Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-06939 .' , " , , , , , " , , " .. " ',' , ," " Ii J,j '1 " , , " 1 "t, " " , " 'i " , , 1 / " , " , .. " .',1, Ii " 1 i' , 'II J' i,! ,Ii " ,I ''ii 1,11/ '!"!;, /,,' " , " 1 " ,.'1 " , " t" \, ':i " it t:' II, " , " , " , ' 1',1 '" " .'It 'I 'I' ;/1 , "I , , it ., , , , " " , , " " ,;' " ,'1 "" " I , , ,\ " i 'Ii , 'I , , I, , " I: , " " , , , ,;1 : , I , , 'I; 'I Ii! ,I , I, , " I, :11 " 'I , , , , , , " , , ,I! Ji' .1, I " 'I" ",I, " , :' " , ii' ;I , to, .. , I" , , i , 11'1" I I I I " , j',j' , I , , , , ," i,' " " .. , ' I " 'II' " , !, , , , . , , " , 1 , " " , " .. " " " I ~ II '. STBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiff 'j 1 ( , f" (. ,-) /.\ 11'--- v, NO, r(J (~9 3? CIVIL ACTION . LAW ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, l>cfendanlJ tlOT1CE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court, If you wish 1.0 defend aaainst the claims set forth in the followlna plies, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by enterina a written appearance personally or by attorney and f1l1naln writina with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth ..ainst you, You are warned that If you fail 1.0 do so the case may proceed without you and a judament may be entered ..ainst you by the court without further notice for any money claimed In the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other r1ghlJ important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO Naf HA VB A LA WYBR OR CANNaf AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN OET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17913 (717) 240-6200 13, PrIor 10 January 31, 199~, Slt,ven Rose concealed his Intention 10 open a competlna bualneu from the other officen, directors and shareholders of Plaintiff. 14. Upon Information and belief, while still employed IS an officer of Plaintiff, Role cnpaed In the deliberate diversion of business from Plaintiff to Rose Metal Systems, Inc" u Is more specifically set forth below. I~, Specifically, upon inform&tion and belief, while still employed as an officer of Plaintiff, Role submitted certain bids in response to requests for Xlroposals on behalf of Ilmh Plaintiff and Rose Metal Systems, Inc. 16. Given the surreptitious nature of Defendant Rose's dealings in this regard, Plaintiff lacks information sufficient 10 set forth more specific averments IS 10 particular contracts, 17. Two specific contracts of which Plaintiff is aware where Defendant Rose submitted bids for both Plaintiff and Defendant, Rose Mew Systems, Inc. are the New England Motor Freight and Jerre-Dan projects. 18. Upon information and belief, an additional job was bid by Defendant Rose on behalf of both Plaintiff and Defendant Rose Metal Systems, Inc. through R.S. Mowery &. Sons, Ioe:. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rose utilized confidential and proprietary information which he obtained as a direct result of his managerial position with Plaintiff 10 undercut Plaintiff in bidding for the jobs set forth above, and others, on his own bebalf and 011 behalf of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., while still employed by Plaintiff. Stated -3- I J! IIIOtIIer way, Role underbid Pla1ntiff'1 propolll1 while In control of the terms of Plaintiff'1 p1opoul, 20, SubleQuent 10 lanuary 31, 1995, Rose, Ktina by and throuah his corporate entity, Role Metal SYltr.m., Inc. accepted and commenced work on conlral:ts which he had seeuncl tor Rose Metal Systems, Inc. while ltill employed by Plaintiff, 21, lobi which wen! bid and secured by Defendant Rose durina luch time as he wu employed by Plaintiff and prior to h1s1anuary 31, 1995 mlanstlon from Plaintiff were and are the property of Plaintiff as a matter of law. 22. Additionally, Defendant Rose's actions in solicitina Plalntlfrs other lonallllldlna employees 10 leave Plalntifrs employ, which solicitation was done prior 10 Defendant Rose'slanuary 31, 1995 mlanatlon from Plaintiff, were done with an Intent 10 harm Plaintiff, and with the specific Intent 10 divert or convert business from Plaintiff 10 hlmldf and/or Role Metal Systems, Inc. 23. Upon Information and belief, prior 10, contemporaneously with and/or IUbllfquendy 10 his mlanation from Plaintiff, Defendant Rose contacted many, if not all of the aenual conlrllctina firms and others with whom he had worked in his capacity as an officer of Plaintiff. 24. Upon Information and belief Defendant Rose deliberately and willfully Itd Plaintlrr. buslnw contacts 10 believe that Plalntifrs business prospects were bleak and that the company would not survive and would not be in a position 10 fulfill its conlral:tual obllptionl 10 third parties. -4. 25. Upon Informa&ioR and ~f, Rolll provided aimilar Information to flnancial inIIitutlont with whom he hid been daUna on Plaintifrs behllf, and perhaps other third putieI within the fbwIcial community. 26, Plaintiff hid valuable busincss relationships with the contrlCton and financial Inltitulion. set forth above. 27, Defendant Role wu well aware of the existence of these valuable business re\ationships at the time he took the actions set forth above. 28. Moreover, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of future business lrislna out of its re1ationshlp with the contrlCtor set forth above and a reasonable expectation in the revenue which would be aenerated from the contrlCting Agreements entered Into with such contractors. 29. Defendant Rose wu well aware of the existence and the reasonableness of these prospects at the time he took the actions described above. 30. Rose wu also aware of the falsity of the Information and innuendo which he disseminated to Plaintifrs business and financial contacts. 31. Defendant Rose, Rose Metal Systems, Inc, and others combined and conspired to deceive Plaintiff into believing that Rose and the employees identified in paraaraph 10 above would continue to work In their same capacities for Plaintiff when in reality their efforts were deslaned to advance the interests of Defendants, Rose and Rose Metal Systems. 32, Rose, on behalf of himself and acting as the saent and principal of Rose M.ctal Systems, Inc, msde dellberately false representations to Plaintiff in an attempt to hide the .5- 39, A, III officer of Plaintiff, Rose owed Plaintiff a duty of IOYllly In all matten affectllll the aubject of hlsqency, and wu required by law to act with the utmost good faith and In Idvanc:ement of the Interest of his principal, Plaintiff. 40, Rose's actions, which are more specifically set forth above, evidence UI rcre&\oUJ bRllCh of hi, fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty to Plaintiff. ASI result of the bRllCh of hi, fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, Plaintiff has suffered economic Injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc., respectfully demands judgmen: In III favor and qainst Rose In an amount In excess of $20,000.00, plus punitive damqea, Intcreat, costs .and attorneys fees. COUNT II CONVERSION/USURPATION OF CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY STEF.I. BlmnlNG ERECTORS, INC. Y. ROSE METAL SYSTEMS. INC, and STEVEN ROSE 41. 1be averments of parqraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are hereby Incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 42, Rose Induced some or all of the employees set forth In paragraph 10 above to leave Pllllntifrs employ and work for Rose and/or Rose Metal Systems, Inc. 43. This Inducement took place prior to January 31, 1995, the effective date of Rose's reslanation from Plaintiff. 44, Rose. by his actions which are more specifically set forth lbove, converted Plalntifr, employees to his own uses, IIId those of Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and converted -7- coqIl'InI8 opportunitlca in the nature of contract bids to himself and Rose Melal Systems, Inc. 45. Role and Rose Metal Systems, Inc. have no legal entitlement to interfere in Plalntirrs relationships with ita employees, and have no legal entitlement 10 Plalntlfrs p.operty ri&hta and UpeclallClea in certain contrlCt bids. 46. Role and Rose Metal Systems, Inc. specifically intended to convert economic opportunities of Plaintiff, namely bids on certain contracts and the good will of certain employeca 10 his own use and the use of Rose Metal Systems, Inc. 47. Rose Melal Systems, Inc. by and through its aaent, Rose, specifically intended to appropriate Plalntlers cUent base, or was substantially certain that such appropriation would occur as a result of Its conduct. 48. Rose Melal Systems, Inc. and Rose's actions were taken without PWntlfrs knowledge or consent, and were taken without any lawful justification or privilege. 49. As a result of Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and Defendant Rose's actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc., demands judament in Its favor and apinlt Defendants Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and Steven Rose in an amount exceedina 520,000.00 plus punitive dama&les, interest, costs and attorneys fees. .8- COUNT III TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE wrm PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS ~ft'.'I, BUilDING ERECTORS. INC. Y. ROSE METAL SYSTEMS. INC. and STEVEN ROSE ~. The averments of puaaraphs I through 49 of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 51. A request for proposal ("RFP") represents evidence of a prospective busillCSl relationship of I company submitting a bid (such as Plaintiff) which once accepted ripens into a contractull arrangement between the successful bidder and tht party requesting propo!ll1s. 52, Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and Defendant Rose intended to harm Plaintiff by tortiously Interfering with Plaintifrs prospective business relationships by undercutting and underbidding Plaintiff under circumstances where Rose, on behalf of Rose Metal Systems, Inc. submitted bids, upon information and belief, on behalf of IKl1h Plaintiff and Rose Metal Systems, Inc. while still on the payroll of the Plaintiff. 53. Rose Metal Systems, Inc., through its agent Rose intended to cause economic injury to Plaintiff by their actions, and/or the result and injury to Plaintiff was substantially certain to occur as a result of said actions. 54. Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and Rose's actions were unlawful as is more specifically set forth above and Defendants had no privilege to take the actions set forth above, S5. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the diversion of its prospective bulillCSl to Rose Metal Systems, Inc. and/or Rose. -9- , ,q, Reapectfully .ubmltted, ECKERT SEAMANS ~HBlUN " MELLOTl' By, !~"'--:> ~ Mark D. Bradaha;;rmqulre Chri.topher M. Clcconl, &quire 213 Marklet SU'CCt PoIt Office 9ol1248 Harr\sburl. PA 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 " Attorney. for Plaintiff, Steel Bulldln. EnlclOn, Inc. , " " " , ' I, -n- VERIFICATION I, Charlel W. Travlu, Jr" stale that I am an officer of Steel Bulldina Erecton, Inc, and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I do hereby verify that the flets set forth In the foreao1na document are true and correc:t to the besl of my Imowledae, Information, and belief. I undentand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 14904, rc1atina to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~f~ ;2.._ J. r- . DATED: 11!-sIr' '" f",j ":"01'1,,,,/,",, '~"""'-wr , , " " 'I 'III " Q ?; &. -. .;j r:, g~ .... To ;J' ~ I~ I~ u.. ,,'", p;" '" ;.:.. ~Iii I '.1. ~. 'Ii ~ C.'', ~&~; g.; C' ILl .{:,~ t5 .,1.1. ;'-S ~ ~ 11l a C"\ ~ 'C) .... <\"<, ,~~,(f -- ~) ~ ',. , I' , i' " "~ I !'.' cl, {i' 1 ~\ , ': !\i !ij k\. 'I: Ij,':" \.\\', ~~~J;. ~111i r\ ~t\,k;1 ~\'" . "ti';,',I" ,'ri :r.' I .' 'II . .. ...~ I," .. (b) plaintiff seeks documonts which are beyond the scope of permitted disoovery, as regulated by Rule. 4003.1 through 4003,6, and Rule. 4011 and 4012; (c) plaintiff's caus.. of action hinge on certain alleged events which took place on or about January 31, 1995, when defendant, steven Rose, left the emploY of plaintiff, steel Building Erector., Inc.; however, plaintiff'S proposed subpoenas .eek documents from defendants' current customers for the unrelated period from october, 1995 to January, 1997; (d) plaintiff'S proposed discovery seeks privileged and proprietary information which is not relevant to plaintiff'S causes of action; certain proposed subpoenas are directed to individuals and companies with whom plaintiff has had no prior or current business relationship; other proposed subpoenas are directed to customers who contact defendants directly, seek exclusive proposalS to perform construction work, and negotiate a price and contract; the traditional .competitive bid process' as.ociated with public entity contracting is not applicable to defendants' dealings with many of these customsI's who, fOI' their own reasons, might not seek to do business, either all the time or on an individual job basis, with plaintiff; therefore, plaintiff's discovery demands on defendants' customers would unfairly disrupt and taint defendants' ongoing business relationships; 2 ,~ , , '.' , . (e) the partie. I re.plative aoun.ll havI yet to Ixplore a po..ibll rl.olution of thi. di.oovery di.pute, including any agreement to narrow the .oope of plaintiff'. reque.ted dooument. (or to .eek any dooument. directly from dlfendant., or to eliminate .ubpoena. being .erved on individual. and entitie. with whom defendant. have not done any busine.. on or .ince February 1, 1995); (f) plaintiff's counsel wishes to take the depo.ition. of defendant steven Rose and two of the current employee. of Ro.e Metal Sy.tems, Inc, (Cloyd Barrick and Tamah Wicke), who are former employees of plaintiff; if plaintif.f's aoun.el takls these depositions as planned, it will necessarily narrow the loope of his pending discovery reque.t and may moot any need tor burdensome discovery; and (g) defendants object to plaintiff's proposed .ubpoenaa baled o~ such other reasons as will be established in thi. proceeding or in any pleading or brief submitted by defendant.. , 3' ... ~ I ' .}l . , .....roa., defendant. re.pectfully reque.t that the Court .ustain the.e Objection. to plaintiff'. proposed .ubpoena., and grant .uch other relief as it deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN , RAHAL, LLP Dated I ,'I/~/~~ By,hL ~f2~c:?l '- . <if~tll' E. Hiller, Jr, I. D. 107220 Bradford Dorrance 1.0. 132147 210 Walnut street P.O, Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Defendants) 4 , "- ( . , , STEEL BUILDING ERECI'ORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 9506939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NonCE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,21 Plaintiff, Steel Bulldinl Erec:tors intends to serve a subrocna identical to the one that its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undl:rsigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: \,,",('\ J\.\~~ Mark 0> Bradshaw , Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 61975 Christopher M. Cicconi, Esquire 1.0. No. 19331 On: South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: !of,t/" 7 IOUO,I ( . . STBBL BUILDING 1lRBCT0as, INC.. IN TH2 COURT OP COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff .. " v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Tllrtn ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ~ I . SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR 'nIINGS FQR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 To: Lynn Bradeen ABS, Inc. 2303 Garry Road ClnI\amlnson NJ 08077 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (1) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rosl; Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents rel1ecting your firm's first notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all files relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation to you during thll period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited. IUl-Il.I Ii , 0( . ' _. " I at the law offtCOl of Eckert SeII1IIIIl Cherin '" Mellott, LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrlllbul'l, , H, ~fi I' ~ ' Jt\' ,'Ii'.' Pennsylvania 17101. Vou may deliver or mall legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. Vou have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of I I' l:I'i l ~ ; ,\/1 ,ji ",', . " preparlnllhe copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) clays after Its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. , d '~l., /1 ,),i.j ,,:tJ 'I' \'1 /1, t.:,I'l ~~l D/ This subpoena was Issued at the request of the following person: ,i~ ',' , Mark 0, Bradshaw, Esquire 1.0. No. 61975 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg PA 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 .' u("'! 'oii' ',': :I';j[ _4"J \1\, 'f- 1(, , !, I 1:;( ), ?h Hi !'~ Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 10/31/97 BV THE COURT: i,;i ,'" f') ;,; , , ti, "J, 'el r--' i\ '"i! (Prothonotary) Seal of the court I,ll'" "/' , .. . . STBBL BUILDING BRBCTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95.6939 Civll Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC" and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND nuNGS FOR DlS<;OVERY PURSUA~T TO RULE 4009.11 Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors Intends 10 serve a subpoena identical to the one that its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below In which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection Is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOn', LLC BY: ,(\"'c-.,(J V( " ~'6 ~- Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Allomey I.D. No. 61975 Christopher M. Cicconi, Esquire I.D. No. 19331 One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Allorneys for Plaintiff DATE: r0(71!" 7 14_.1 oJ STBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE To: Don Smith, Jr, You are required to complete the followina Certificate of Compliance when producina documenu or thinas pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Don Smith, Jr., certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on October 31, 1997 have been produced. Date: Don Smith, Jr. . . ,-! ,'. \1, 1(\ . j'r ;: ~ STBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v, NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., IUld STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR 11IINGS FOR DISCOVERY PUR&UANT TO RULE 4009.22 To: Don Smith, Jr. Conewago Contractors. Inc. 660 Edgesrove Road Hanover PA 17331 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents (lr things: (I) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents reflecting your firm's first notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all tiles relating to jobs for which Rose Mellil Systems, Inc. provided a quotation to you during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law offices of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Melloll, LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710 1. , .. . " You may deliver or maIllellble copies of the documents or produce thlnls requeated by this subpoena, tOlll:thl:r with the cl:rtiticate of ~lllllpliul1~e. 10 the party making this reqlll:st at the address listed above. You have the rIght to seck in advance the reasonable cost of preparlnl the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requir~d by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelllnl you to comply with It. This subpoena was Issued at the request of the following person: Mark O. Bradshaw. Esquire 1.0. No. 61975 213 Market Street P,O. Box 1248 Harrisburg FA 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 10/31/97 BY THE COURT: (Prothonotary) Seal of the court . .. STBBL BUlLDINO BllECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 9S.6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NOTICE To: Boris Palchuk You are required to complete the followln8 Certlflcate of Compllant;e when produclnl documents or thln8s pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Boris Palchuk. certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or thln8s required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on October 31, 1997 have been produced. Date: Boris Palchuk ,', . STEEL BUILDINO ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CUMBERl.