HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-8673 Civil
GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MAXWELL, :
PLAINTIFF :
:
V. :
:
SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS :
AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR :
HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND :
SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED :
PARTNERSHIPS, :
DEFENDANTS : 09-8673 CIVIL TERM
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Masland, J., May 5, 2010:--
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a writ of summons on December 17, 2009.
On January 13, 2010, plaintiff submitted a set of pre-complaint interrogatories to
defendants. On February 9, 2010, defendants filed a motion for a protective order
claiming that the requested discovery is not material or necessary to the filing of a
complaint and complying with the discovery constitutes an unreasonable burden on
defendants. Although plaintiff withdrew all but one interrogatory prior to oral argument,
which was held on May 3, 2010, defendants maintain their opposition. For the reasons
which follow, the court disagrees with defendants’ contention and denies the motion for
a protective order.
The court notes that under Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.8 it has broad authority to weigh
the relative importance of the pre-complaint discovery request and the burden, if any,
that may be imposed on the responding party. McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 444-45,
894 A.2d 1260, 1278-79 (2006). In the context of this case, Interrogatory Number 5
focuses on a matter that is not only material but is, perhaps, at the heart of plaintiff’s
09-8672 CIVIL TERM
case. As such, it is not a “fishing expedition” designed to abuse the intent of pre-
complaint discovery. Id. at 444, 894 A.2d at 1278. Although it is not clear that all of the
sub-parts in Interrogatory Number 5 are absolutely necessary to the filing of the
complaint, the court will give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and require defendants
to supply answers thereto.
Finally, the information supplied will not only materially advance the filing of the
complaint, but it will also conserve judicial resources. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 126 (“The
rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable.”).
Undoubtedly, the matter at issue will return to the court, if not addressed now, in the
form of preliminary objections regarding the lack of specificity in plaintiff’s complaint.
Given the option of addressing this issue now or later, the court chooses to grant
plaintiff’s reasonable request without further delay, and enters the following order:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of May, 2010, upon consideration of defendants’ motion
for a protective order, and following oral argument held on May 3, 2010, defendants’
IS DENIED.
motion Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiff’s pre-complaint
Interrogatory Number 5 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
-2-
09-8672 CIVIL TERM
Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire
For Defendants
:sal
-3-
GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MAXWELL, :
PLAINTIFF :
:
V. :
:
SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS :
AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR :
HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND :
SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED :
PARTNERSHIPS, :
DEFENDANTS : 09-8673 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of May, 2010, upon consideration of defendants’ motion
for a protective order, and following oral argument held on May 3, 2010, defendants’
IS DENIED.
motion Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiff’s pre-complaint
Interrogatory Number 5 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire
For Defendants
:sal