Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BUSCHMEIER v. G&G INVESTMENTS

October 7, 2005.

PETRA BUSCHMEIER, Plaintiff,
v.
G&G INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: TERRENCE McVERRY, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

Before the Court are the following:
• JUDGMENT CREDITOR PETRA BUSCHMEIER'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR OMNIBUS RELIEF (Document No. 60);
• RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR PETRA BUSCHMEIER'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR OMNIBUS RELIEF filed by Defendant G&G Investments, Inc. (Document No. 61); and
• JUDGMENT CREDITOR PETRA BUSCHMEIER'S REPLY TO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO HER EMERGENCY MOTION FOR OMNIBUS RELIEF (Document No. 62).
After a thorough review of the motion, response, and reply, as well as a review of the discovery disputes between these parties, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the instant Emergency Motion for Omnibus Relief.

  Chronology of Discovery Disputes

  A. Discovery Propounded to the Six G&G-Related Entities

  On October 17, 2003, Judgment Creditor Petra Buschmeier ("Buschmeier") served identical document production subpoenas pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 upon the following six entities, all of which are allegedly related to the Judgment Debtor, G&G Investments, Inc. ("G&G Investments), to wit: Executive Warehouse, Inc.; Today's Express, Inc.; Ghaznavi Enterprises, Inc.; Ghaznavi Investments, Inc.; Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc.; and John J. Ghaznavi Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "The Six G&G-Related Entities"). The subpoenas sought, inter alia, "[a]ll documents that constitute evidence, relate, or refer to all business and legal dealings, Communications (sic), and correspondence from any kind from January 1, 1988 to the present between" each of The Six G&G-Related Entities and twenty-one other entities.*fn1

  On October 28, 2003, each of The Six G&G-Related Entities served Responses and Objections to the Subpoenas. The Six G&G-Related Entities are represented by the same counsel and law firm: David E. Tungate, Esquire, of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC. The Six G&G-Related Entities each objected to the production of all documents other than those related to dealings with G&G Investments, Inc., on the basis that such request(s) was "overly broad, unduly burdensome, intended to annoy and/or harrass . . ., and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." However, subject to the foregoing objection, The Six G&G-Related Entities agreed to produce documents relating to their dealing with G&G Investments, Inc. from the time period January 1, 2000 to the present. As of January 14, 2004, The Six G&G-Related Entities had not produced the requested documents, although the Subpoenas directed that production of all responsive documents occur on November 3, 2003. By letter dated January 14, 2004, Frederick B. Goldsmith, counsel for Buschmeier, forwarded to David E. Tungate, counsel for The Six G&G-Related Entities, a request for the production of the limited documents The Six G&G-Related Entities had agreed to produce in their Responses and Objections. The January 14, 2004 correspondence also, inter alia, (i) challenged the "overly broad" objection made to the document requests and (ii) asked counsel to withdraw its objections and provide responsive documentation by January 26, 2004.

  On January 19, 2004, attorney Gary A. Butler of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott telephoned counsel for Buschmeier to advise that "he had been assigned the task of responding to the Subpoenas, that it appeared the documents these entities had agreed to produce had not yet been produced, that it appeared to him that additional documents that these entities had objected to producing should be made available for production" and that he would call back on January 22, 2004 to discuss further details. See Mot. at 4 (Document No. 40)

  On January 22, 2004, Attorney Butler informed counsel for Buschmeier that The Six G&G-Related Entities "would only agree to produce whatever type of documents the Judgment Debtor would agreed to produce in response to Buschmeier's Interrogatories and Request for Production directed to G&G Investments." Id.

  On February 13, 2004, not having received any documents from The Six G&G Related Entities, counsel for Buschmeier filed a MOTION TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO HER SUBPOENAS SERVED UPON EXECUTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC.; TODAY'S EXPRESS, INC.; G&G INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; GHAZNAVI ENTERPRISES, INC.; GHAZNAVI INVESTMENTS, INC.; GLENSHAW GLASS COMPANY, INC.; AND JOHN J. GHAZNAVI FOUNDATION, INC. (Document No. 40).

  By Order of Court dated July 15, 2004, the Court granted the Motion to Compel for the limited time period from January 1, 1998 to the present. Moreover, the Court denied and overruled the objections of The Six G&G-Related Entities, but for their objection to the timeframe which was limited by the Court to the period from January 1, 1998 to the present. The Court ordered that The Six G&G-Related Entities "respond in full to Buschmeier's subpoenas by producing all requested documents on or before July 30, 2004." Order of Court, Document No. 45 (emphasis in original).

  It appears that as of the date of the instant Motion, the Six G&G-Related Entities had not complied with the Court's Order of July 15, 2004.

  B. Discovery Propounded to G&G Investments, Inc.

  On July 24, 2003, Buschmeier also served upon G&G Investments, Inc., her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production in Aid of Execution of Judgment. On August 25, 2003, G&G Investments served its Answers and Objections to the discovery requests propounded by Buschmeier wherein it stated, inter alia, that it "does not have the funds to satisfy the final judgment in this matter" and objected to the majority of the interrogatories and requests for production which had been served upon it. While G&G Investments produced 183 pages of documents, it did not produce a single email, letter or fax. Mr. Patrick Connelly, the Chief Financial Officer for G&G Investments, testified during an October 28, 2003, hearing that there were approximately thirty (30) boxes of records of G&G Investments stored at the company's Allison Park, Pennsylvania office. On December 18, 2003, counsel for Buschmeier, sought production of these thirty (30) boxes. However, by letter dated December 30, 2003, counsel for G&G Investments declined and stated that "[t]his wholesale request for all G&G business records is overly broad." Mot. at 3 (Document No. 41).

  On January 15, 2004, counsel for G&G Investments offered to supplement its discovery responses, but only as to the wholly-owned subsidiaries of G&G Investments and only for the time ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.