ne
Ron Hebertig
'J)c"~ C.,to'H
Linda Kos!:"
'::)....... f'\ Lvc",
Pam Fisher, -
C,' :"il_
......,'v..
If ......--
Catl:
To:
cc:
From:
SUbject:
. 12:00
. 1:00
':':0:
. 3:30
"~?1:
. $:30
FHIl
EXHIBIT
Mftmo(@ndum
J
_2
MarCh 14. lVe4
Nick Buscaglia, AdmlnlstraUvl Vice Pruldlnt
CONFIDENTIALI
F/~ e'rse III. Assistant Vice President
Items to bnng
.'
~, ..A , "'J'
,- ,,,.,. ,-
. I ,;
,-..t:-:',,~.,...,...
, .
/-e. !:"~'"
!:: ' "'.'j
",co ,_,
, .
'. t,.
-
,,-"~"'"
i: f~ < - ,"".
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 20th day of April, 1995 a copy of
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Line were served by first-class mail, postage prepaid
upon:
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
MEETE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-0950
'.
,
......
C7) --:...
:or:
.".
."
'"
e)
r-..j
'"
,..
-:
\".
,,-
."-:i.......-~
.,
~
...
"
.
,
.
T~:'~"t~~!!:'/ 'f ~ ~~~.:'.' -, ;;, ,;;-~ -
: ~,,-,::::,:<:/'~"J?-'~'.;r/.",
..
r
~
.
I
,
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CORPORATION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
No. 94.1648
v.
FRED H. RYERSE and M & T
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants,
~
TO: First Advantage Mortgage Corporation. Plaintiff
clo Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Allegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty
(20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By: ~
Christo er C. Conner. Esquire
Sup. Ct. 1.0. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation
Date: ;:;f)'/7'r"
, .' ;:7'~
h;~ .
-'''''-'''-'''''.".' l!
":;.:r'-'~'v*~
"
..
~
.
I
..
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CORPORATION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
No. 94-1648
v.
FRED H. RYERSE and M & T
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants,
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO
eLAlNTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Defendants, FRED H. RYERSE and M & T
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, by and through its counsel, Mette, Evans and
Woodside, to file the following Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of
Paragraph 1. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at the time of trial.
2. The material averments of Paragraph 2 are admitted except that
Defendant Ryerse's residence address Is 115 Welty Avenue, Dlllsburg, York County,
Pennsylvania, 17019.
3. Admitted in part and denied In part. It Is admitted only that Defendant
M & T Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter "M & r') maintains offices In Lemoyne and
Lancaster as noted in Paragraph 3. The remaining averments of Paragraph 3 are
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
,.
...
.
.
..
/
4. The averments of Paragraph 4 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation ("First Advantage") engaged in the practice of
mortgage banking through a branch office In Camp Hili, Pennsylvania from August
1992 through March 14, 1994. It is further admitted that First Advantage's office
processed mortgage loans in Central Pennsylvania for the counties noted as well as
Chester, Berks, Adams and Mifflin Counties. It is specifically denied that First
Advantage employed seven mortgage loan representatives. To the contrary,
Defendants believe and therefore aver that First Advantage employed six mortgage
loan representatives. Further, Responding Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the status of First Advantage's employees
subsequent to the departure of Defendant Ryerse on or about March 14, 1994. Said
remaining averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, If admissible, Is
demanded at the time of trial.
6. Admitted In part and denied In part. It Is admitted that Defendant Ryerse
was hired In July 1992 by First Advantage. It Is specifically denied that Defendant
Ryerse was hired as a Vice President. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse's initial job
title was Producing Branch Manager. It is admitted that Defendant Ryerse was
assigned to First Advantage's Camp Hili office. It Is further admitted that Defendant
Ryerse was continuously employed wllh First Advantage until the momlng of
- 2 -
t' ,.. I .. I
March 14, 1994 when he resigned from employment with First Advantage. It is
specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse was continuously employed as Assistant
Vice President. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse received the title of Assistant Vice
President subsequent to his initial employment.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that In his position,
initially as Producing Branch Manager and later as Assistant Vice President, Ryerse
was generally responsible for the administration and operation of the Camp Hi/I office.
