Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARK W. MILLER, :
: 2018G-022
Complainant :
:
v. :
:
AFTAB PUREVAL, et al. :
:
Now comes the Complainant Mark W. Miller (“Miller”), by and through undersigned
counsel, and hereby tenders this memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Quash Subpoena
Respondents have made numerous representations since the filing of the complaint in this
matter with respect to the payment or payments made to GBA Strategies, LLC relative to a poll of
Ohio’s First Congressional District paid for in part by Friends of Aftab Pureval, the campaign
committee organized to support Respondent Aftab Pureval’s campaign for Clerk of Courts. These
claims have been made in the media, in the pleadings and arguments of counsel in this matter and
at depositions of Respondents Aftab Pureval and Evan Nolan; and include that (i) the poll was
related to the clerk of court’s race in 2020; that it was conducted to test the waters for a
congressional race; and that some decision or determination was made in consultation with
attorneys to split the cost between Friends of Aftab Pureval and Aftab for Ohio (Pureval’s
congressional campaign committee). However, in deposition testimony, Evan Nolan, the treasurer
for both committees was unable to state what the allocation of the cost of the poll was between the
two firms, when Aftab for Ohio made its payment, or how much Aftab for Ohio paid.1
From these depositions and the notation on the check “poll balance” there is real question
as to whether Aftab for Ohio ever paid any amount toward the poll in question. Leading to the
suspicion that Drenko Pureval made a direct payment to GBA Strategies. As such, Ms. Pureval’s
testimony, and the requested documents are necessary to the determination of how the poll was
paid for.
As Ms. Pureval’s counsel points out, the scope of discovery is limited to those matters
“relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to a claim or
defense . . . .of any . . . party . . .” (Civ.R. 26(B)(1); see also OAC 3517-1-09(C) (expressly adopting
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations regarding “impermissible contributions”
from Ms. Pureval were dismissed. The allegations regarding a failure to make a file an accurate
report of expenditures remains very much alive and at issue in this matter. If Ms. Pureval did pay
a vendor directly, such a payment would contradict the Respondents’ claim that the cost of the poll
was split between Friends of Aftab Pureval and Aftab for Ohio. Thus, whether Ms. Pureval did
pay GBA Strategies or any other vendor is relevant to a pending claim. As such, Ms. Pureval’s
Complainant is entitled to proof his case. His case being that the Respondents have failed
to file accurate reports of receipts and expenditures and that they have made impermissible
expenditures converting campaign funds to personal use. Ms. Pureval’s testimony and the
requested documents are relevant to the allegations remaining at issue in the Complaint.
1
The Commission has previously ordered that the deposition transcripts not be filed with the Commission. As such,
Complainant is unable to provide specific references to the deposition testimony.
2
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon the
following via email this 26th day of October 2018: