108779-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE ARTERS T/A GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW

:

Plaintiff(s), :

v. : NO. 02-CV-4388

:

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, :

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in :

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : JURY OF TWELVE (12)

: DEMANDED

and :

:

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of_________________________, 2003 upon consideration 

of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for

Production of Documents and Defendant’s Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion is denied as moot with respect to the First and

Second Set of Interrogatories and that Defendant shall serve its formal objections and responses 

to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents on or before March 17, 2003. 

 J.

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 1 of 7
108779-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE ARTERS T/A GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW

:

Plaintiff(s), :

v. : NO. 02-CV-4388

:

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, :

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in :

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : JURY OF TWELVE (12)

: DEMANDED

and :

:

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA :

:

Defendant(s). :

ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’

 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

 AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant, Assurance Company of American (“ACOA”), through its undersigned

counsel, hereby responds to the averments set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion. As responses to

Plaintiff’s First and Second Set of Interrogatories have now been faxed to attorney Nolan’s 

office, respondents respectfully suggest that the Motion is moot as to the Interrogatories. 

Defendant respectfully requests that it be provided twenty (20) days in which to serve its

response to the pending Request for Production of Documents. 

1. Admitted. By way of further response, Assurance Company of American is the

only proper defendant. The First Set of Interrogatories consisted of 25 questions with an

additional 37 subparts for a total of 62 questions. 

2. Admitted. 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 2 of 7
108779-1

3. Admitted that ACOA, through counsel filed a timely status report with the Court 

on November 5, 2002, estimating that discovery could be completed by February 4, 2003. At

that time, however, only the first set of interrogatories had been submitted by Plaintiff. On or 

about November 20, 2002, Plaintiff submitted a second set of interrogatories even though their

first set exceeded the number permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). The Second Set of

Interrogatories was, in part, duplicative of the First Set, and also sought irrelevant information

not required for this Court’s adjudication of the differences between the parties. Moreover, the 

Second Set contained 56 numbered questions with 91 distinct subparts for a total of 147

questions. Plaintiffs also submitted a request for production of documents. Many responsive

documents, including the certified copy of the Greendale Builders’ policy of insurance were

previously provided to or already in the possession of counsel to Plaintiff.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

6. Admitted.

7. Admitted.

8. Admitted.

9. Admitted. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged Plaintiffs’ counsel’s voicemail

message refusing to extend discovery further, although the status of defendant’s written

responses, which were out for review by the client representative, was provided.

10. Denied as Responses and Objections were faxed to plaintiff’s counsel on

February 24, 2003. 

11. Admitted. 

12. Admitted. 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 3 of 7
108779-1

13. Denied. Defendant has complied. Defendant also diligently sought extensions

and kept plaintiff apprised of its progress in responding to the Interrogatories. See letter dated

February 6, 2003 attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

WHEREFORE, respondents respectfully request that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Answers to First and Second Set of Interrogatories be dismissed as moot and that Assurance

Company of America be provided twenty (20) days in which to serve its responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Production of Documents. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP

BY:

Carl H. Delacato, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant,

Assurance Co. of America

Dated: February 24, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 4 of 7
108779-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE ARTERS T/A GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW

:

Plaintiff(s), :

v. : NO. 02-CV-4388

:

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, :

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in :

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : JURY OF TWELVE (12)

: DEMANDED

and :

:

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA :

:

Defendant(s). :

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Defendant respectfully suggests that the Motion, insofar as it relates to Plaintiff’s First

and Second Sets of Interrogatories, is moot. On February 24, 2003, Answers and Objections

were faxed to attorney Nolan. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “B” are a copy of the

transmittal letter and the applicable certificates of service. 

Defendant’s counsel diligently sought extensions of time from plaintiff’s counsel, and

plaintiff afforded professional courtesy in that regard. If further issues arise as to the Responses, 

it is respectfully suggested that such dispute be assigned to a Magistrate Judge for disposition. 

All that remains outstanding at this time is a response to the Document Request of Plaintiff. 

Defendant respectfully requests that it be provided twenty (20) days from February 24, 2003 in 

which to respond. Much of the requested information has already been provided to, or is in the 

hands of the plaintiff’s attorney. Further, counsel to plaintiff has submitted a trial-ready date of 

June 1, 2003. Under the circumstances, it is respectfully suggested that the Motion is moot as to 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 5 of 7
108779-1

the First and Second Sets of Interrogatories. It is further requested that defendant be permitted to 

serve its formal response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents on or before March 

17, 2003. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP

BY:

Carl H. Delacato, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant,

Assurance Co. of America

Dated: February 24, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 6 of 7
108779-1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Carl H. Delacato, Jr., Esquire, hereby certifies that on this 24th day of February 2003, he 

caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel to be 

served on the counsel listed below via facsimile transmission and first class United States mail, 

postage prepaid and properly franked as follows:

Francis X. Nolan, Esquire

VAUGHAN DUFFY & CONNORS, LLP

102 Pickering Way, Suite 400

Exton, PA 19341

Facsimile #: 610/524-0600

Carl H. Delacato, Jr.

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 9 Filed 02/24/2003 Page 7 of 7