It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse had the authority to enter into contracts
with anyone on behalf of First Advantage. To the contrary, all contracts between the
Camp Hi/I office and any supplier, vendor, etc., was subject to the approval of First
Advantage management. Further, It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse was
responsible for insuring that the Camp Hi/I office of First Advantage was in compliance
with all federal and state laws and regulations govemlng the operation of mortgage
banking. To the contrary, First Advantage maintained a Quality ControVRegulatory
Compliance office In Maryland. Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore avers that
Ms. Lori Pearson was in charge of said Quality Control/Regulatory Compliance office.
It is admitted that Defendant Ryerse was generally responsible for the revenues and
expenses generated by the Camp HIli office. It Is further admitted that Defendant
Ryerse generally maintained a budget for the Camp Hi/I office.
8. Admitted In part and denied in part. It is admitted only that in his
position, initially as Producing Branch Manager and later as Assistant Vice President,
- 3 -
(
~
,
I
/
Ryerse was generally responsible for management of personnel in the Camp Hill
office, It Is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse had direct authority to hire, fire,
suspend, discipline anellor promote employees. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse
was required to seek permission from his immediate supervisor to undertake such
personnel actions. Further, Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore avers that First
Advantage maintained a Human Resources Department in Columbia, Maryland, which
was responsible for corporate management of human resources, including employees
In First Advantage's Camp Hill office. It Is admitted only that Defendant Ryerse was
responsible for developing estimated budgets for mortgage loan representatives.
9. Admitted in part and denied In part. It is admitted that Defendant Ryerse
supervised and participated In the processing of various types of loans. It Is admitted
that Defendant Ryerse had limited access to some confidential business information at
First Advantage as It relates to the Camp Hill office of First Advantage. It is
specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse had knowledge of expansion plans and
future budgets for the entire company and other branches. Further, Defendant Ryerse
had only limited access to marketing strategies, primarily those marketing strategies
which related to First Advantages Camp Hill office. It is admitted that Defendant
Ryerse had access to profit and loss statements. Further, It is admitted that
Defendant Ryerse Initiated the expansion of the central Pennsylvania area, specifically
Lancaster and State College. With respect to State College, Defendant Ryerse was
pursuing one particular individual for purposes of establishing a limited presence In
.4.
........,__ H._,
,
..
.
I
I
State College on behalf of First Advantage. Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore
avers that said efforts were made even before February 1994.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It Is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse was in a position to influence the lease for First Advantage's Camp HIli office.
It Is denied that Defendant Ryerse was engaged In significant lease negotiations for
the Camp Hili office from December 1993 through March 1994. To the contrary, First
Advantage was on a month-to-month lease term for its Camp Hili office. A preliminary
lease for the Camp Hili office was forwarded to Mr. Tony Swiegart for approval.
Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore avers that Mr. Swlegart made certain
changes to the proposed lease and forwarded the same to Washington, D.C. counsel
for legal review. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Ryerse is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
averments of Paragraph 10 regarding the final resolution of the subject lease for the
Camp Hili office. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at the time of trial.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted In part and denied In part. It is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse met briefly with a representative of M & T on or about February 17, 1994.
Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore avers that said meeting lasted less than
one-half hour. It Is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse submitted time sheets to
First Advantage for February 17, 1994 in order to be compensated by First Advantage
- 5 -
~ .. ~. ;.,,,~ ...;
,
~
.
I
for time expended for the brief discussion with a representative of M & T. To the
contrary, Defendant Ryerse took no such action. At all time relevant and material
hereto, Defendant Ryerse conducted First Advantage business while working for First
Advantage. On the few occasions when Defendant Ryerse took time to pursue Job
opportunities, he pursued such Job opportunities on personal time or utilized vacation
and/or personal leave.
13. Denied. It Is specifically denied that part of M & T's consideration for
offering Ryerse employment was Ryerse's ability to bring experienced First Advantage
employees to M & T for employment. To the contrary, Defendant M & T hired
Defendant Ryerse because of his ability to start a mortgage banking business in the
central Pennsylvania area. Defendant Ryerse was so hired without regard to his
purported ability to bring First Advantage employees with him to M & T for
employment.