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaill\lff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil T~rll1 ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 To: Baril Palchuk MML 730 Locust Street Lebanon PA 17042 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you an: ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (1) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketina literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents rellecting your tirm's first notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all tiles relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation to you during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law offices of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. LLC. 213 Market Street. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710t. , . . . STBBL BUlLDiNO BRBcTORS, INC., IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLBAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS. INC., IIJ\d STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR msCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.11 Plaintiff, Steel Bu1\dlng Erectors intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that Its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below In which to me of record IIJ\d serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection Is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOIT, LLC BY: ~\t'-~~_ - \~~-~ Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 61975 Christopher M. Clcconl, Esquire 1.0. No. 19331 One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: {O(1/(17 , 14J+1O,I STBIlL BUlLDlNO BRECrORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW Caption CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,27. As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and thlng~ pursuant to Rule 4002.99, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. certifies that (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certiticate, (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is Identical to the subpoena which Is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, . Steel Building ErectolS, Inc, 1....0.\6,1 , i 1" i I STEEL BUILDING ER,ECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalnliff v. NO. 95-69.19 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR 'J'HING~ FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 To: Joseph Wllman Consolidated Construction 24 N. Cedar Street Lititz P A 17543 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (1) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents rellecting your Iirm' s llrst notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all tiles relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation 10 YOll during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law oftiees of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylva.1ia 17101. "'r You may deliver or maille.lble copilll of the documenll or produce _I requeated by this subpoena, together with the certificate of COI11IJliance. tQ the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparlnl the caples or prooucing the things sought, If you fall 10 produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after Its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelUnl you to comply with It. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire 1.0, No. 6197S 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrlsburl P A 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 10/31/97 BY THE COURT: (Prothonotary) Seal of the court " STEEL BUiLDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANlA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW Caption CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SlrBltOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,12 A~ 1\ prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4002.99, Plaintiff, :i:-.e! Building Erectors, Inc. certifies that (1) a notice of intent to serve the snbpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, Is attached to this certiticate. (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) the subpoena which will be scrwd is identical to the subpoena which Is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. I.wo.!U STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Tl:rm ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LA \V SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR TIIJNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RVJ..E 4009.22 To: Donald Mowery R.S. Mowery & Sons, Inc. 625 Hamilton Street Carlisle PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (I) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents reflecting your tirm's tirst notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, (nc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and allliles relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation 10 you liming the pel'ioll October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsulicited. at the law offices of Eckert Seamans Cherin & MeHoll. LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (7tO I. STBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.11 Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors intends to serve a subpoena identical to tho ono that its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOn, LLC BY: ~ \><)(~ - \\.~ .~" Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 61975 Christopher M. Cicconi, Esquire 1.0. No. 19331 One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: (Oft!'!? I ,\ , '" . . , t i il' ~~, ! ill ,0 14J4lO,I ITBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA l'lainllff v. NO. 95-69.19 Civil Tern! ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE To: Donald Group " You arc required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or thinllS pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Donald Group, certify to the best of my knowledge. information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on October 31, 1997 have been produced. Date: Oonald Group , . STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR 'J'HINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.11 To: Donald Group McCoy Brothers, Inc. 219 Pine Street Mt. Holly Springs PA 17065 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (1) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc, from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents retlecting your firm's first notice of the existence or creation of Ro~ Metal Systems. Inc" including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all tiles relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems. Inc. provided a quotation to you during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law offices of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrisburi, Pennsylvania 1710 I. I .' . You may deliver or mlilleJib1e copies of the documents or produce thlnls requested by thi$ subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fall to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compcllilll you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Mark 0, Bradshaw, Esquire I.D. No. 61975 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg PA 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 Attomeys for Plaintiff DATE: 10/31/97 BY THE COURT: (Prothonotary) Seal of the court . " STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-69.19 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW Caption CERTlFlCA TE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4002.99, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. certifies that (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each parly at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certilicate, (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: Mark O. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. 1440!6,1 " .' . 1)1 "'i Ii I, jl STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., P 'I~ Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 4 ' v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term J'i' ~ ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW " " SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR ~GS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUA~T TO RULE 4009.22 To: Don Berto1ette Miller &. Norford 700 Ayers Street Lemoyne PA 17043 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (I) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents retlecting your tirm's tirst notice of the eltistence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and all tiles relating to jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation to you during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law oftices of Eckert Seamans C!terin & Mell\lll, LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710 1. ,1 , " , . "_, t'~"'''''''lN,'~,''''''M-"':''''''''''''''ft'\-...._,-., ,,,,"k.,,~i...'''..,, ., I., '_wo--~r''''''l.., ,I ._.~-. . ,..... ..oj.. , '" .-'" . . . , STBBL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ClIMBERLANO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v, NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE To: DarreU Brechbill You arc required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Darrell Brechbill, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on October 31, 1997 have been produced. Date: Darrell Brechbill . ..' , . STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v, NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW . NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to tile of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection Is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOn, LLC ~Y: ~~~ Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 61975 Christopher M. Cicconi, Esquire I.D. No. 19331 One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: (d~llor7 14J4lO,I " ';" 'i.- d , . '" .. ' You may deliver or mall legible copies of the documents or produce th1nls requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to sed in advance the reasonable cost of preparinlthe copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its Sl:rvico, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compcllinl you to comply with It. This subpoena was Issued at the request of the following person: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire I.D. No. 6197S 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1~48 Harrlsburl PA 17108-1248 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 10/31197 BY THE COURT: (Prothonotary) Seal of the court . . , .. STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC, , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT 1'0 RULE 4009.21 PJalntiff, Steel Building Erectors intends to serve a subpoena Identical to the one that its attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the dale listed below in which to file of record and scrve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELWTI, LLC BY: ftv\~~ Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 61975 Christopher M. Cicconi, Esquire I.D. No. 1933i One South Markel Square Building 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 237-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 1~~l1? 