COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. A1801834

Miller
: JUDGE ROBERT P. RUEHLMAN
Relator,
: RELATOR’S MOTION FOR AN
v. ORDER DIRECTING GREG
: LANDSMAN, ALEXANDER PAUL
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE GEORGE SITTENFELD,
SITTENFELD, et al. : WENDELL YOUNG, TAMAYA
DENNARD, AND CHRISTOPHER
Respondents. : SEELBACH TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE
: HELD IN CONTEMPT

Now comes the Relator, Mark W. Miller, on relation to the State of Ohio (“Relator”), by

and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 37(B)(1)(g) hereby moves this Court for an

Order directing Respondents Greg Landsman, Alexander Paul George Sittenfeld, Wendell Young,

Tamaya Dennard, and Christopher Seelbach (the “Councilmember Respondents”) to show cause

why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s Order entered on

October 23, 2018 denying the Councilmember Respondents’ motion for a protective order and

directing the Councilmember Respondents to produce documents responsive to Relator’s

discovery requests by November 2, 2018 (the “Discovery Order”). This motion is supported by

the following memorandum and the affidavit of Brian C. Shrive, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Contemporaneous with the filing of this motion, Counsel will file a proposed order

directing the Councilmember Respondents to appear in person before the Court to explain their

failure to comply with this Court’s Discovery Order.

 MEMORANDUM

Civil Rule 37(B)(1)(g) provides in relevant part:

If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . the court may
issue further just orders. They may include the following . . . (g) Treating as
contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination.

While the Councilmember Respondents have filed a notice of appeal regarding the

Discovery Order, they have not moved for or received a stay of the Discovery Order. Absent a

stay, this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order. See, 2115-2121 Ontario Bldg., L.L.C. v.

Anter, Ohio App. 3d --, 2013- Ohio 2995, -- N.E.2d --, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 3041 (July 11,

2013). See also, State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6754, 881 N.E.2d

224, (Writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of discovery order denied, but appellant did file

a motion to stay the discovery order.)

Pursuant to this Court’s October 23, 2018 Discovery Order, the Councilmember

Respondents were to produce responses to Relator’s discovery requests “by November 2, 2018.”

November 2, 2018 has come and gone without any production or even any response to emails

seeking to schedule depositions of the Councilmember Respondents; or a motion to stay

enforcement of the Discovery Order. (See, Affidavit of Brian C. Shrive attached hereto). As such,

the Councilmember Respondents are in contempt of this Court’s lawful order, and should be

required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their failure to comply with

the Discovery Order.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian C. Shrive

Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)

2
 FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com

Attorneys for Relator Mark W. Miller

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Undersigned counsel does hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing

was served via electronic mail upon the following counsel this 5th day of November 2018:

Bryan E. Pacheco, Esq.

Mark A. Vander Laan, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
mark.vanderlaan@dinsmore.com
bryan.pacheco@disnmore.com

Counsel for Councilmember Respondents

Aaron M. Herzig, Esq.

Donnell J. Bell, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
aherzig@taftlaw.com
dbell@taftlaw.com

Counsel for Respondent City of Cincinnati

/s/ Brian C. Shrive

Brian C. Shrive (0088980)