Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued Dec. Decided March 20, Steven H. Goldblatt , Deputy Dist. Hawthorne Corporation in civil contempt for his refusal to comply with grand jury subpoena duces tecum No. The same day, this Court entered a stay pending disposition of Thomas Hawthorne 's appeal. On June 22, , the Commonwealth filed a notice of submission with the supervising judge, as required by section 9 a of the Act , advising the court that the resources of the grand jury were necessary to investigate the circumstances surrounding the dumping of solid fill at a city-owned cite beneath the Penrose Bridge.
On September 26, , the grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records of the Hawthorne Corporation , which directed production of the corporation's records before the grand jury concerning the Penrose Bridge landfill for the period from September 1, to September 1, Hawthorne Corporation moved to quash the subpoena on October 15, After a hearing, the supervising judge ordered the Commonwealth to submit a more detailed "Schofield affidavit" 2 and fixed a date to enable Hawthorne Corporation to present testimony in support of its motion to quash.
On October 22, , Hawthorne Corporation presented its testimony, and the supervising judge held an additional hearing with members of the district attorney's office, in-camera, to inquire into the propriety of the investigation. The motion to quash subpoena No. On October 29 , counsel for Hawthorne Corporation filed an amended motion to quash which was denied by the court after argument. The custodian of records, Mary Grabowski , then appeared before the court without the subpoenaed records and stated her employer would not permit her to comply with the subpoena.
The court then directed the custodian to appear before the grand jury the following morning with the cash receipts journal, cash disbursements records, and check stubs of the corporation 3 for the period from September 1, to September 1, Hawthorne Corporation delivered the subpoenaed records to the grand jury on October 30, Apparently because of unusual bookkeeping methods utilized by Hawthorne Corporation , the records made available did not contain all the information sought by the Commonwealth, and another subpoena duces tecum was issued to the custodian of records of Hawthorne Corporation.
On November 19, , custodian Grabowski appeared before the court and testified that an agent of the president of Hawthorne Corporation had informed her she was not to deliver any records to the grand jury. Based on this information, the court determined a subpoena should be issued to either Edgar Hawthorne or Thomas Hawthorne , president and vice president of Hawthorne Corporation respectively.
