BEFORE THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

MARK W. MILLER ) Case No. 2018G-022

)
Complainant )
)
v )
)
AFTAB PUREVAL, et aI )
)
Respondents )

MOTION OF DRENKO PUREVAL TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Drenko Pureval, a third party, moves this Commission for an order pursuant

to O.A.C. 8517-1-01(C) and Civil Rule 45, quashing the subpoena served upon in

connection with the upcoming formal hearing. The subpoena seeks to compel Ms.

Pureval's testimony and. the production of documents by her, but the sole topic upon

which she has any relevant knowledge or information has already been dismissed

during earlier panel proceed,ings. As such, the subpoena seeks testimony and

evid.ence which is irrelevant to any of the live issues still pending in this case, and

therefore per seimposes an undue burden on Ms. Pureval.

The grounds for this motion are set forth more fully in the attached
memorandum in support.
RECETVED
0cT 2 6 201S

OHIO ELECTIONS
COMMISSION
 Respe d,

(oosregz)
BnuNNpn QuttiN
35 N. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (0r¿) 241-5550
Facsimile: (614) 24\-555I
Email: pmq@brunnerlaw.com
Attorney for Third'PartY Drenko
Pureval

o F

I. Introduction & Statement of Facts

Drenko Pureval is Respondent Aftab PurevaTs mother. According to the

Complaint, Ms. Pureval mad.e two contributions of $15,000 each to Friends of Aftab
pureval, her son's state campaign committee. Complaint at 11117-8. Without any

personal knowled.ge or evid.entiary support, the Complaint alleges that these

contributions were illegitimate efforts to circumvent the contribution limits imposed

on federal candidates. -Id. at 119. As such, the Complaint alleges that the two

contributions from Ms. Pureval caused Respondents to fail to file complete and

accurate campaign finance reports. Id. at 157 .

On October 2, the Complaint requested the Staff Attorney to issue a subpoena

to Ms. Pureval seeking her testimony at the hearing scheduled on November 1, and

also to produce voluminous documents: "Copies of all bank statements and' cancelled

checks for all accounts over which she has signing authority from December,2oIT to

March, 2018, specifi"cally, but not limited to, such statements or cancelled checks that

ç)
evid,ence payment to GBA strategies or any other vendor of Friends of Aftab Pureval

or Aftab for Ohio." See Complainant's Request for Issuance of Subpoenas, attached

hereto as Exhibit 1. The subpoena issued by the Staff Attorney tracks the

Complainant's requesi. ,See Subpoena, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

In the interim, however, the Commission considered Respondents' motion to

d.ismiss the Complaint. At the conclusion of argument, Commissioner Norman moved

to grant Respondents' motion to dismiss "as to the contributions received by the

campaign." See Transcript (PartiaD of Proceedings, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, at

5:2I-23; see also Id. at Titl-t4 (rotl-calt vote to dismiss "all contributions...received
by the campaign."). The ensuing discussion about Commissioner Norman's motion

clarified that it sought to dismiss the allegations regarding impermissible

contributions as pled in Paragraph 5? of the Complaint - the same paragraph which

alleged Ms. Pureval's two $15,000 contributions to the state campaign committee

operated to cause a violation of Title XXXV. ^9ee

Exhibit 3 at 6i-23 - 7:I ("But I think

Mr. Beatty's correct: that the only paragraph that relates to accepting payments or

contributions is 5?, is paragraph 57 of the complaint"). By a vote of 4-2, Commissioner

Norman's motion passed, "and. so the allegations, as it relates to contributions lwere]

dismissed." fd. at 8:3'5.

Save for the allegations that Ms. Purevals two $15,000 contributions were

improper and/or resulted in inaccurate campaign fi.nance reports - allegations which

have already been considered and dismissed - there are no other allegations about or

references to Ms. Pureval in the Complaint.

ó
 il. Law & Argument

A. Standard of Review

The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure control all proceedings before this
Commission unless in confiict with the Commission's own ruÏes. OAC 351?=i'0i(C).

T1yo of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are implicated here. First, under Civil Rule

2G(BX1), the scope of discovery is limited to those matters "relevant to the subject

matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense....of

any...party..." Civ. R. ZA(BXf); see also OAC 3517'1'09(C) (expressly adopting the

provisions of Civ. R. 26(BX1).

Second, none of the Commission's ov¡n rules govern the quashing of subpoenas

on the request of the subpoenaed third'party. As such, RuIe 45 of the Ohio Rules of

Civil Procedure applies to this proceeding. Under that Rule, the Commission "shall

quasn-' a subpoena which "subjects a person to und.ue burden." Civ. R. 45(CXB)(Ð.

Faced with a motion seeking to quash a subpoena on the grounds of an undue burden,

the Commission "shall quash or modifii the subpoena unless the lComplainantl shows

a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without

undue hardship and assures that [Ms. Pureval] will be reasonably compensated." Civ.

R. 45(Cx5).

The subpoena directed to Ms. Pureval here seeks testimony and documents

which only relate to allegations which have already been dismissed by the Panel. The

subpoena therefore exceeds the permissible scope of Rule 26 by seeking irrelevant

information, and therefore per se imposes an undue burden on Ms. Pureval.

4
 B. Atl Allegations Related to Ms. Pureval have Alread.y Been Dismissed.
The Subpoena Should Therefore be Quashed as it Seeks OnIy Irrelevant
Information.

The scope of a subpoena is subject to "the general relevancy standard..."

Griffíths v. Ohio -Farmers fns. Co. (June 29, 2010), N.D.Ohio No. 09-cv-1011, 2010

WL 26399131 quoting Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere and Co. (Sept. 24, 2007),

E.D.Mich. No. 05-cv-10113, 2OO7 WL 2873981. Courts "have recognized an implicit

requirement that a subpoena seek relevant information." Whitlow v. Martin, 263

F.R.D. 50?, 510 (C.O.Ilt., 2010) (citation omitted). It is the Complainant here, as the

party who requested issuance of the challenged subpoena, who bears the burden to

demonstrate the relevance of the requested discovery. Hansen Beverage Co. v.

fnnovation Ventures, LLC (June 2, 2009), E.D.Mich. No. 09-mc-50356, 2009 WL

1543451 citing Am. EIec. Power Co., fnc. v. U.5.,191 F.R.D. at 136.

As noted above, Ms. Pureval's sole connection to the Complaint as-fi.Ied is that

she made two contributions to her son's state campaign committee which

Complainant alleges violated, or caused a violation, of state campaign finance laws.

But since those allegations have been considered and dismissed by the Commission,

as it now stands, Ms. Pureval has no connection to the live issues remaining for

resolution in this case. As such,

1 In construing the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure which govern this proceeding, Ohio authorities often
turn to federal case law construing identically or similarly worded provisions of the Federal Civil
Rules. See, e.9., Myers v. Toledo,110 Ohio St.3d 218, 2006'Ohio-4353, 852 N.E.2d 1176, T18.

5
 C. The Subpoena Imposes an Undue Burden on Ms. Pureval

"Whether a subpoena imposes an 'undue burden' upon a witness is a case

specifrc inquiry that turn on 'such factors as relevance, the need of the party for the

lrequesteti information], the breadth of the ldiscoveryl request, the time period

covered by it...and the burdens imposed." American EIec. Power Co. v. tl.S., 1.9L

F.R.D. 132, 136 ß.O.Otrlo, 1999) quoting Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp.,16g

F.R.D. 44, 63 (S.D.N.Y., 1996) (further citation omitted)i Kilroy v. Husted (Nov. 18,

2011), S.D. Ohio No. l1-cv-!45,2011 WL5827229 (apptying American Electric Power

standard to challenge to subpoena for deposition testimony). "Essentially, this

lCommission's] task is to weigh the likely relevance of the requested

material...against the burden to [the responding partyl of producing the material."

E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,26 F.3d 44, 47 (6tr' Cir., 1994).

Since the testimony and documents sought from Ms. Pureval relate solely to

allegations which have already been dismissed, and thus are irrelevant, it necessarily

follows that anyburden on Ms. Pureval is an undue one. "Obviously, if the sought-

after ldiscovery is] not relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence than any burden whatsoever imposed upon lthe non-party] would be by

definition'undue."' Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard BeII Electronics, fnc., 163

F.R.D. 329, 335-336 (N.D.Cat., 1995) (emphasis s¡d. The fact that the Ms. Pureval is

connected to this proceeding only through allegations which have been dismissed

already demonstrates that the subpoena seeks only irrelevant information, and

therefore per se imposes an undue burden upon her.

6
 Even considering the traditional factors considered in evaluating undue

burden still demonstrates that the subpoena here must be quashed. American EIec.

Power, supïa. She is a non-party, which weighs in favor of finding an undue burden.

Id., I9I F.R.D. at 136. Tire relevance of NÍs. Pureval's testimony and the subpoenaed

documents have no relevance at all given what issues remain for live adjudication.

Consequently, there is no need whatsoever for the Complainant to secure Ms.

Pureval's testimony or documents to prove what of his case remains or to rebut

whatever defenses Respondents may have raised. There is no indication that Ms.

Pureval is the only source for any of the documents or information sought.

The breadth of the subpoena is staggering. It, on its face, purports to require

production of every bank statement and every cancelled. check from any or all of Ms.

Pureval's personal financial accounts, as well as every statement and cancelled check

from any business account that Ms. Pureval might happen to have signing authority

on, all without any regard to whether such statements and checks have anything to

do with the Respondents or campaign activities.

To give an example: the subpoena facialþ purports to specifically require Ms.

Pureval to produce statements or checks evidencing payment to any vendor of either

Friends of Aftab Pureval or Aftab for Ohio. ,See Exhibit 2. Like most campaign

organizations, those Respondents appear to have used a number of vendors for

common, ordinary, and uncontroversial expenditures, such as Duke Energy to pay

the utility bills, Staples and Amazon to buy office supplies, and the United States

Postal Service to buy stamps. As drafted, the subpoena purports to require Ms.

7
Pureval to produce her personal financial records that show whether or when she

paid the gas bill for her home, or bought offîce supplies online, or bought a roll of

stamps from the post office. Requiring her to produce personal financial information

like this, or' *uo put her 'uo t}re tirrre and expense of wading ihrough monihs of records

to redact, is the textbook definition of an undue burden - particularly when these

records have no bearing on the factual or legal issues before this Commission.

Finally, specifi.cally with respect to the request for Ms. Pureveal's live
testimony, it bears note that she (a) does not live in Central Ohio, (b) has nothing of

value to testifii about, and (c) reasonably assumes that the scheduled hearing (along

with the Commission's other business scheduled on November 1) will likely consume

the bulk of or the entirety of the day. Requiring a non-party to hang around the Riffe

Center for an entire day is unduly burdensome, particularly when measured against

the non-existent value of her testimony.

At base, then, the subpoena seeks to compel testimony and documents which

relate to allegations which have already been dismissed by the Commission, have no

bearing on any live issues which remain in this case, require intrusion into personal

financial affairs wholly and entirely unconnected with any campaign activity of any

sort, are available from sources who actually are involved in campaign activity, all

from someone who lives nowhere near Columbus. The subpoena imposes an undue

burden on Ms. Pureval, and must therefore be quashed.

8
 III. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, the subpoena served on Ms. Drenko Pureval

should be quashed

Respectfully d,

Patrick Quinn (oogrogz)

BnuNNen QuwN
35 N. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Telephone: (0f¿) 241-5550
Facsimile: (614) 24I-555t
Email: pmq@brunnerlaw.com
Attorney for Third-Party Drenko
Pureval

I
 TE OF SERVI

The undersigned hereby certifi.es that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing

was served this 26th day of October, 2018 by electronic mail upon the following:

Christopher C. Finney
Brian C. Shrive
chris@fi nneylawfirm. com
brian@finneylawfirm. co m
Attorneys for Comp laina nt

Donald J. McTigure
Derek S. Clinger
dmcti gue@electionlaw group com
.

dclinger@electionlav/ group. com

Peter J. O'Shea
poshea@katzteller.com

Brian G. Svoboda
David Lazarus
bsvoboda@perkinscoie.com
dlazarus@perkinscoie com
.

Attorneys for Respondents

Patrick 16e2)

10
 BEFORE THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

MARK W. MILLtrR ) Case No. 2018G-022

)
Complainant )
)
v )
)
AFTAB PUREVAL, et aI. )
)
Respondents )

EXHIBIT 1
 OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
MARK W. MILLER,
2018G-022
Complainant

AFTAB PUREVAL, et al.

COMPLAINTANT MARK W. MILLER'S

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPEONAS

Complainant Mark V/. Miller hereby requests that subpoenas be issued and served
commanding the following persons to appear and give testimony and produce documents at the
hearing of this matter at 10:00 a.m. Thursday, November 1, 2018 at the Ohio Elections
Commission, 77 S. High Street, 3l't Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

1. Aftab Pureval, 580 Walnut Street, Apartment 1302, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202;

2. Sarah D. Topy, 400 Pike Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Ms. Topy is to be directed to
appear to testify, and to produce copies of all receipts evidencing payments made by her
for which reimbursement was made by Friends of Aftab Pureval identified in the
Complaint;

3. Evan Nolan, 3650 Hyde Park Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45209. Mr. Nolan is to be
directed to appear to testi$r, and to produce copies ofall receipts, invoices, and/or proof
of payment related to all expenditures addressed in the Complaint in this matter,
specifically, but not limited to copies of invoices and communications to and from GBA
Strategies related to a poll conducted in January 2018, all invoices, boarding passes and
other evidence of billing and payment from airlines for air travel including deparhrre and
destination cities and travel dates, and invoices evidencing the underlying payments for
which reimbursements were issued by Friends of Aftab Pureval between July 1, 20t7 and
June 30,2018 ;

4. Drenko Pureval, 13 Medalist Way, Xenia, Ohio 45385. Ms. Pureval is to be directed to
appear to testifu, and to produce copies of all bank statements and cancelled checks for
all accounts over which she has signing authorþ from Decemb er 2017 to March, 201 8,
specifically, but not limited to, such statements or cancelled checks that evidence
payment to GBA Strategies or any other vendor of Friends of Aftab Pureval or Aftab for
Ohio;

5. Joseph Levy, 573 South Kellner Road, Columbus, Ohio 43209. Mr. Levy is to be directed
to appear to testify, and to produce copies of all receipts evidencing payments made by
 him for which reimbursement was made by Friends of Aftab Pureval identified in the
Complaint;

6. Mark Byron, Byron Photography,456 Klotter Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45214. Mr.
Byron is to be directed to appear to testify, and to produce copies of all receipts
evidencing payments made to him related to the payments made to Byron Photography
referred to in the Complaint, and all communications regarding or relating to the same;
and

7. Sally Krisel,4329 Haight Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45223.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian C. Shrive

Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
FINNEY LAV/ FIRM
4270|vy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
(513) 943-66s0
(s13) 943-6669 (fax)
chri s @finneylawfirm. com
brian@finneylawf irm.com
Attorneys for Respondent Michelle Langdon

2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon the
following via email this 2nd day of October 2018:

Donald J. MeTigue, Esq.

Derek S. Clinger, Esq.
clmcti ç'ue@ ei ecti on I aw-qroulr. ctl¡r
dclin gerldelectionlarv group. cotn

Peter J. O'Shea, Esq.

poshea@k atztel ler. com

Brian G. Svoboda, Esq.

David Lazarus, Esq.
bsvoboda@perkin scoie.com
dl azar¡s(a)n erkinscc¡ie. com

Counsel for Resp ondents

/si Brian C. Shrive

Brian C. Shrive (0088980)

J
 BEFORE THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

MARK \ry. MILLER ) Case No. 2OLBG-A22

)
Complainant )
)
v )
)
AFTAB PUREVAL, et al. )
)
Respondents. )

EXHIBIT 2
 SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM
R.C. 3517.153

The State of Ohio, Franklin County, s.

To the Sheriff of Greene CountY

By the authority of the Ohio Elections Commission, you are hereby commanded to summon:

Drenko Pureval, 13 Medalist Way, Xenia, OH 45385, to appear on November 1, 2018, at 10:00

A. M. at the meeting of the Ohio Elections Commission that will occur in conference room East

B on the 3l.t Floor, Riffe Center, located at 77 South High St., Columbus, Ohio 43215 then and

there to testify conceming the matter to wit:

OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

Case No. 2018G-022

Miller v. Pureval, et al.

DUCES TECUM: Copies of all bank statements and cancelled checks for all
accounts over which she has signing authority from December
2017 to March, 2018, specifically, but not limited to, such
statements or cancelled checks that evidence payment to GBA
Strategies or any other vendor of Friends of Aftab Pureval or
Aftab for Ohio.

Of this writ make due return with your proceedings in this behalf endorsed thereon.

Witness my hand this 12th day of October, 2018.

Philip C. Richter
Staff Attorney

Issued: October 12, 2018

Returnby-,2018
Served by:
Date Served:
 BEFORE THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

MARKW. MILLER ) Case No. 2OL8G-022

)
Complainant )
)
V )
)
AFTAB PUREVAL, et al. )
)
Respondents )

EXHIBIT 3
Tn re: Miller v. Pureval, et al

Page 1

BEFORtr THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF:

MILLER CASE NO. 2OIBG_022

PUREVAL, ET AL

PROCEEDINGS
(Excerpt)
before Chairwoman Degee Vüilhelm, and Commission Members

Catherine A. Cunningham, D. Michael Crites, Otto Beatty

III, Dennis Brommer, A. Scott Norman at the Vern Riffe
Center for the Arts, 31st Floor, Room East B, Columbus,
Ohio 43215t called at 10:50 a.m. on Thursday, Oct.ober
11, 2018.

DAVIS DEPOSITIONS, LLC

175 SOUTH THrRD STREET, SUrTE 200
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43275
(614) 40'1 9337

Davis Depositions, LLC

In re: Miller v. Purevaì-, et al

Page 2

APPEARANCES

FINNEY LAW FIRM

By: BRIAN C. SHRIVE, ESQ.
4210 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
(s13) 943-6656
On behalf of Mark W. Miller.

McTIGUE & COLOMBO, LLC

By: DONALD J. McTIGUE, ESQ.
545 E. Town Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-4801
(614) 263-10O0
On behalf of Aftab Pureval, Friends of Aftab Pureval,
and Evan Nolan-

ALSO PRESENT:

Phillip C. Richter, Executive Director, Ohio Elections

Commissi-on

Bett.y Springer, Administrat.ive Assist.ant, Ohio

El-ections Commission

Davis Deposit.ions, LLC

In re: Miller v. Pureval, et al

Page 3

INDEX

WITNESSES:

N/A

EXHIBITS IDFD ADMITD

No Exhibits

Davis Depositions, LLC

fn re: Miller v. Pureval, et al

Page 4

1 Bxcerpt from October 12, 2018 proceeding:

2

3 (L2:2i p .m. )

4 MR. SHRIVE: Respectfully, I don't think

5 that's the point we made in the complaint. And I
6 think, again, the specific vj-olation with respect to
1 the PAC contributions is set forth in paragraph 66 of
B the complaint. And this deals with these were
9 contributions that weïe received in early 2011. so the
10 two PAC and actually, they \^iere received, if Irm not
11- mistaken, they actually were received in late 2016.
I2 So these aren't the allegation here is not
13 that these \^Iere contributions that \^Iere that the two
t4 pAC contributionsr we don't say that they \ÀIere for t.he

15 purpose of influencing the Federal election. we're not

16 saying that these hlere disguised trederal- contributions.
I1 These \^/ere contributions that were actually made i-n
1B 20L6, that \^Iere reported as having been received in
19 2011, by Mr. Pureval.
20 So when we look through, and we didn't think
2t to look to prior contribution times, but after the fact
22 we have looked through and said, "Oh, Y€s, they \^Iere
z5 made they were reported by these two PACs as having
24 been made in 2016."
25 So if the question is whether the Pureval
1.O campaign reported those in the proper time frame or not

Davis Depositions, LLC

Tn re: Miller V Pureval, et aI
Page 5 Page 6

1 -- and to the extent that it's necessary, I would say 1 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: As set forth in 57,
2 on those, given the explmation that ¡¡r'e've heard today, 2 conect?
3 I would suggest we strike those from the complaint. 3 COMMISSIONERNORMÄN: All of the contributions
4 COMMISSIONER CRITES: Strike what from the 4 ¡eceived.

5 complaint? 5 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: I think it's a lot more

6 MR. SHRIVE: This, regarding the - 6 tha¡ 57.
1 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM: - 66. 1 MR. RICHTER: Oh, you said, "All
I MR. SHRIVE: : the PAC, the PAC 8 contributions"?
contributions, because, you know, I think he presents a COMMSSIONER NORMAN: Yes.
10 plausible explanation. 10 MR. RICHTER: Oh, okay. I was considering
11 CIIAIRWOMAN WILHELM: OkaY. 11 whether --
I2 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: So you're dismissing t2 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Vy'ell, since he struck
13 that from the complaint? 13 66, it leaves 5?.
14 MR. SHNVE: So we would ask to strike that, 14 MR. RICHTER: I was just looking at it as the

15 the paragraph 66. 15 PAC and I misread. I apologize.