14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant M & T hired Defendant
Ryerse because of Defendant Ryerse's access to confidential business Information
and information on First Advantage's business opportunities in the central
Pennsylvania area. To the contrary, Defendant M & T hired Defendant Ryerse
because of Defendant Ryerse's ability to start a mortgage banking business In the
central Pennsylvania area. Defendant Ryerse's access, if any, to information which
could be considered proprietary to First Advantage played no role in M & T's
employment decision.
- 6 .
-....
I
..
.
I
15. Admitted In part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about
February 22, 1994 and on or about March 1, 1994, Defendant Ryerse met with M & T
representatives in Buffalo, New York. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse
Intentionally sought to be compensated by First Advantage for his job negotiations with
M & T. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse, at a minimum, requested personal days
for February 22, 1994 and/or March 1, 1994. To the extent that Defendant Ryerse
was compensated for such time, which is specifically denied, Defendant Ryerse
submits and believes and therefore avers that said compensation was inadvertent and
unintentional.
16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse and M & T
discussed the prospect of staffing the proposed M & T offices with First Advantage
employees during the subject meetings. To the contrary, Defendants believe and
therefore aver that said discussions focused on Defendant Ryerse's qualifications for
the position of Assistant Vice President in the central Pennsylvania area.
17. Denied. It Is specifically denied that Defendants discussed confidential
business information of First Advantage during the meetings of February 22, 1994 and
March 1, 1994.
18. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants discussed any protected
"business opportunities' of First Advantage in the central Pennsylvania area during the
meetings of February 22, 1994 and March 1, 1994.
.7.
l, .."
I
,.
.
I
19. Admitted in part and denied In part, It Is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse submitted a memorandum to Nicholas L. Buscaglia on or about March 8, 1994
with potential employee biographies based upon Defendant Ryerse's experience with
said potential employees. Any Implicit averment that Defendants extended any Job
offers to said potential employees while Defendant Ryerse was stili employed by First
Advantage is specifically and emphatically denied. It is further specifically denied that
Defendants discussed the possibility of Ryerse acquiring First Advantage confidential
business Information and protected business opportunities for M & T during the time
period of February 23, 1994 through the time of Defendant Ryerse's resignation while
Defendant Ryerse was stili employed by First Advantage. To the contrary, Defendants
had no such meetings, conversations or discussions.
20. Denied. Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore avers that he
tentatively accepted employment with M & T on or about March 8, 1994.
21. The material averments of Paragraph 21 are admitted. Defendant
Ryerse believes and therefore avers that his notification to management of First
Advantage occurred in the moming hours of March 14, 1994.
COUNT I
The responses to Paragraph 1 through 21 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
- 8 -
r
r
I
22. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in a course of
business conduct which involved a conspiracy for the solicitation of employees while
Ryerse was stili employed by First Advantage. It is specifically denied that Defendants
offered Jobs to the remaining First Advantage employpes while Defendant Ryerse was
stili employed by First Advantage. It Is specifically denied that Defendants "agreed" to
solicit all First Advantage employees except Barbara Kem to work with Ryerse for
M & T. By way of further response, the New Matter below is Incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 22
are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
23. Admitted In part and denied in part. It Is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse transmitted the memorandum dated March 8, 1994 through First Advantage's
facsimile machine. Because the memorandum dated March 8,1994 is a document
which speaks for Itself, the averments of Paragraph 23 which attempt to characterize,
reiterate or summarize said memorandum are specifically denied. It is specifically
denied that Defendants committed any acts In furtherance of a "conspiracy." Further,
it is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse identified himself as Assistant Vice
President of M & T. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse utilized a standard word
processing program that Identified him with the title which he held on behalf of both
First Advantage and, later, M & T. It Is specifically denied that said memorandum
utilizes M & T stationery or identifies Defendant Ryerse as an employee of Defendant
M & T. By way of further response, the New Matter below is Incorporated by
.9-
~_......~~,
r
.
I
reference as though fully set forth herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 23
are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required.
24. Denied, It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse solicited First
Advantage employees to leave First Advantage and to come with him to M & T prior
to his resignation from First Advantage. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse merely
advised several First Advantage employees of his intention to leave First Advantage a
few days before the submission of his resignation to First Advantage management.