14_,\ . . ..' STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERL.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC" and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE To: Rlcbard Poole You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when produclnl documents or thinas pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Richard Poole, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on October 31, 1997 have been produced. Date: Richard Poole . .' STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl.V ANlA Plaintiff v, NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Oofendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR mlNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.11 To: llIchard Poole llIchard D. Poole, Inc. 2401 Pleasant Valley Road York PA 17402 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the fOllowing documents or things: (1) Any and all promotional materials, announcements, or other marketlna literature sent to you by or regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. from October 1995 to January 1997; (2) Any and all documents reflecting your firm's first notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal Systems, Inc., including but not limited to any personal notes, calendar entries, or any other documenst whatsoever; (3) A true and correct copy of any and al1111es relating to Jobs for which Rose Metal Systems, Inc. provided a quotation to you during the period October 1995 to January 1997, whether such quotation was requested by you or unsolicited, at the law offices of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 213 Market Street, Harrisbura, Pennsylvania 17101. t 'F, . . .., . You maydo1lver or mal11e,Iblo copies of the document. or produce thin,. requested by thl. lubpoena, to,ether with tho certificate of compliance, to the party maldn. this reqUCII It tho Iddreu Ulted above. You have the r1,ht to seek In advance the reuonab1e co.t of prepuin, tho c:opiea or producln, the thin,s sought. If you fall to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) day. after Its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compel1lna you to comply with It. Thl. lubpoena was Issued at the request of the following person: Mark D. Bradshaw, esquire I.D, No. 61975 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg PA 17108-1248 (717) 237.6000 Attorney. for Plaintiff DATE: 10/311.97 BY THE COURT: (prot~onotary ) $eal of tho court ,I .. " . STEEL BUILDING BRBCTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintlrf , " , Y. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSS METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW Caption CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.2% As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and thlnas pursuant to Rulo 4002,99, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. certifies that (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) no objCt:ltion to the subpoena has been received, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: Mark D. Bradshaw, esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Steel BUlldlne Erectors, Inc. 144IIIM.. ." . It .... ' ~ . a"'IJI'I.'IMIJI. OW ...V:10. I hereby certify that I have this day .erved a copy of the foregoing document upon the pereon(.) and in the manner indicated below: By HAnd n.liv8ry: Mark D. Bradehaw, Esquire Christopher M. cicconi, Esquire ECKERT S~s CHERIN , MELLOTT One s. Market square Building 213 Market street P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 (Attorneys for plaintiff) Dated: 1\)1 '? ) 't .:r-- d-~'-~ - - B~orrance- ----... ~i) , , 'I )i ~ C' ~ l'rJ ,r ,,"6:' N' i'i..~ '1l.1 ~., (I., if" ~~ ~.:~ ~'~1 ~:, . ,. r:':1 co ','\ fr' ~) ~_:,; if 0:: l.' -,. ,',J(u " C~ ll)~ r--: .1; rfj t; 1'"' (1' U "" . , J 1 i ., I, , ' I' i' '.. .... , . 'Co' " Ii '\1 I.:t, I , , ~ll,: iI, SHERIFF'S RETURN-REGULAR " , CASE NOI 199~-06939 P CO""ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I COUNTY OF CU"BERLAND .' ' I. STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS INC VS, ROSE "ETAL SYSTE"S INC , , PHILIP BAUGH"AN .. Shsriff or Dsputy Shsr iff of CU"BERI.AND County. Psnnsylvania, who bsing duly .worn aooording to law, .ay., ths within ~ va. aerved upon STEVEN ROSE the dSf.ndant, at 111~100 HOURS, on the ~ day of D.oemb~r 19~ at 471~ SEARS RUN ROAD "ECHANICSBURG. PA 1705~ ..J CU"BERLAND County, Psnnsylvania, by handing to ~JUL~OSE a true and attested copy of the CO"PLAINT and at ths .ame time directing His attention to the oontents thsreof. Shsriff'. Costs I Docksting Ssrvioe Affidavit Surchargs 6.00 .00 .00 2.00 s~ 8nswer~~~ ~ r ~:,,~.~ .,-~,. " R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff .9.~~ ECKERT SEA"ANS CHERIN MELLOTT ;J.,1;- 12/28/1995 fJ ~ r3'f '72. by p'O.fl '^ e ~puty srlff Sworn an: subscribsd 10 before me this _ 5- day of l '." .'r _ r I 19 9~ A.D. C).",. {,: '1~v~. Prothono ar i, " , " I ,'i I , !. .,"'1 !, I oj;-.' ." I I , , , , , " I\,' (,:, ,,1_, 1',1 , """..d.'_',,, . ... .... . 'I ,I . ':l , ' " '. '" , ., KKK,..... WOOD, "'-I.KN .. RAHAl. '..~on'T~ , -...u_ A,DIAEI.. ft. O. IOJI 11M3 I J MIl.,,,,,,, .. _?to...... If " , '.II .";\,,1 ." '" " !, ",'I I ., ~.. STilL BUILDING ERECTORS, I IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS INC., I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I plaintiff I . c;:)-- ~i.~' 0' .~ ~ . v. NO. _ l-f)-\ - ,tA...t.-- ROSB METAL SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW and STEVBN ROSE, : Defendants . . ,HTRY or a...~ TOI Law~ence E. Welker, Prothonotary Please enter the appearance of Keefer, Wood, Allen' Rahal by William E. Miller, Jr., Charles W. Rubendall II and Brenda S. Lynch on behalf of defendants Rose Metal systems, Inc. and steven J. Rose. A single copy of all items sent by your office to the attention of Mr. Rubendall alone will be satisfactory. KEEFER, WOO~, ALLEN' RAHAL Dated: January 19, 1996 By -!j.~((j" ,j ;: ../<- William E. Miller, Jr. 1.0. # 07220 Charles W. Rubendall II 1.0. # 23172 Brenda s. Lynch 1.0. # 75912 210 Walnut street P. o. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 717-255-8023, 255-8010 and 255-8037 Attorneys for defendants Rose Metal systems, Inc. and steven J. Rose , ~. ... " , ' O"~I.loa~. o. ...VIO. I, Brenda S. Lynch, E.quir., on. ot the attorn.y. for d.f.nd.nt. Ro.e Metal sy.t.m., Inc. and stev.n Ro.e, h.reby c.rtify that I have .erved the foregoing paper upon coun.el of r.cord thlft date by depo.iting a true and correct copy ot the .a.. in the Unit.d Stat~. mail, fir.t-class po.tag. prepaid, addr....d a. tollowsl Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Christopher M. cicconi, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin , Mellott 213 Market street P.O. Box 1248 HarriSburg, PA 17108-1248 KEEFER, WOOD, ALLEN , RAHAL Dated I January 19, 1996 By --/!hM,k .) ? )..-L- Brenda S. Lync i ... , , " I I, , ' " f;; 00 . Ln ~ 1 I~ .. .'" M ;:) .rr . ) ...-, ~ :4 0.i:~ i,;r~ L1_ (l~-j Co N ::# fi) CY fl. N J"'-' ;'~ I" :\r-= ,-, .0 ~ --': "y -, ~ ~ , ..0 IJ" . .. ,,' , " , , " ... .., ..... . ..~ STilL BUILDING IRICTORS, IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or INC., I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I plaintiff I I v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I ROSE METAL SYSTIMS, INC., I and STEVEN ROSI, I Defendants I NO. 95-6939 CIVIL TERM U...R 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant8 admit that Rose Metal sysb~m8, Inc. ("Rose Metal") is a Pennsylvania corporation; however, its principal place of business i8 located at 1412 Trindle Road, Carlisle, PA 17013, and the addre8~ of the administrative and corporate offices of Rose Metal is 4902 Carlisle pike, # 278, Mechanicsburg, pennsylvania 17055. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Steven J. Rose's ("Rose") duties while employed by steel Buildinq Ereotors, Inc. ("steel Building") included overeeeinq administrative office functions; however, Rose denies that he was the sol. estimator. On the contrary, during Rose'S employment by Steel Building some estimating was also performed by Todd Travitz, another employee of steel Building. 7. AcSlIitted. 8. Adllitted in part and denied in part. Defendant. adllit that Roee, by lett.r dated January 31, 1995, informed Ste.l Building of hi. resignation; however, defendant. deny that Ros. informed the President of Steel Building of his intention to start a busine.s for himself. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Rose approached Mr. Barrick and asked him to join Rose Hetal when it would be formed; however, Rose did not approach Mr. Gettle or Hrs. wicke. Rose informed Mrs. Wicke that he would be leaving Steel Building. Mrs. Wicke informed Rose that she would not stay with Steel Building it Rose left. At some point thereafter Rose and Mrs. wicke mutually agreed that Hr. wicke would work for Rose Metal. Mr. Barrick informed Mr. Gettle that he was going to leave Steel Building and work for a new company. Hr. Gettle informed Mr. Barrick that he was interested in a position with the new company if Mr. Barrick was going to leave Ste.l Building, At some point thereafter Rose, Mr. Barrick and Mr. Gettle mutually agreed that Mr. Gettle would work for Ros. Metal. -2- 13. Denied. oetendante deny that Rose eought bUlineee from Iny steel Building cuetomere or others prior to reeigning trom Steel Building. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose diverted or attempted to divert any business from steel Building while employed by it. 15. Admitted in part and denied. Defendants admit that while employed as an officer of steel Building, Rose submitted bid propoeale on behalf of steel Building. Defendants deny that Ros. eubmitted or sought any bids for Rose Metal until after January 31, 1995. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without eufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 17. Denied. New England Motor Freight is the owner of a project on which consolidated construction company ("Coneolidated") was the contractor. Rose bid on the project tor steel Building, but he did not bid on the project for Rose Metal while employed by Steel Building. Consolidated erected the project itaelf and ran into difficulties after January 31, 1995, at which point consolidated contacted Rose to finish the roof. Roee Metal accspted the job and finished the roof on a time and material baeie. with regard to the Jerre-Dan project, ROle bid -3- to wayn.aboro conetruction on behalf of steel Building prior to January 31, 1995. NQ contract waa awarded to steel Building at any tiDe prior to Roae'e reaignation. Roae Metal wae contacted by Wayneaboro conetruction in February 1995, after it l.arned that Roe. had left steel Building. wayneeboro conatruction inforaed Roe. that it had reached an agreement with Jerre-Dan and that it wanted ROBe to construct the project because of his peraonal reputation with both the owner and Waynesboro conatruction. ROBe Metal and Waynesboro construction then agreed to negotiate the contractual terms. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without euffic.ient knowl.edge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 19. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose utilized confidential and proprietary information obtained from steel Building to undercut steel Building in bidding while still employed at steel Building. By way of further answer, defendanta admit that while Rose was employed by steel Building the only bid propoeale he submitted were on behalf of steel Building. 20. Danied. Defendante deny that prior to January 31, 1995, Roee accepted or commenced work on any contracte which he aecured for ROB. Metal during his employment with steel Building. On the contrary, nojobe were bid or accepted by Rose on behalf of Roae Metal prior to February 1, 1995. -4- 21. D.ni.d. Paragraph 21 i. a conclu.ion of law, or a .ix.d conclu.ion of law and fact, to which no r..pon.. n..d b. .ad. by d.f.ndant.. If a re.pon.. i. d....d n.c...ary by the Court, d.f.ndant. d.ny that Ro.. bid and ..cur.d job. for Ro.. N.tal prior to hi. r..ignation fro. st..l Building. 22. D.nied. Fir.t, d.fendant. deny that Ro.. .olicitad any long.tanding .mployee. of steel Building to leave its employ. On the contrary, Ro.e only approached Mr. Barri~k about joining Ro.e Netal upon its formation. Further, defendants deny that Ro.. .olicit.d longstan~ing employee. of Steel Building or otherwi.. acted with an intent to harm pl&intiff in any way or at any tim., or with a ,pacific intent to divert or convert any business of St..l Building. On the contrary, Rose acted at all time. with the utmo.t good faith in connection with hi. employment by plaintiff. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that prior to the time Rose left steel Building, he informed three g.n.ral contracting firms of his departure, those being Don Nowery of R.S. Mowery, Greg Kuhn of McCoy Brothers and official. of Contractor. of America in New Jersey. Defendants deny that Ro.. "contacted many, if not all" of the general contracting firm. with whom he had worked while at Steel Building. 24. Danied. Defendant. deny that ROBe led any of Steel Building" bu.ine.. contact. to b.li.ve that St..l Building'. -5- bu.ine.. prolpectl were bleak or that the company would not lurvive or that the company could not provide th.m with ..rvic.. On the contrary, Ro.e went to Don Mowery of R.S. Mowery to a..ure Mowery that Ste.l Building could fulfill its contract after Rose left. 35. Denied. Defendant. deny that Ros. informed financial in.titutions that steel Building's prospects were bleak, that it would not lurvive, or that it could not fulfill its contractual obligations to third parties. 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Roa. was aware of the relationships that steel Building had with certain contractors and financial institutions, but deny that he took any of tho actions alleged by steel Building, as set forth in defendants' responses above. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and proo~ thereof is hereby demanded at trial, if relevant. 29. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose was aware of the existence and the reasonableness of these prospects and that he took the action. alleged by Steel Building as Bet forth in defendants' responses above. -6- 30. D.ni.d. D.f.ndant. deny that Ro.. di....inat.d fal.. inforaation or innu.ndo abOut St.el Building to any of it. bu.in... and financial contacte. 31. D.ni.d. Defendant. deny that they con.pired to deceiv. Steel Building. On the contrary, Roee and the other foraer .-ploy.e. of Steel Building who joined Rose Metal continued to do th.ir be.t work for the intereet of Steel Building during the entire duration of their employment with Steel Buildinq up to and includinq January 31, 1995. 32. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose made false representations to steel Buildinq in an attempt to hide any actione he had taken on behalf of Rose Metal. On the contrary, Ro.. did not bid or accept jobs for Rose Metal until after he left the employ of steel Buildinq on January 31, 1995, so there was nothing of that nature for ROBe to hide. COUHT I I.aaca O. .1DUCIARY DUTY AID DUTY O. LOYALTY STIlL aUILDI.O .RICTOR.. I.C. v. .T.v.. RO.. 33. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their respons.s to paraqraphs 1 through 32 of plaintiff's complaint a. if .et forth fully below. -7- !' . I" 34. Admitted in part and denied. Defendants admit that aose was responsible for estimat.. ot company bids for Steel ,uildinq, but deny that he was respon.ible for all of them. 35. Admitted in part and denied. Defendants admit that Ro.e had control and dominion ot certain a.pects of the contraot bidding proce.s within steel Building's oftice, but deny that Ro.e had exolusive oontrol and dominion of all aspects of 8uch ,contract bidding. 36. Admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. Denied. paragraph 38 is a conclusion ot law to whioh no re.ponse need be made by defendants. It a response is deemed nece..ary by the court, defendants deny that Rose failed to tulfill any fiduciary duty that he may have owed to steel Building. 39. Denied. paragraph 39 is a conclusion of law to whioh no re.ponse need be made by defendants. If a response i. deemed nece..ary by the court, detendants deny that Rose failed to perform hi. duties for steel Building with loyalty and utmost good faith to advance the interests of Steel Building. 40. Denied. paragraph 40 is a oonclusion ot law, or a mixed oonclusion of law and fact, to which no responoe need be ..de by defondant., If a re.ponse is deemed necessary by the Court, detendant. deny that Rose breached any of his duties to -8- steel Building. On the contrary, during hi. employment with Steel Building, Ro.e performed all of hi. duties to the be.t at hi. abiliti.. and in the beet intere.t ot Steel Building. After reaeonable inve.tigation, detendant. are without knowledge or intoraation .utficient to torm a belief ae to whether st.el Building .uffered any economic injury, and proof thereot i. h.reby demanded at trial, it relevant. WHEREFORE, defendants request this Honorable Court to diemi.. plaintiff'. complaint with prejudice, and to award them their coet. ot suit. COUNT II co...a8IOM/U8URPATION or CORPORATI OPPORTUNITY 8TIIL BUILDIHG IRICTORS. IHC. v. P.08_ ._TAL 8Y8T.... IHC. and 8TBVIH ROSI 41. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their reepon.e. to paragraphs 1 through 40 of plaintiff'S complaint as if ..t forth fully below. 42. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose induced any employe. of st..l Building to leave steel Building to work for Rose or Roe. M.t&l. On the contrary, the only employee of steel Building that Ro.. approached with regard to leaving steel Building wae Mr. BarriCk, the other employees of Steel Building mutually agreed to join Ro.. Metal only after learning that Rose and Mr. Barrick would b. l.aving Steel Building. -9- 43. Adaitt.d in part and denied in part. : Detendant. admit that Ro.e a.ked Mr. Barrick prior to January 31, 1995, if he would be intere.ted in working for Ro.e Metal after it wae , tOI.ed, however, defendant. deny that Ro.e induced any employee .et forth in paragraph 10 of the complaint to leave St.el Building to work tor Ro.e or Ro.e Metal, including Mr. Barriok. 44. Denied. Defendant. deny that Rose converted Ste.l Building's employ.e. and corporate opportunities to Rose and/or Ro.e Metal. 45. Paragraph ~5 i. a conclusion of law to which no re.ponse need be made by defendants. If a response is deemed nece..ary by the Court, defendants deny that they interfered with steel Building's employees, property rights or expectancies in oertain oontract bid.. 46. Denied. Dafendants deny that they converted or intended to convert any of the said economic opportunities away trom steel Building. 47. Denied. Defendants deny that Rose Metal intended to or wa. .ubstantially certain that it would deny steel Building of it. client base. 48. Denied. Paragraph 48 is a conclusion of lnw, or a mixed conclusion of law and fact, to which no response need be made by Ro.e. If a response i. deemed necessary by the Court, -10- detendent. deny the averments in their entirety. Detendant. have acted properly in all re.pecte. 49. Denied. Atter reasonable investigation, detendants are without knowledge or information sufticient to torm a belief as to the truth of the averment, and proof thereof i. hereby de.anded at trial, if relevant. WHEREFORE, defendants request this Honorable Court to di..i.. plaintiff'. complaint with prejudice, and to award them their co.t. of suit. COUNT III TORTIOU' IWTaarlalMCI WITH VaOSVICTIVI BU8INISS alLATIOM. 'TilL BUILDING laICTORS. INC. v. RO'. .ITAL .Y.T.... INC. and STIVIN R081 50. Defendant. incorporate by reference herein their re.pon.e. to paragraphs 1 through 49 of plaintiff's complaint a. it .et forth fully below. 51. Admitted. 52. Denied. Defendants deny that they intended to harm Steel Building or that they undercut and underbid steol Building while Ro.e was .till employed with steel Building. By way ot further answer, detendants deny that Rose submitted any bids on behalf of Rose Metal prior to February 1, 1995. -11- 53. Deniect. through it. agent steel builcting or Detenctant. d~ny that Ro.e Netal .y.tem., Ro.e, intended to cau.e economic injury to that economic injury wa. .ub.tantially certain to oocur a. a re.ult ot detendant., aotion.. 54. Deniect. Paragraph 54 i. a oonolu.ion at law, or a .ixect conclu.ion ot law and tact, to which no re.pon.. nee~ be .ade by d.tendant.. It a re.ponse i. deemed nece.sary by the Court, detendant. incorporate by reference their respon.e. to paragraphe 1 through 53. 55. Denied. Atter reasonable investigation, detendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to torm a belief a. to the truth of the averment, and proof thereof is hereby ct..anded at trial, if relevant. WHEREFORE, defendants request this Honorable Court to cti..i.. plaintift'. complaint with prejUdice, and to award the. their coat. of suit. COUJIT IV UJfJUIT IDICHMIIIT ITIIL BUILDIBG I.ICTO.I. IBC. v. 10.1 NITAL .'IT"I. IBC. aDd IT"_B lOll 56. Detendant. incorporate by reference herein th.ir r"pon.e. to paragraph. 1 throuqh 55 ot plaintift'. complaint a. if .et torth fully below. -12- " " 57. Denied. Defendant. deny that they have been enriohed to the detri.ent of steel Building. 58. Denied. paragraph 58 i. a conclu.ion of law, or a mixed conclu.ion of law and fact, to which no respon.e need be made by defendant.. If a re.pon.e i. deemed neoe.Nary by the Court, defendants deny that they have derived unju.tly the benefit. of steel Building's business without payment. WHEREFORE, defendants request this Honorable Court to di..i.. plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, and to award them their co.t. of suit. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER, WOO~, ALLEN & RAHAL Dated I January 19, 1995. By '!3'.{,/~ // l/u L william E. Miller, Jr. 1.0. # 072'10 Charles W. Rubendall II 1.0. # 23172 Brenda s. Lynch 1.0. I 75912 210 Walnut street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 717-255-8023, 255-8010 and 255-8037 Attorneys for defendants -13- CD'l':I.:lOA'l'. o. ...V:lO. 1, Brenda S. Lynch, Zequire, one of the attorneys for 4efendant., hereby oertify that I have served the foregoing paper upon coun.el of record this date by depositing a true and correot copy of the sam. in the United state. mail, fir.t-olas. po.tage prepaid, .ddr....d as follows: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Chri.topher M. ciccone, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin , Mellott 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 REEFER, WOOD, ALLEN , RAHAL Dated: January 19, 1996 By ~\~j_A- y/ ~"~~ ren as. Lynch ., I' ir. !~.'.' ~. o '1" U.. '~'''' ?" ~ co U"l' M 2 -3-t:: ~. -~ . ..:1' (...:;1: .!.._.i " .... :!j~l-? (".:"_# \ ~j(n \HU. e: ::.) U - 0: N ,,' -. """, ~' -, ..0' ,p I, , I' , !i " I 'fl"'" ,~t-h". .....I'.'f - ., , , , , .IAN I 5 1998 tP STEEL BUILDING BRECTORS,: IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS INC" CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term ROSS METAL SySTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 1998, upon consideration of PlaIntlfr. Motion to Strike Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Subpoenas to Non-Parties, the Motion Is hereby GRANTED, and the objections are hereby stricken. Plaintiff may proceed to serve the subpoenas at issue at will. HY THE COURT: J, , F\'.r~:,;rl.I:\CE or: .1 " . .'!:, :'!T/H'I ,r' " 90 ,!!i\ ?C, (.\\ \11 70 f'U' ,,'" V l"'II',l' i) '. 1'1"""" Y.I-..,jl( ,(' ".If V , . ,I ~ , :.'/,;.:/\ .~ .... a-' - ~ c1 - ... '1 4 R I, " , 'I, " , \,., (, STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 95-6939 Civil Term fJ I ." (~) t;..) "d 'I :.. , !! I;~ ,; n ,~ I 'J I I ,0 .,., I _:~ ..' J.. ,< c, ~, ,n' , 'l J) ,t:" - , -,' , ROSH Mh"TAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendanla CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS TO THIRD PARTJi.$ PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.:zt(dlill NOW comes, Plaintiff, Steel Building Erectors, Inc. and makes the within Motion to Strike Defendants' Objections to Plaintifrs Subpoenas stating in support thereof as follows: I. Pursuant to recent revisions to the Rules of Civil Procedure, parties to , litigation are no longer entitled to simply issue document subpoenas to third-parties. 2. Instead, the Rules requh'e that, prior to the service of a subpoena on a non-patty, l\ party serve notice upon his adversary, including therewith a precise copy of the subpoena which that party intends to serve. ~ Pa.R.Civ.P. 4009.21. 3. The Rule then permits the adverse party to file objections to the issuance of the subpoenas, thereby effectively precluding their service. 4. In the case at bar, on October 31,1997, Plaintiff mailed twelve such Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoenas to counsel for Defendants, together with a request that Plalntifrs counsel be furnished with dates during which depositions could be taken. That correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". 141914,1 1 5. Rather than responding to this correspondence, Defendant elected to t1lo "blanket" objections to each and every proposed subpoena, thereby effectively precluding Plaintiff from moving forward with discovery in the manner intended. 6. In an excess of cautilln, Plaintiff responds to Defendants' objections as follows: (a) Defendants' objection that the subpoenas are "impermissibly broad" and "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" Is obviously boilerplate, and is so lacking in specificity that no meaningful response is possible. Obviously, Plaintiff believes that the discovery requests are propcr and necessary in order to prepare the case for trial. (b) Defendants' objection that the subpoenas seek "documents which are beyond the scope of permitted discovery", is also boilerplate, and lacks specificity sufficient to prepare a meaningful response. (c) It is admitted that certain of Plainlifrs allegations relate to January 31, 199~ (at which time Defendant Rose formerly Plaintiff that he was leaving). However, this clearly over-simplifies Plaintifrs claim, whi:h sounds, Inter 0110, in breach of fiduciary duty, having to do with actions taken by Defendant Rose in prllparation for his departure, such as contacting customers, employees, etc. That is why the discovery requests to non-parties relate back as far as October 1995, rather than beginning simply on January 31, 1995. The requests run forward to January 1997, because, as the subpoenas themselves reflect, what Plaintiff seeks are communications from Defendants to customers, (Which could very well reflect a date of "founding" of the Defendant corporation or ,he like) inconsistent with the 2 facta as pleaded In Defendant's answer. Furthermore, as a mailer of damages, contracts which were Inappropria:e1y solicited during 1995 could very well have generated l.ertinent documents as late as January 1997. Thus, to suggest that the time frame specified in the subpoenu are .unrelated. to Plaintiffs claim misapprehends Plaintiffs claims. (d) The objections set forth in 1d are boilerplate and conclusory, and fail to Identify with any speciflci~y whatsoever the particular subpocna(s) to which each objection pertains. Plaintiffs relevance objections are to be resolved at the time of trial, and are not a proper objection to discovery. Similarly, to the e~tentthat certain subpoenas dre directed to parties which have had no business relationship, their document response will be either non- existent or meager. However, it bears repetition that what Plaintiff seeks are documents forwarded to certain companies in the industry in which both Plaintiff and Defendants do business, and the very point of the document request is to ascertain the timing of the announcement of the formation of Defendant, Rose Metal Systems, Inc, Similarly, the objection that the requested information is "privileged and proprietary" and is not generated as a result of the traditional "competitive bid process" misses the point. Once again, Plaintiff seeks documents establishing the timing of the announcement of the creation of Defendant Rose Metal Systems, Inc., and also wishes to compare the format of Oefendant's bid proposals to templates generated for Plaintiff by Steven Rose during which time Steven Rose was employed by Plaintiff. As is set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, Rose designed certain computer applications for Plaintiff which, upon information and belief, he copied or otherwise removed upon his departure without authorization. As a result, the format of the requested documents is significant in the context of the litigation, over and above the content 3 thereof. Finally, the objection that a mere request for the production of documents would "unfalr1y disrupt and taint Defendants' ongoing business relationships. is an objection any party to any litigation could raise to any discovery directed to a third-palty, and is an inappropriate objection. (e) Defendantll object to the service of the subpoena because counsel had not "explored" a "possible resolution of this discovery dispute". This objection is circular: naturally, no "discovery dispute" existed prior to the filing of Defendants' objections, and likewise Defendant made no attempt to "explore" a resolution of its objections prior to simply filing the blanket objections at issue herein. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in greater delail herein, Defendants apparently misapprehend the purpose behind certain of the discovery requests, and there is apparently no room for agreement with respect to the same. (I) Oefendants invite Plaintiff to re-order Plaintiff's desired sequence of discovery because defense counsel bclieves that taking the depositions before obtaining the document "may moot any need for burdensome discovery". This objection tlatly ignores both the Rules of Civil Procedure and common sense. As an initial matter, Rule 4007.3 specifically provides that "methods of discovery may ~e used in any sequence...". Additionally, as a matter of common sense, Plaintifrs counsel wishes to have access to the documents requested IUiw: to convening the referenced depositions. Lastly, although Defendant suggests that these depositions could narrow the scope of the discovery remaining, no response whatsoever was ever made to the request for available deposition dates, which request is embodied in the correspondence made Exhibit" A. hereto, forwarded to defense counsel on 4 ,,' " I I , I . 