16 CIIAIRWOMAN 'WILIIELM: Okay. Thank you. 16 CIIAIRV/OMAN WILIIELM: Oh, about accepting. I
r'1 MR. SHRI\¡E: But I think, again for the I1 see what you're saying.
18 Commission, just to go tbrough these paragraph by 18 COMMISSiONERNORMAN: I'm not talking about
19 paragraph, rather thm try to bump them into a more 19 the PAC, because the PAC's already been dismissed from
20 general -- 2Q the complaint.
2l COMMISSIONER NORMAN: I\n going to move that 2l CIIAIRWOMAN WILI{ELM: Right.
22 we grant the Motion to Dismiss, as to the contributions 22 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Conect.
23 received by the campaign. 23 CIIAÍRWOMAN WILHELM: But I think Mr. Beatty's
24 COMMISSIONER BROMMER: Second. 24 conect: that the only pragraph that relates to
25 CHAIRV/OMAN WILIIELM: OkaY. 25 accepting payments or contributions is 57; is paragraph

Page 7 Page I
1 57 ofthe complaint. 1 'Wilhelm?
2 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM: I thought he said 2 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Yes.
3 the opposite ofthat. 3 MR. RICHTER: The Motion passed by the vote of
4 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: No. 4 4 to 2. And so the allegations, as it relates to

5 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Well, that says "payment, 5 contributions, has been dismissed.
6 payment" -. 6 CIIAIRWOMAN'WILIIELM: All right. So now we

1 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: But 57 is supported, as 7 have the issue of expenditures, and that's regarding

I he pointed out, by paragraphs 7 through 10. 8 the accuracy ofthe report. And the other prong of
9 C}IAÌRV/OMAN MLHELM: Oh, okay. Okay, we had a 9 that was -- I don't remember how it was --
10 motion md a second. Let's do roll call, please. 10 MR. McTIGUE: Personal use.
11 MS. SPRINGER: To grmt the Motion to Dismiss 11 CHAIRWOMAN WILIIELM: Personal use?

T2 for all contributions -- 72 MR. RICHTER: Personal usc.

13 COMMISSIONER NORMÄN: -- receivcd by the 13 CFIAIRWOMAN WLI{ELM: Thank you. And the
L4 campaign. 14 personal use gets to the crux ofMr. Shrive's argument
15 MS. SPRINGER: Comissioner Brommer? 15 that -- your argument, as I understand it, is that they
16 COMMISSIONER BROMMER: Yes. 16 were converted to pcrsonal use because they were used
r'7 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Nomm? 17 in a Federal campaign?
18 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: Yes. 18 MR. SHRIVE: Correct. AndI don'tbelieve at
r9 MS. SPRINGER: Conxnissioner Beatty? 19 this point that youjudicially need to make a
20 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Yes. 2o determination that they were used in the Federal
2l MS. SPRÍNGER: Comissioner Crites? 2I campaign or not. I think the question is: Were they
22 COMMISSIONER CRITES: No. 22 used -- were they legitimate, verifiable expenses or

23 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Cumingham? 23 expenses ofthe campaign, ofthe clerk ofcourts'
24 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGIIÄM: No. 24 campaign. And we say they were not; that's the
25 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner -- Chaiman 25 violation.

5 (Pages 5 to B)

Davis Depositions' LLC

In re: Miller v. Pureval, et al
Page 9 Page 10
I But as to kind of evidence ofthat, we say, 1 boat as I was when we had the vote the last time r¡/e
2 "Because they were used by the Federal campaign." 2 were here. I think if you're moving -- if you're
3 MR. McTIGUE: Based on information only. 3 construing all evidence against the movant, I think
4 MR. SHRIVE: Bascd on the admission of the 4 there's enough here, or at least we have to say,
5 Respondents. 5 "You've got to let them do their discovery and have the
6 CIIAIRWOMAN WILHELM: So perhaps those should 6 hearìng on it."
'7
be fwo seprate one. Because we havc ihc accuracy of 7 'Which
mcans i would be opposed to rhc ivÍúiir,n
the report, which in my view is closely aligned with I to Dismiss on this particular issue.
9 what we voted on, on the first one. And the personal CHAIRWOMAN MLHELM: I certainly understand
10 use is really the hean of this ue. 10 that perspective. The only thing I struggle with is
11 MR. SHRIVE: I - 11 the personal knowledge that Mr. Brommer has brought up
I2 CHAIRWOMAN WLHELM: We're deliberating right t2 a couple oflimes. I struggle with the personal
13 now- 13 knowledge.
14 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: To me, ir's jusi how I 14 COMMISSIONER CLINNINGIIAM: I agree.
15 look at it, it may be inaccurate, ifyou're using it 15 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: So is the proper motion
16 for personal use or a use that you're not entitled to, 16 to move tor¡r'ards an evidentiary heming on the --
l'l then you're not accurately reporting either. So it r'7 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGIIAM: We already did.
18 seems to me that they're kind of lumped together as 18 This would be re-considering that.
19 opposed to separate. 19 COMMSSIONER NORMAN: If I were moving, I
20 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM: I agree. 20 would be moving to deny the Motion to Dismiss on that
2l COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Yeah, I agree, too. I 2t issue.
agree on that. 22 COMMISSIONER CRITES: Is that a motion?
23 CHAIRWOMANWLIIELM: Okav. I see that. 23 COMMISSIONERNORMAN: I'll move to denythe
24 So thoughts on that one? 24 Motion to Dismiss, as it relates to the accuracy of the
25 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: I think I'm in the same 25 rçort and personal use.