Any implicit averment that Defendants provided job offers to any of the subject First
Advantage employees prior to Defendant Ryerse's resignation Is specifically denied.
To the contrary, Defendants believe and therefore aver that initial job Interviews were
not initiated until March 15, 1994. By way of further response, the New Matter below
is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The remaining averments
of Paragraph 24 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
25. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any
conspiratorial acts. It is specifically denied that Defendants made preparations for a
March 15 meeting on or about March 10, 1994. Defendants believe and therefore
aver that they discussed a March 15th meeting on or about March 11, 1994. By way
of further response, the New Matter below is incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 25 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required.
- 10-
,
I
26. Denied. It 15 specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any
conspiratorial acts. It 15 further specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse met with all
First Advantage mortgage loan representatives on March 12, 1994 and extended Job
offers to said mortgage loan representatives. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse
refrained from any offers of employment until after he submitted his resignation to First
Advantage. By way of further response, Defendant Ryerse believes and therefore
avers that he met with Ms. Donna Goss and Mr. Ron Heberlig on Saturday, March 12,
1994 and advised them of his plans to leave First Advantage and submit his
resignation on Monday morning, March 14, 1994. By way of further response, the
New Matter below is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The
remaining averments of Paragraph 26 are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading 15 required.
27. Admitted In part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse advised approximately four First Advantage employees of his Intention to
submit his letter of resignation on the morning of March 14, 1994 shortly before he
undertook such action. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse made any
offers of employment to any First Advantage employees prior to the submission of his
resignation to First Advantage. To the contrary, Defendants did not extend any Job
offers until after Defendant Ryerse submitted his resignation to First Advantage. It is
admitted that Defendant Ryerse advised several employees that he would be in
contact after submitting his letter of resignation to discuss their qualifications for
- 11 -
r~
,
I
~'-'-". ~.' ...
employment with Defendant Ryerse's future employer, M & T. It is admitted that
Defendant Ryerse requested that several First Advantage employees Interview with
Defendant M & T during the week of March 14, 1994, but it Is specifically denied that
Defendant Ryerse requested that all First Advantage employees meet with M & T with
the exception of Ms. Barbara Kern. By way of further response, the New Malter below
is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The remaining averments
of Paragraph 27 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
28. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged In any
conspiratorial acts. It Is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse made derogatory
comments to First Advantage employees about the management of First Advantage In
furtherance of any conspiracy and/or In order to Induce employees to resign from First
Advantage and to join M & T. To the contrary, Defendant Ryerse made no such
derogatory comments for such purposes. Defendant Ryerse was disappointed with
First Advantage's treatment of Ms. Janet Lane during the course of a meeting in
Columbia, Maryland on Thursday, March 10, 1994. Defendant Ryerse expected that
Ms. Lane would receive a corporate award for her superior work performance, but Ms.
Lane received no such recognition. As a result, Defendant Ryerse believes and
therefore avers that he expressed his concern and disappointment over First
Advantage's failure to recognize Ms. Lane's superior work performance. By way of
further response, the New Matter below Is incorporated by reference as though fully
I
i -
;. .
}'. '.,
- 12 -
:;',_"c, ,":< ':-~, _':;_
, ,i;~~>::n"'I,:t-;:.'r'.W'<~
set forth herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 28 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading Is required.
29. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse was an employee
of First Advantage after the submission of his resignation on March 14, 1994. To the
contrary, Defendant Ryerse's Immediate supervisor, Mr. Frank Bowersox, accepted
Mr. Ryerse's resignation immediately and relieved him of all Job responsibilities on the
morning of March 14, 1994. It Is further specifically denied the Defendants engaged in
any conspiratorial acts. It is further specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse
approached all First Advantage employees except Ms. Barbara Kem to schedule a
meeting with M & T on March 15, 1994. It Is further specifically denied that Defendant
Ryerse utilized work time which should have been devoted to First Advantage
business to fax a memorandum to Nicholas Buscaglia confirming the March 15, 1994
scheduled meetings with First Advantage employees. To the contrary, said
.