0', " I l I i t, .t' " " " ," '.,. 'Ll ',1,\ , C ,,' ,,' \1' I ."1 .... ,j' I , , ~ ~ :i l'- j~~ =- f.Il . ~ " ~d1 ::E~::r: ! I' ' " , " ~I ; ~ ~ I ! j, ~np.~y.w.':r~ i " .j' , c': f " , 'i' ':" " " , r :1", " ;, , - -.. .' " , . c' ,) I \ , , I i I \ I I , \ I '1 ! 'i r:: i~i ~-~ . S 5 !:l ~~ ~, ~'I; :E ~:i! " ;i , , ~i " II , oI/j' ~ Ii ((> , " r I I" !'" < ,- , \ , I , " \ I I , . , - ,...'"'... . I , 'i I I I I I '~I M~ ~ !~~~~ )lVl_1). 15 S - OIl ~ c:....- "2"'i;Jdl~ .g ~ ~ .,~ )~~~:c ~ - '; ", ~ I .-s ~ i :'i '. , , ! j' i,' . STIEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC. , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF C\J)\BERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, IHC., and STEVEN ROSE, No. 95-6939 CIVIL TERM Defendants D...IIDAJI'f' ' NI.... '1'0 .,LAIITIJl'." KOTIO. TO .Tal.' D....DAKTS' OBJICTIOIS TO .,LAlIl'fU. .. DOCUKDT 8UIIOI.AS '1'0 THIRD 1>0'1'1118 PUR8D~ ~o aUL. .001.21 1-3. The Rules of Civil procedure speak for themselves. The allegations are specifically denied to the extent plaintiff's characterization is at variance with the express terms of the rules. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. on information and belief, admitted that on october 31, 1997, plaintiff's counsel mailed an October 31, 1997 letter to defendants' counsel, enclosing 12 notices of intent to serve subpoenas. The october 31, 1997 lette~, attached to plaintiff's unverified motion as Exhibit A, speaks for itself. To the extent Exhibit A suggests that defendants' counsel has failed to cooperate in resolving this discovery dispute, such allegation is specifically denied. To the contrary, by letter dated November 18, 1997, defendants' counsel served plaintiff's counsel with defendants' objections to plaintiff's document subpoenas. (Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Bradford Dorrance's November 18, 1997 letter to Mark Bradshaw.) In Mr. Dorrance's November 18 letter, he asked Mr. Bradshaw to contact him to discuss this discovery dispute. D.spite this request, plaintiff's counsel did not contact defendants' counsel and instead filed plaintiff's IBoti,on to strike defendants' objections, 5. Denied. contrary to plaintiff's allegation, defendants appropriately filed objections to plaintiff's document subpoenas. Defendants' objections are incorporated by reference herein. Defendants filed the objections in a good faith effort to preserve their rights, pending the anticipated discussion and resolution of these discovery issues. ~ paragraph 4 above, which is incorporated by reference herein. 6. Denied. Paragraph 6 of plaintiff's motion consists of legal arguments and conclusions of law to which no respon~ive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, defendants specificallY deny the stated allegations and aver to the contrary as follows: (a)-(g) Defendants' objections were appropriately filed in accordance with the Rules of civil Procedure. plaintiff overstates and misapprehends the bases of defendants' objections. By letter dated February 4, 1998, defendants' counsel provided plaintiff's counsel with a proposed resolution of this discovery dispute. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy of Bradford Dorrance's February 4, 1998 letter to plaintiff's counsel, Mark Bradshaw. Although plaintiff's counsel has yet to respond to the 2 February 4 letter, detendants anticipate a response in the near tuture. Detendants reserve their right to amend this answer based on plaintitt's response (and any other developments atteQtinq these discovery issues). 7. Denied. Defendants specitically deny that they are attempting to delay the discovery process. In truth, they have tiled legitimate objections to plaintiff's proposed document subpoenas. As indicated by the attached correspondence (Exhibits A and B), defendants' counsel is attempting to resolve this discovery dispute. ~ paragraphs 1 through 6 above, which are incorporated by reference herein. "Ba.woaR, detendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss plaintiff's motion, and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: ?.-/,-=Yl % Bu.a __aL 1i.~~ '- . <- ~W~~m~E. Miller, Jr. I.D. #07220 Bradford Dorrance I.D. #32147 210 Walnut Street P,O. Box 11963 HarriSburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Defendants) 3 H&ATH I.. ALLIN N. DAVIO "AHAI. WII.I.IAM I. Jl.IILLI... "'... CHAltLl1 w. .uaINO.I.Lo D ..0.1,", I.. WII.OQN lVOINI I. H;~N'KY. "'... THOMA' C. WQOO "'OHN H. INO' m o.-..y C. '..INCH DONN. I. WII.OON ....DI'O"O OO"IlIANCI ""1""1" I. lTOKl1 ..o11In' II. (:HUNC~ .TI.....CH L. GROll It. ICOn' IHEA"I.. WAYNI N. "leHT DOHAL.O Ji4. L.IIWI' m ."IDOCT Ji4. WHJTL.IY KA..IN .1tOT....... WA" ."INDA I. a..YNCH 'H.WN W. Will 'VI& ...L.aOIl:rn KEEF'ER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL. 110 WALNUT ST"EET p, 0, SOX II1UI3 HA"I'lISBU"O, PA 17108-18153 "HONIt (717) 115"8000 "AX (717) 1I55.e050 LLP IITAeLIIHIO IN 117. 0' COVH'II.; WII.LIAN H. WOOO ....~u.1. C, HA""Y WI'" I"'OMI O""IClt "'1' 'AI.L.OW"ILO IIQAO C"'M~ HILL.. "A 17011 IlIN NO, .3.0718138 February 4, 1998 ~HON' (717) .1....00 ,.. '717>> .1....0. WlltITl~" OIIltCCT DIAl.: (717) 255-8014 Mu'k D. Bradshaw, Elquire ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN , MELLOTT One S. Market Square Building 213 Market Street P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Re: Steel Building Erectors, Inc. v. Rose Metal systems, Inc. and Steven Rose Cumherland Co. C.C.P. No. 95-6939 civil TArm Dear Mark: Following up on our recent telephone conversations, I write to propose a resolution of our disoovery dispute, inclUding your pending motion to strike defendants' objections to plaintiff's document suhpoenas. Plaintiff's proposed subpoenas are directed to 12 non-party contractors. Each subpoena requests the prOduction of three broad categor iel of documents: 1. promotional materials, announcements, or other marketing literature regarding Rose Metal Systems, Inc. or sent to each contractor by Rose Metal from OctOber, 1995 to January, 1997; 2. documents reflecting each contractor's first notice of the existence or creation of Rose Metal, including any personal notes, calendar entries, or other docum.nts; and 3. copies of all contractors' files relating to jobs for which Rose Metal submitted a quotation during the period October, 1995 to January, 1997. With re.pect to the first two categories, our clients have no objection to production of any responsive documents. However, Exhibit "Il" Mark D. Bradshaw, Eequire February 4, 1998 paqe 2 with re.pect to the third cateqory, W8 seek your cooperation in narrowinq the scope ot your document reque.t. Cateqory three i. impermi..ibly broad and burdensome in Icope, because it seek. the sntire job file. trom the non-party contractor.. Certain tile. include privi1eqed and proprietary intormation relating to contract. which are still in the biddinq proces.. Other tiles may contain confidential pricing intol'mation submitted by Ro.e Metal to contractors with whom defendants are still negotiating. Many ot these contractors are negotiating exclusively with detendants and/or have not received any bids trom Steel Building on particular projects. In an ettort to resolve this dispute, Steel Building may subpoena certain mutually agreeable documents trom the contractors provided that: (a) both steel Building and Rose Metal have submitted bids on the particular project; and (b) bids have been awarded trom October, 1995 through January, 1997, as contirmed by a signed contract. with respect to these applicable projects, category three ot the proposed subpoenas must be narrowed so as to include only those documents which relate to plaintiff's causes of action. Defendants must respond to Judge Hess's rule to show caUse within approximately two weeks. Therefore, I would appreciate your contacting me betore Friday, February 13, 1998 in an eftort to resolve this discovery dispute. Thank you. Sincerely, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP ~~Q~', By: Bradtord Dorrance - - - - BD/rel I V..J:.!l!~'1'%a. I, the undersigned, hereby verity and state thatl 1. I am the President ot ROBe Metal systems, Inc., a Detendant in the toregoing matter and am theretore authorized to make this veritication. 2. The tacts containe~ in the toregoing answer are true and correct to the best ot my knowledge, information and belief. 3. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn talsitication to authorities. Dated I 2/17/98 /-.....~ . ,-,-.....--:- ROStll, president 'I. Dated: 2/17/98 .Jht / steven J. Rose , " Yllll.II!!"'l'IO. I' I, the undereigned, hereby verity and etate that: 1. I am a Detendant in the toregoing matter and am theretore authorized to make thie veritication. 2. The tacts contained in the toregoing an ewer are true and correct to the best ot my knowledge, information and belief . 3. I understand that talse statements herein are made subject to the penalties ot 18 fa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn talsification to authorities. " , a..,I.lft... ow .~VIO. I hereby certify that I have thia day aerved a copy of the fore901n9 document up~n the peraon(l) and in the manner indioated below: Pir.~-Cla.. Mailr pOBt898 prepAid Addr....d a. Follaw.: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Chrletopher M. Cicconi, Esquire ECKERT sEAMANS CRERIH , MELLOTT One s. Market square Building 213 Market street P. O. Box 1248 Rarriaburg, PA 17108-1248 (AttorneYB for plaintiff) Dated: "2../1":1-1 q 'b ~.~~~- B or Dorrance - . --- '" 'f r " , , , , "I " I'" .~ ..:I r.; lrl " ~,., .. ... ..).... ~! - 'i :'",1 I ~~~,:! ". I., J:';t ~;I' "- , '.1 ".~J ..,~I .,'b' r' ,.... " q ....:J.. - i-,l.~;, i, . {tl' ! L~1 i l~'} F': 1ot,I '!n:-1.. L<,.. ~ In !"'J ..J (,1' 0 " " " " ;h",.,;~I"'i"" ',-"':-'!" ",;'J-!"')~t""lJ!ll~~Pirt't~"" ,,,,,.~,,~~.~'!'''''''''~'. ,-:~; ',' , , , f, " STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE. Defendants 95-6939 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND NOW, this 0" day of February, 1998, argument on the above captioned . motion to strike is set for Thursday, March 6. 