Paqe 11 Page 12
1 COMMISSIONER CRITES: Second. 1 second it.
2 CIIAIRWOMAN WLHELM: Roll call, please. 2 Okay. Ms. Springer, please?
3 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Brommer? 3 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Brommer?
4 COMMISSIONER BROMMER: No. 4 COMMISSIONER BROMMER: Yes.
5 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner No¡man? 5 MS. SPRINGER: Comrnissioner Noman?
6 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: Yes.
7 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Beatty? '1
MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Beatty?
8 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Yes. I COMMISSIONER BEATTY: No.
9 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Cdtes? MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Crites?
10 COMMISSIONER CRITES: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER CRITES: No.
11 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Cunningham? 11 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Cunningham?
I2 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGIIAM: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM: No.
13 MS. SPRINGER: Chairmm Wilhelm? 13 MS. SPRINGER: Chaiman Wilhelm?
14 CHAIRWOMAN WÌLHELM: Yes. 14 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Yes.
15 I believe the third issue we have is the 15 MR. RICHTER: That is 3-3; so, therefore,
16 inadequacy of the documentalion regading expenditures 16 there was an insufficient vote to grant the Motion to
1? for the purposes of the carnpaign filing report, the I1 Dismiss. So it presumably would go forward.
18 court filing. 18 CIIAIRWOMAN IVILHELM: Okay. Sowe are
19 COMMISSIONERNORMAN: I would move to grant 19 completed with the Motion to Dismiss now, correct?
20 dre Motion to Dismiss on that issue. 20 MR. RICHTER: Conect.
27 CHAIRWOMAN WILIIELM: Second? I'll second it. 27 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: So when Mr. McTigue
22 COMMISSIONER BROMMER: I thoughtyou did. 22 argues his Motion to Stay, he is arguing, specifically,
23 CFIAIRWOMAN \¡r'ILHELM: No, I was asking,',ls 23 only on one point; is that correct?
24 there a second." 24 MR. McTIGUE: Conect.
25 I'm sorry, I did not articulate it. But I'll COMMISSIONER BEATTY: Madam Chair'l

6 (Pages 9 to 12)
Davis Depositions, LLC
In re: Miller v. Pureval, et al
Page 13 Page 14
1 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Yes? 1 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Cunningham?
2 COMMISSIONER BEATTY: May we have a five- 2 COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
3 minute break? 3 MS. SPRINGER: Comissioner Crites?

4 CHAIRWOMAN WLHELM: Yes, we cm. Okay, we'll 4 COMMISSIONER CRITES: Yes.

5 take a l0-minute break.

5 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner -- Chaiunan

(Offthe record from l2:30 p.m. to l2:42 p.m.) 6 WilheÌrn?

6
't 1 CHAIR\VOMAN MLFIþLM: Yes.
I MR. RICHTER: At this point, r¡/e move forwald
B EXCERPT
9 as previously stated in my email to you gentlemen
9
10 declanng the schedule of the Commission.
10 (l:06 p.m.)
11 MR. SHRIVE: Thank you very much.
11 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: I guess I'll step on it.
I2 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Thank you.
l2 I'm going to move that we ovemle the Motion to Stây
13 MR. SHRIVE: Appreciate your patience.
13 and proceed forward.
14 CHAIRWOMAN WILIIELM: Thmks for well-argued
14 COMMSSIONER CRITES: Second.
15 cases.
15 CHAIRWOMAN WILIIELM: Roll call? 16 (Thereupon, the proceeding concluded in this
16 MS. SPRINGER: Comrnissioner Bromer? 17 matter at 1:09 p.m.)
1? COMMSSIONER BROMMER: Yes. 18
18 MS. SPRINGER: Commissioner Norman? 19
19 CHAIRWOMAN WILHELM: Just for clarificatíon, 20
20 your motion is that we deny the motion? 21
2T COMMISSIONER NORMAN: Conect. 22
22 CIIAIRWOMÄN WILHELM: Okay. Thankyou. 23
23 COMMISSIONER NORMAN: My vote would be "yes." 24
MS. SPRINGER: Commission Beatty?
COMMSSIONER BEATTY: Yes. 26

7 (Pages 13 to 14)
Davis Depositions, LLC
In re: Miller v. Pureval, et aI

Page 15

REPORTER I S CERTIFICATE
It Elegra R. Davis, duly commissioned and
qualified, do hereby certify that the foregoing
proceedings üiere digitally record.ed., electronically
transmitted, and transcribed via audibl-e playback. The
undersigned to hereby certify that. the foregoing
transcript of such proceedings is an excerpt (s) ; and a
true and correct transcript of said excerpt(s) from t.he
electronic sound recording of said. proceedings in t.he
above-entitled matter .
IN WITNtrSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohior orr
this _l2th_day of October , 2018.

ry{.
ELEGRA R. DAV]S,
0*
Certified Digitaf Court Reporter
and Transcriber and
Notary Public in and for the
State of Ohio.