,
"
,
f
memorandum was prepared subsequent to Defendant Ryerse's resignation. Further, it
is specifically denied that the subject memorandum Identifies Defendant Ryerse as
Assistant Vice President of M & T. To the contrary, said memorandum contains no
such designation. Defendant Ryerse merely utilized a standard word processing
arrangement which Identified him as "Assistant Vice Presldenr . the title which he held
on behalf of both First Advantage and, later, M & T. Because the memorandum which
Is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit "2' is a document which speaks for
itself, the factual averments of Paragraph 29 which attempt to characterize, summarize
- 13 -
or reiterate the statements contained In said memorandum are specifically denied. By
way of further response, the New Matter below is incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 29 are conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading Is required.
30. Admitted In part and denied In part. It Is admitted only that Defendant
Ryerse and representatives of M & T met with certain First Advantage employees on
March 15, 1994. Because the phrase "as planned" is not clearly defined and may,
arguably, relate to Plaintiff's conspiracy allegations, the remaining averments of
Paragraph 30 are specifically denied. By way of further response, the New Matter
below Is Incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant M & T "confirmed" job
offers on or about March 15, 1994. To the contrary, on or about March 15, 1994,
Defendant M & T Interviewed a number of Individuals who were employed by First
Advantage. Thereafter, Defendant M & T extended job offers to qualified applicants.
32. Admitted In part and denied In part. It is admitted only that eight former
First Advantage employees eventually commenced employment with M & T. After
reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 32. Said
remaining averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is
demanded at the time of trial.
- 14-
k....':-":;"::;;;;:..,,M"'i~
lili'j~'d'lri~'\tc.,.\!:....,'1!;;~:>If'
33. Denied. It Is specifically denied that Defendant Ayerse revealed any
confidential business Information of First Advantage to Defendant M & T. By way of
further response, the New Matter below Is incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
34. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants agreed to obtain
confidential business Information about First Advantage's current and future operating
and marketing strategies. It Is further specifically denied that Defendants engaged in
any conspiratorial acts. By way of further response, the New Matter below is
Incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The remaining averments
of Paragraph 34 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
35. Admitted in part and denied In part. It Is admitted only that Defendant
Ayerse attended several sales and marketing meetings on or about March 9 and
March 10, 1994. Any Implicit averment that Defendant Ayerse misappropriated any
proprietary or confidential business information is specifically denied. It is specifically
denied that Defendants engaged in any conspiratorial acts. By way of further
response, the New Matter below is incorporated by reference as though fully set fOlth
herein. The remaining averments of Paragraph 35 and conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, each
and every averment of fact Is specifically denied and placed at issue, it being averred
that at all times relevant and material hereto Defendant Ayerse acted In an
appropriate and lawful manner.
- 15 -
36. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse revealed any
proprietary or confidential and protected Information of First Advantage of M & T.
Further, it is specifically denied that Defendants intended to restrict First Advantage's
ability to process loans by hiring First Advantage employees to work for M & T.
Further, it is specifically denied that Defendant First Advantage was unable to process
loans which were In the pipeline and that any such loans became available to M & T
for closing. By way of further response, the New Matter below Is Incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
37. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any
conspiratorial acts. It Is further specifically denied that the Defendants agreed to
solicit and to acquire any proprietary information or property which belonged to First
Advantage. The remaining averments of Paragraph 37 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading Is required.
38. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any
conspiratorial acts. It is further specifically denied that the Defendants forced Arst
Advantage to close its operations In central Pennsylvania by inducing Arst Advantage
employees to leave Arst Advantage and join M & T. Further, it is specifically denied
that Defendants solicited any business opportunities which were proprietary to First
Advantage or required any of First Advantage's confidential Information. The
remaining averments of Paragraph 38 are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
- 16 -
<.. ,.,.' .,.
I~."., '
,.",'c.._,':,.,...."
~'~1
39, Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged In any
conspiratorial acts. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of
Paragraph 39. Said remaining averments therefore are denied and strict proof
thereof, if admissible, Is demanded at the time of trial.
40. The averments of Paragraph 40 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT II
The responses to Paragraph 1 through 40 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
41. The averments of Paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading Is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any acts of conspiracy or unfair
competition. It is further specifically denied that Defendants utilized or acquired any
confidential business information or opportunities proprietary to First Advantage.
- 17.