1998, at 2:00 p,m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. BY THE COURT, ::tS,I.o:J-lIL Kevin A. Hess, J. Mark D, Bradshaw, Esquire For the Plaintiff / _ ~ 1"'f\~i.e.J ~/11Iql. ,J,~ Bradford Dorrance, Esquire For the Defendants ;rlm 1 STIEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC. , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI~ plaintitf v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW t; -n !f1 :1> -., .~- ,11 ," -;,.'.1 1'3 .-J /ilJ -"j ." ,', : ~~ 1')-' "{ - "(1 '..J .. -, ',!1 ,. ~I "'- ~; ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., ancS STEVEN RoSE, "l' ' rl'q' No. 95-6939 CIVIL TERM, _ Defendants I , DI"IIJ)UT. ' MI.... TO PLAIIITIrr'. ' . I KOTIO. TO .TaIlI DlrIIlDUlTS' OBJICTIOMS TO J - , .LAIlITxr:r'. DOCUllIIIT .VUO..AS TO THIRD .UTII.; , vua.uurr 'f0 RUL. .&00..21 -< 1.3. The Rules of Civil Procedure speak for themselves. The allegations are specifically denied to the extent plaintiff'S characterization is at variance with the express terms of the rules. 4. ~dmitted in part; denied in part. On information ancS ~elief, admitted that on October 31, 1997, plaintiff's counsel mailed an October 31, 1997 letter to defendants' counsel, enclosing 12 notices of intent to serve subpoenas. The October 31, 1997 letter, attached to plaintiff's unverified motion as Ixhibit A, speake for its.lf. To the extent Exhibit ~ suggests that defendants' counsel has failed to cooperate in reSOlving this cSi.covery dispute, such allegation is specifically denied. To the contrary, by letter dated November 18, 1997, defendants' counsel served plaintiff's counsel with defendants' objections to plaintiff's document subpoenas. (Attached as Exhibit .~. ie a copy of Bradford Dorrance's November 18, 1997 letter to Mark Bradshaw.) In Mr. Dorrance's November 18 letter, he asked Mr. eradshaw to contact him to discuss this discovery dispute. D.spite this request, plaintiff's counsel did not contact d.f.nd~nts' counsel and instead filed plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' objections. 5. Denied. contrary to plaintiff's allegation, defendants appropriatelY filed objections to plaintiff's document subpoenas. Defendants' objections are incorporated by reference herein. Defendanta filed the objections in a good faith effort to preserve their rights, pending the anticipated discussion and resolution of these discovery issues. ~ paragraph 4 above, which is incorporated by reference herein, 6. Denied. Paragraph 6 of plaintiff'S motion consists of legal arguments and conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is roquired. To the extent a responsive , pl~ading is deemed necessary, defendants specifically deny the stated allegations and aver to the contrary as follows: (a)-(g) Defendants' objections were appropriately filed in accordance with the Rules of civil procedure. plaintiff overstates and misapprehends the bases of defendants' objections. By letter dated February 4, 1998, defendants' counsel provided plaintiff'S counsel with a proposed resolution of this discovery dispute. Attachod as Exhibit '8' is a copy of Bradford Dorrance's February 4, 1998 letter to plaintiff's counsel, Mark Bradshaw. Although plaintiff'S counsel has yet to respond to the 2 February 4 letter, defendants anticipate a response in the near future. Defendants reserve their right to amend this answer based on plaintiff's relponse (and any other developments affecting thnse discovery issues). 7. Denied. Defendants specificallY deny that they are attempting to 'delay the discovery process. In truth, they have filed legitimate objections to plaintiff'S proposed document subpoenas. As indicated by the attached correspondonce (EXhibits A and 8), defendants' counsel is attempting to resolve this discovery dispute. aaa pa~agraphs 1 through 6 above, which are incorporated by reference herein. OI.II'ORI, defendants respectfully xequest that the Court dismiss plaintiff'S motion, and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN , RAHAL, LLP Datedl vll~l f6 B . t7... - _aL ~~ 'e ~ ...- . Co- ~ ~:~;;U~; E. Mille~, Jr. 1.0. 107220 Bradford Dorrance 1.0. 132147 210 Walnut street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys tor Defendants) 3 . ' "&ATH L. AI..LIIH N. DAVID ".~A'" WU..I..IAhI .. ...11......... ",It. CH"""'.' w. ..uaINDAL.'" a MI....,. L, W."DOH lUOI"II. N...N....V, oJIII, THO"''' I. WOOD tJOHN H. IHoe m OA"V I. '''IINCH DOH"A .. waLDON ."ADP'OftO oe'U'''NCI ",...'IIIP .. eTCK" .o.IM N. CHUIltCH lITe~IM ~ o_e ft, IKOn ....CA..... WAYNI N. NCHT DC)N...L.O M. LlIWla m ."IDOIT M. WHIT'-'" MAltIH lItOTHII'" MAY ....HCA .. L 'YHCH .HAWN W. WEll vra. ...L.eOIlY.. . KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, alo WAL.NUT ST"EET P. O. IIOX II11e3 HA"AI.eUAO, PA 17I08-18e3 "HONE (717) .....000 ,.AX (717) .....0.0 L.I..P U"."'.HU IN I.'. 0' COUNI'",) WII,"'IAN H, WOO. IAMl,Il'" C. HA""V w.I'" IHC,I... O"~'j 411 ,...LOW'"LO ""II c.tw" HILIo., itA 1'1011 IIIN No. .~'O"I.I:J' ",ONe C,," .'...00 ,.... C,,7I .,....0. rebruary 4, 1998 ""I".'. ....It .1"''''1 (717) 355-1014 Mark D. Bradehaw, .equira ECKERT SEAMANS CHBaIM , MELLOTT One s. Market square Buildin9 313 Market stre.t P. o. Box 1248 Harrisburq, PA 17108-1248 Re: steel Building Erector., Inc. v. Roee Metal sy.tems, Inc. and Steven Ro.e Cnmb.rland Co. CaC.P. No... g~_Ac)1g civil If_ra Dear Mark: Following up on our recent telephone conver.~tions, I write to propoae a resolution of our di.covery diapu~e, includinv your pending motion to strike defendant.' objections to plaintiff'. document eubpoenas. plaintiff's proposed subpoena. are directed to 13 non-per~y contractor.. Each .ubpoena request. the production of thrse broad categories of docuaen~sl 1. promotional matarials, annownCI.en~., or other marketing literature regardinv Ro.e Metal 8y.~em., Inc. or .en~ to each contractor by Ro.e Metal trom October, 1995 to January, 1997 ; 2. document. reflecting each contractor'. first notice of thl Ixiatence or creation of Ro.e Metal, includinv any personal notes, calendar entrie., or other documenta, and 3. copies of all contractor.' filea relatinv to jobs for which Ro.e Metal lubmitted a quotation durin9 the period Oc~ober, 1995 to January, 1997. with re.pect to the tiret two cate~ories, our clients have no objection to production of any responsivl documents. Howlvlr, Exhibit "a" Mark D. Brad.haw, Bequire February 4, 1998 Page :I with reepect to the third category, we .eek your cooperation in narrowing the .cope ot your document reque.t. Cate90ry three i. impermieeibly broad and burdensome in .cope, because it s.eks the entire job tile. trom the non-party contractor.. Certain fil.s include privileged and proprietary intormation relating to contract. which are still in the bidding proc.... Other files may contain contidential pricing intormation aubmitted by Ros. Metal to contractors with whom detendants are atill negotiating. Many of theee contract~rs are negotiating exclu.ively with detendant. and/or have not received any bida from Steel Building on particular projects. In an effort to resolve this diapute, st.el Building may subpoena certain mutually agreeable documents from the contractor. provided that: (a) both Steel Building and Rose Metal have submitted bid. on the particular project; and (b) bids have been awarde~ from october, 1995 through January, 1997, as confirmed by a signed contract. With reapect to these applicable projects, category three of the proposed subpoenas must be narrowed so as to include only those document. which relate to plaintiff's causes of action. " Defendants must respond to Judge He.s's rule to show cause within approximately two week.. Therefore, I would appr.ciat. your contacting me before Friday, February 13, 1998 in an effort to r.solve thi. discovery dispute. Thank you. Sincerely, RBBPER WOOD ALLEN , RAHAL, LLP ~~Q_~t ~ By:- Bradford Dorrance - - --- BD/ral - '9"'f.~t!&If~O. I, the undersigned, hereby verify and state that' 1. I am the president of Rose Metal systems, Inc., a Defendant in the foregoing matter and am therefor. authori.ed to make this verification. 2. The facts contained in the foreQoing answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3. I understand that false etatements herein are .ade subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 2/17/98 I'.....~ ,,.,-- J. Ro.e, pre.ident .. V.R~.tC"'1YO. I, the undersigned, hereby verify and state that: 1. I am a Defendant in the foregoing matter and am . therefore authorized to mak~ this verification. 2. The facts contained in the foregoing answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3. 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Datlfdl h / steven J. Rose 2/17/98 , , , 'I a...t.~O... o. ...v~9. I hereby certifY that I have this day served a copy of the fOregoing document upon the porson(s) and in the manner indicated below: .ir.~-C1A.' Mail. POBtAQ8 pr.pA~4 &ddr....d AA Follow.: Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Christopher M. cicconi, Esquire ECKERT sEAMANS CHERIH , MELLOTT One S. Market square Building 213 Market street P. O. BoX 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 (Attorneys for plaintiff) Datedl '2-11"1-/ 'l <:& .,4- _ o..d...Q~ ~-- - . '-- V i~o;j' DorrancB STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROSE METAL SYSTEMS, INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants 95.6939 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED ORDER AND NOW, this . Z-Ioo . day of February, 1998, argument on the above euptloned motion to strike is set for Thursday, March 5, 1998, at 2:00 p,m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, Mark O. Bradshaw, Esquire For the Plainti IT 9f,#/L Kev.' A. Hess, J. _ c..,.............., (Y'~A.. :J. J ;;." / H . \l . .....I. fl. Bradford Dorrance, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm STEEL BUILDING ERECTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintlfl' vs, CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROSE METAL SYSTEMS,INC., and STEVEN ROSE, Defendants 95-6939 CIVIL IN 6E: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND NOW, this eo.. day of March, 1998, at the request of counsel for the p~ies, argument on the above captioned motion to strike set for Thursday. March 5, 1998, is continued generally. BY THE COURT, Mark O. Bradshaw, Esquire For the Plaintiff -6::-:1./- / , '..q,.~ 3)'l/'lS" C~ ~ ,2"T'. Bradford Dorrance, Esquire For the Defendants :rlrn