My commission expires October 5, 20Ig

Davis Depositions, LLC

Tn re: Miller v. Pureval, €t al
Page 16
behalf 2:5,10 13:1,4,15,19 contributions Director 2:16
a.m 1:17 believe 8:18 13:22 l4:7,12 4:7,9,13,14,16 discovery l0:5
above-entitled 1l:15 l4:14 4:17 5:9,22 6:3 disguised 4:1 6
15:11 Betty 2:18 Cincinnati 2:4 6:8,25 7:12 8:5 Dismiss 5:22
aeeepting 6:1 6 boat 10:1 clarification converted 8:16 7:11 10:8,20
6:25 Boulevard 2:3 13:19 correct 6:2,22 10:24ll:20
accuracy 8:8 9:7 break 13:3,5 clerk 8:23 6:24 8:18 l2:I7,I9
lO:24 BRIAN2:3 closely 9:8 12:79,20,23,24 dismissed 6:19
accurately 9:17 Brommer 1:15 COLOMBO 2:7 13:21 l5:9 8:5
Administrative 5:24 7:15,76 Columbus 1:16 couple l0:12 dismissing 5:12
2:18 10:1 1 I 1:3,4 1:23 2:8 15:13 court 11:18 documentation
admission 9:4 ll:22l2:3,4 commission 1:1 15:19 I 1:16
ADMITD 3:17 13:76,17 I:13 2:16,19 courtsr8:23 don't 4:14
affixed 15:13 brought 10:11 5:t813:24 Crites l:I4 5:4 DONALD 2:7
Aftab 2:10,10 bump 5:19 14:10 15:25 7:21,2210:22 duly 15:3
agree 9:20,2I,22 commissioned 11:1,9,10 12:9
C 15:3 12:10 13:14 E
10:14
AL 1:8
C2:3,16 Commissioner l4:3,4 E 2:8 3:6
aligned 9:8 callT:10 11:2 5:4,7,12,2I,24 crux 8:14 early 4:9
13:15 6:I,3,9,12,18 Cunningham East 1:16
allegation 4:12
allegations 8:4 called 1:17 6:22 7:2,4,7,13 l:14 5:7 7:2,23 either 9:17
apologize 6:15 campaign4:26 'l:I5,16,17,I8 7:24 9:20 election 4:1 5
APPEARAN... 5:23 7:14 8:17 7:19,20,2t,22 10:14,17 11:11 Elections I :1
2:l 8:21,23,24 9:2 7:23,24,25 Il:1212:11,12 2:16,19
Appreciate tI:17 9:14,20,21,25 14:1,2 electronic 15:10
14:13
CASE l:5 10:14,15,17,19 electronically
argles12:22 cases 14:15 10:22,23ll:l D 15:5
argring12:22 Catherine 1:14 11..3,4,5,6,7,9 D 1:14 3:6 Elegra 15:3,18
argument 8:14 Center 1:16 11:9,10,11,12 Davis 7:22I5:3 email l4:9
8:15 certainly 10:9 It:I9,22l2:3 15:18 entitled 9:16
articulate I 1:25 CERTIFICA... t2:4,5,6,7,8,9 day 15:14 ESQ 2:3,7
Ärts 1 : l6 l5:2 12:10,11,12,25 deals 4:8 ET 1:8
asking 11:23 Certified 15:19 13:2,I1,14,16 declaring 14:10 Evan 2:10
Assistant 2:18 certify t5.4,7 l3:I7,18,2I,23 Degee 1:13 evidence 9:1
audible 15:6 Chair 12:25 13l.25l4:7,2,3 deliberating l0:3
Chairman 7:25 l4:4,5 9:12 evidentiary
11:13 12:13 complaint 4:5,8 Dennis 1:15 10:16
B 1:16 14:5 5:3,5,13 6:20 deny 10:20,23 Excerpt 1:12 4:l
Based 9:3,4 Chairwoman 7:l 13:20 13:8
Beatty l:14 6:I 1:13 5:11,16 completed 12:19 DEPOSITIONS excerpt(s) 15:8
6:12,22 7:4,7 5:25 6:5,16,21 concluded 14:16 l:22 15:9
7:19,20 9:21 6:23 7:5,9 8:2 considering determination Executive 2:16
10:15 I 1:7,8 8:6,1 l,l3 9:6 6:10 8:20 Exhibits 3:17,19
l2:7,8,25 73:2 9:12,23l0:9 construing 10:3 didn't 4:20 expenditures
13:24,25 l1:2,74,21,23 contribution Digital 15:19 8:7 1 1 :16
Beattyrs 6:23 12:14,18,21 4:2I digitally l5:5 expenses 8:22

Davis Depositions, LLC

ln re: Miller v. Pureval, €t al
Page I1
8:23 information 9:3 7:10,118:3 P Pureval 1:8 2:10
expires 15:25 insufnicient l0:7,15,20,22 p.m 4:3 13:6,6 2:10 4:19,25
explanation 5:2 l2:76 70:24 1 1:20 13:10 14:17 purpose 4: I 5
5:10 issue 8:7 l0:8,21 12:16,19,22 PAC 4:7,10,14 purposes 1 1:17
extent 5:1 11:15,20 13:12,20,24 f :ö,ð o:lJ,ly
lvy 2:3 movant 10:3 O
PAC's 6:19
F' move 5:21 10:16 PACs4:23 qualified 15:4
fact4:21 J 10:23 I 1 :19 question 4:25
paragraph 4:7
Federal4:15,16 J 2:7 13:12 14:8 5:15,18,19
8:21
8:17,20 9:2 judicially 8:19 moving 10:2,19 6:24,25 R
fiting 11:17,18 10:20 paragraphs 7:8
FINNEY2:2 K R 15:3,18
particular 10:8
re-considering
FIRM 2:2 kind 9:1,18 N
passed 8:3
first 9:9 know 5:9 N 3:6 10:1 8
patience 14:13
five- 13:2 knowledge N/A 3:12 really 9:10
payment 7:5,6
Floor 1:16 10:11,13 necessary 5:1 received 4:9,10
payments 6:25
foregoing l5:4,7 need 8:19 4:11,18 5:23
L personal S:10,11
forth 4:7 6:1 Nolan 2:i0 6'.4 7:t3
late 4:1 8:12,14,1,6 9:9
forward 12:17 1
Norman 1:15 record 13:6
LÃW 2:2 9:16 10:11,12 recorded 15:5
13:13 14:8 5:12,21 6:3,9
leaves 6:13 l0:25 recording 15:10
frame4:26 6:18 7:13,77 perspective
Friends 2:10 legitimate 8:22 7:18 9:14,25 regarding 5:6
Let's 7:10 10:10
10:19,23 1 I :5 8:7 11:16
G LLC 1:222:7 Phitlip 2:16 relates 6:24 8:4
1 1:6,19 l2:5,6
look4:20,21 plausible 5:10
general5:20 13:11,18,21,23 l0..24
9:15 playback 15:6
gentlemen 14:9 Notary 15:21 remember 8:9
looked 4:22 please 7:I0 ll:2
given 5:2 report 8:8 9:8
looking 6:14 o 72:2
go 5:18 12:17 10:25 1 1:17
point4:5 8:19
going 5:21 13:12 lot 6:5 October 1:17 reported 4:1 8
grant 5:227:tI lumped 9:18 4:l 15:14,25
12:23l4:8 4:23,26
Pointe 2:3
11:19 12:16 office 15:13 Reporter 15:19
guess 13:1 1
M Oh4:22 6:7,10
pointed 7:8
REPORTER'S
Madam 12:25 PRESENT 2:14
6:16 7:9 l5:2
H Mark2:5 presents 5:9
Ohio 1:1,t7,23 reporting 9:17
hand 15:12 matter 1:4 74:17 presumably
2:4,8,16,18 respect 4:6
heard 5:2 15:11 12:17
l5:.13,22 Respectfully 4:4
hearing 10:6,16 McTIGUE 2:7,7 previously 14:9
okay 5:11,16,25 Respondents
heart 9:10 8:10 9:3 72:21 prior 4:21
6:10 7:9,9 9:23 9:5
hereunto 15:.12 L2:24 proceed 13:13
l2:2,I8134 Richter 2:16 6:7
means 10:7 proceeding4:1
13:22 6:10,14 8:3,12
I Members 1:13 opposed 9:19
l4:16
12:15,2014:8
IDFD 3:17 Michael l:14 proceedings
l0:7 Riffe 1:15
III 1:15 Miller l:5 2:5 opposite 7:3
1:12 15:5,8,10
right 6:21 8:6
inaccurate 9:15 minute l3:3 prong 8:8
Otto 1:14 9:12
inadequacy misread 6:15 proper 4:26
overrule 13:12 roll T:10 1i:2
1 1:16 mistaken 4:11 l0:15 13:15
influencing 4:15 motion 5:22 Public 15:2i

Davis Depositions, LLC

In re: Miller v. Pureval, et al
Page 18

Room 1:16 T Vern 1:15 l0-minute 13:5 7 7:8

take 13:5 view 9:8 10:50 1:17
S violation 4:6 11 1:18 8
talking 6:18
saying4:16 6:17 8:25 124:I
says 7:5
Thank 5:16 8:13
12.11 1 11 vote 8:3 10:1 122214:3
I
IJ.LL la.,
schedule 14:10 ^.11t)tL 93371:23
Thanks 14:14 12:1613:23 12:30 13:6
Scott 1:15 voted 9:9 1224213:6 943-66562:4
thing l0:10
seal 15:13 think 4'.4,6,20 l2th 1 5:14
second 5:24 7:tO
5:9,17 6:5,23
w 175l:22
ll'.1,21,21,24 W 2:5
8:27 9:2510:2
12:7 13:14 10:3
we'll l3:4 2
'We're 4:15 9:12 28:4
see6:11 9:23
third 1:2217:15
separate 9:7,19 we've 5:2 2001:22
thought 7:2
set4:7 6:1 15:12 well-argued 2016 4:11,18,24
1I:22
SHRM 2:3 4:4 thoughts 9:24
l4:14 2017 4:9,19
5..6,8,14,r7 }VHEREOF 20181:18 4:1
Thursday 1:17
8:18 9:4,11 time 4:26 10:1
l5:12 15:14
14:11,13 times 4:21 10 12
Wilhelm 1:13 2018G-0221:5
Shrive's 8:14 5:11,16,25 6:5 201915:25
today 5:2
sorry I 1:25 6:t6,21,23 7:5 2252:3
Town 2:8
sound 15:10 7:9 8:1,2,6,11 263-70002:9
transcribed
SOUTH 1:22 15:6
8:13 9:6,12,23
10:9 1l:2,13 3
specific 4:6 Transcriber
specifically 11:14,21,23 3-3 12:15
15:20 31st 1:16
t2:22 transcript 15:8
12:13,14,18,21
Springer 2:18 15:9
73:.I,4,15,19
4
7'.I1,15,77 ,19 13:2214:6,7
transmitted 48:4
7"21,23,25 14:12,74
15:6 4071:23
ll,3,5,7,9,11 true 15:9 \ilITNESS
42702:3
ll:I312:2,3,5 try 5:19 l5:12
12:7,9,11,13 WITNESSES 432tS l:I7,23
two 4:10,13,23 43215-4801 2:8
t3 16,I8,24 9:7
3:10
14:1,3,5 452452:4
State 15:22 U x
5
stated 14:9 undersigned
X3:6
5 15:25
Stay 12:22l3:l 2 I5:7 5132:4
step 13:1 I understand 8:15 Yeah 9:21 545 2:8
Street 1:22 2:8 10:9 57 6:1,6,13,25
strike 5:3,4,14 use8:10,11,12 Z 7:1,7
struck 6:12 8:14,16 9:10
struggle 10:10 9:10,16,16 0 6
I0:12 1025 614I:23 2:9
suggest 5:3 I 66 4:7 5:7 ,15
Suite 1 :22 2:3 V 1:0613:10 6:i 3
supported 7:7 v 1:6 l:0914:17
verifiable 8:22 10 7:8 7

Davis Depositions, LLC