.
42. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading Is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, It is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any acts of conspiracy or unfair
competition. Further, it is specifically denied that Defendants Intent or purpose was to
Injure First Advantage's mortgage operation and to acquire any confidential business
information or opportunities proprietary to First Advantage. By way of further
response, the New Matter below Is Incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
43. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 43 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, It is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged In any acts of conspiracy or unfair
competition. Further, it Is specifically denied that Defendants' Intent or purpose was to
injure First Advantage's mortgage operation and to acquire any confidential business
Information or opportunities proprietary to First Advantage. By way of further
response, the New Matter below is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
44. The averments of Paragraph 44 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
45. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 45 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, it Is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any damages as the result
- 18-
~.'."~';""--"""""'"
, .
, .
of Defendants' conduct. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual
averments of Paragraph 45 regarding Plaintiffs alleged loss of business and related
damages. Said factual averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at the time of trial.
46. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 46 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading Is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, it Is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any unlawful or improper acts by
extending Job offers to several of Plaintiffs employees. By way of further response,
the New Matter below Is Incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this
Court deems Just and appropriate.
COUNT III
The responses to Paragraphs 1 through 46 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
47. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 47 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading Is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, it Is
- 19.
. '
. ,
t " .
specifically denied that Defendants engaged in any Intentional Interference with First
Advantage's business relations.
48. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 48 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, it Is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged In any Intentional Interference with First
Advantage's business relations.
. '49. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 49 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, It Is
specifically denied that Defendants engaged In any intentional Interference with First
Advantage's business relations. Further, after reasonable investigation, Defendants
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any
factual averments of Paragraph 49 which relate to actions of First Advantage
employees and actions of First Advantage management regarding the termination of
First Advantage's mortgage banking business in central Pennsylvania. Said factual
averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, Is demanded at
the time of trial. By way of further response, the New Matter below Is Incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
50. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading Is required. To the extent a response Is deemed
required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any damages as the result
of Defendants' conduct. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
- 20-
" '
. ,
, I. ,
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual
averments of Paragraph 50 regarding Plaintiff's alleged loss of business and related
damages. Said factual averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, If
admissible, Is demanded at the time of trial.
51. The averments of Paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment In their favor and against
Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT IV
The responses to Paragraphs 1 through 51 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
52. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 52 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, It is
specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse attempted to solicit Plaintiff's employees for
M & T and divulged or attempted to acquire any proprietary Information or business
opportunities of First Advantage while he was an employee of First Advantage. By
way of further response, the New Matter below Is incorporated by reference as though
set forth herein.
.21 -
t . I t
, " .
t .. .
53. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 53 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the
answer to Paragraph 52 above is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
54. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, it Is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any damages as the result
of Defendants' conduct. After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual
averments of Paragraph 54 regarding Plaintiff's alleged loss of business and related
damages. Said factual averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, If
admissible, Is demanded at the time of trial.
55. The averments of Paragraph 55 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading Is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment In their favor and against
Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and appropriate.
- 22 -
. " ,
, . . .
. . f .
COUNT V
The responses to Paragraphs 1 through 55 above are Incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
56. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse was an Assistant
Vice President at all times relevant and material hereto. By way of further response,
the answer to Paragraph 6 above is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein. The remaining averments of paragraph 56 are conclusions of law to whIch no
responsive pleading Is required.
57. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 57 are conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response Is deemed required, It is
specifically denied that Defendant Ryerse solicited Plaintiff's employees and divulged
and attempted to acquire any business information or opportunities proprietary to
Plaintiff while he was still employed by Plaintiff. By way of further response, the New
Matter below is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
58. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 58 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, it Is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any damages as the result
of Defendants' conduct. After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual
averments of Paragraph 58 regarding Plaintiffs alleged loss of business and related
- 23 -
, " .
, ., .
. . I .
damages. Said factual averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, If
admissible, Is demanded at the time of trial.
59. The averments of Paragraph 59 are conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading Is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage Corporation,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and appropriate.
NEW MATTER
60. The responses to Paragraph 1 through 59 above are incorporated by
reference and realleged as affirmative defenses.
61. Plaintiffs Complaint and each of Its Counts fall to state claims upon
which relief can be granted.
62. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the doctrines of waiver amd estoppel.
63. Plaintiffs Complaint Is barred by the doctrine of release.
64. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
65. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
66. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs own actions and failures to
act.
- 24-
. .. .
. .. .
. .. .
67. If Plaintiff has sustained any Injuries or damages, which is expressly and
emphatically denIed, then any such Injuries or damages are the direct and proximate
result of Plaintiff's failure to mitigate its damages.
68. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the doctrine of fair and proper
competition.
69. Plaintiff's Complaint Is barred by the doctrine of Justification.
70. If Plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages, which is expressly and
emphatically denied, said Injuries and/or damages are the result of the conduct of one
or more persons over whom the Responding Defendants have no control and for
whose conduct Responding Defendants have no responsibility.
71. If Plaintiff sustained any Injuries or damages, which is expressly and
emphatically denied, recovery for said injuries and/or damages is barred and/or
materially reduced by virtue of provisions in agreements of sale between Plaintiff First
Advantage Mortgage Corporation and its successor corporations.
72. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred and/or any of Plaintiff's alleged Injuries
and/or damages are materially reduced by virtue of Plaintiff's failure to undertake
reasonable steps to protect and to ensure the stability of Its work force, its customer
base, Its business opportunities and/or its business Information.
- 25 -
. I, .
, ,. ,
. 'I .
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Fred H, Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation, respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
with prejudice and award Defendants the costs of this action and such other and
further relief as this Court deems Just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
~
'-1
Christop er C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. 1.0. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232.5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation
Date: May 15, 1995
-_.. . ~"..~",......- -
__ I' .
" .. ,
. I I .
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing
document upon the person(s) and in the manner Indicated below, which service
satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing
a copy of same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg. Pennsylvania, First Class Mail.
postage prepaid, as follows:
Joan E. Book, Esquire
KRUCHKO & FRIES
Suite 606
28 West Ailegheny Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
Chrlstop er C. Conner, Esquire
Sup. Ct. 1.0. #36407
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendants
Fred H. Ryerse and M & T Mortgage
Corporation
Date: May 15, 1995
. '.."'- -'_',..-,
[~.:~;:;0;'!#-~~~
. I. .
VERIFICATION
. I" ..
I, FRED H. RYERSE, have read the foregoing document and to the extent
that it contains facts supplied by me, they are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge, infonnation and belief; however, to the extent that the
foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon
counsel in making this verification.
I make this Verification subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
MJ/J ~
5'J~/~r
FRED H. RYERSE
~
~ ,.
... .'
lE .'
.... -
~, "
':r .'
"-'
-
>-
... '.'
=>=
, ,.
. .. ..
.
.._";.-.c;.~:':""~I~~~}.;';..,...:"';;. ~...,-=~~_~',:,.
... .) ...
,;...
t-':">i'~"
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FIRST ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
...
...
...
...
...
... Civil Action No. 94-1648
Plaintiff,
v.
...
FRED H. RYERSE. !01 nl..
...
...
..
...
Defendants.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ... ... ..
PRAECIPE FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued and dismissed
with prejudice.
Dated: June 4, 1996
KRUCHKO & FRIES
By~(!!~ -
an E. Book (
PA Supreme Court I.D. No.: 62020
Suite 305
600 Washington Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
(410) 321-7310; (410) 821-7918 (fax)
Counsel for Plaintiff
Entrust Financial Corporation
~
.,,'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 4, 1996, a copy of Praecipe for Dismissal with Prejudice
was served in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United State
Mail, Baltimore, Maryland, First Class Mail. postage prepaid, upon the following:
Fi c, ,">
t\) ":~
!-. N
'" ""7'
,~ . . },!J
........
-'-
- ',,~
.~. '_~:,:J
'.
~- " >'~',
" .~ .~:.~
, .~
, ; . -..."
. , t.'i ' ,,~
f
,:..: ~ " .
.
." - -
Christophel' C. Conner, Esquire
METrE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
'I
~ - ~
.:I
I~ M 8~
-
-.' Q:
.~ '=J~
- ~~!
z t5
L; ~ co 0..
F a
~ \D
en
. .'