Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondents. :
Now come the Relator, Mark W. Miller (“Relator”), and the Respondents, Cincinnati
City Councilmembers Alexander Paul George Sittenfeld, Greg Landsman, Tamaya Dennard,
Chris Seelbach, and Wendell Young (the “Respondents”), by and through undersigned counsel
1. The Respondents are public officials serving in a public office as those terms are defined
2. The Respondents have custody of the text messages and emails which are the subject of
this litigation.
3. The text messages which are the subject of this litigation were kept on the personal,
4. The public records request at issue in this case was submitted on behalf of Mark W.
Miller.
5. The date range of the request for copies of communications relating to or regarding John
Cranley or Harry Black (i.e. request No. 2) was clarified to be between March 1, 2018
{00272860-1}
and March 19, 2018. A true and accurate copy of the email exchange making that
6. Between March 1 and March 19, 2018 at least one of the Respondents communicated via
text message with at least one other member of the Cincinnati City Council about either
John Cranley or Harry Black during an official meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at
which at least two of the members involved in the communication were present.
7. There is at least one communication described in stipulation number 6 that has not yet
8. Between March 1, and March 19, 2018 each of the Respondents communicated via email
with at least one other member of the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley
or Harry Black.
9. At least one communication described in stipulation number 8 has not yet been produced
to the Relator.
10. Some of the communications at issue in this matter have been shared with third parties.
11. The Complaint does not fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
12. The First District Court of Appeals has subject matter jurisdiction.
17. The complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
18. There are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just adjudication of the
litigation.
{00272860-1} 2
19. Mark M. Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of Cincinnati.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibits 2-6 are true and accurate copies of the Respondents’
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a chart of the official meetings of the Cincinnati City
Council and its various committees held between March 1, 2018 through March 19, 2018
identifying the relevant body, the Respondents who were in attendance, and the
Respectfully submitted,
{00272860-1} 3
Exhibit 1
Brian C. Shrive
Christine,
Please limit that request to March 1, to March 19, 2018 (that way the request mirrors request No. 18 from the
original request letter). Last week your email mentioned that you are still working on that request.
Thank you,
1
Hi, Brian.
I just looked at the records requests you sent yesterday afternoon, and the second request for all communications
between the Councilmembers relating to the Mayor or City Manager doesn’t have a time frame for the request. Is the
date range for it March 16 – March 19 as for the first request?
I’d like to provide that clarification to the Councilmembers when I send them the request.
Thanks.
Christine
Christine M. Zimmer
Supervising Attorney
Law Department -- General Counsel Section
513/352-3321 (o) | 513/352-1515 (f)
christine.zimmer@cincinnati-oh.gov
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information
that is privileged or confidential. It is not to be transmitted to or received by anyone other than the named addressee (or a person
authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). It is not to be copied or forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you have received
this electronic mail transmission in error, delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by
replying via email or by calling the City of Cincinnati Law Department at (513) 352-3334, so that our address record can be corrected.
As we discussed, attached are the revised requests to councilmembers Sittenfeld, Seelbach, Young, Dennard,
and Landsman.
Thank you,
Please connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Also, please visit our title company web site at
www.ivypointetitle.com.
3
Exhibit 2
Respondents. :
1. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you Communicated via text message with at least one other member of
the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.
Response: Admit.
No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 2 occurred during a meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at which
you were physically present and at least one other person with whom you were
Response: Admit.
{00262018-1}
4. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you communicated via email with at least one other member of the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to
Response: Admit.
6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
7. Admit that the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District has subject
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
8. Admit that, other than the writ of mandamus or alternative writ of mandamus
prayed for in the Complaint, Relator does not have an adequate remedy at law with
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
{00262018-1} 2
9. Admit that Relator has standing to bring the Litigation.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
10. Admit that with respect to the Litigation, the case is justiciable.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
11. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
13. Admit that the Complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and Respondent is unable to admit or deny the request
as discovery is ongoing.
14. Admit that there are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and, further, Respondent is unable to admit or deny
the request as discovery is ongoing.
{00262018-1} 3
15. Admit that the Relator Mark Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of
Cincinnati.
Response: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request as discovery has not
been conducted on this topic.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Emily E. Woerner
Terrance A. Nestor (0065840)
Deputy City Solicitor
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Suite 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 352-3327
(513) 352-1515 (fax)
terry.nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing will be served, via electronic
and regular mail, on the 3rd day of July 2018, upon the following:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00262018-1} 4
Exhibit 3
Respondents. :
1. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you Communicated via text message with at least one other member of
the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.
Response: Admit.
No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 2 occurred during a meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at which
you were physically present and at least one other person with whom you were
Response: Deny.
{00262030-1}
4. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you communicated via email with at least one other member of the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to
Response: Admit.
6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
7. Admit that the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District has subject
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
8. Admit that, other than the writ of mandamus or alternative writ of mandamus
prayed for in the Complaint, Relator does not have an adequate remedy at law with
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
{00262030-1} 2
9. Admit that Relator has standing to bring the Litigation.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
10. Admit that with respect to the Litigation, the case is justiciable.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
11. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
13. Admit that the Complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and Respondent is unable to admit or deny the request
as discovery is ongoing.
14. Admit that there are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and, further, Respondent is unable to admit or deny
the request as discovery is ongoing.
{00262030-1} 3
15. Admit that the Relator Mark Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of
Cincinnati.
Response: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request as discovery has not
been conducted on this topic.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Emily E. Woerner
Terrance A. Nestor (0065840)
Deputy City Solicitor
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Suite 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 352-3327
(513) 352-1515 (fax)
terry.nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing will be served, via electronic
and regular mail, on the 3rd day of July 2018, upon the following:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00262030-1} 4
Exhibit 4
Respondents. :
1. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you Communicated via text message with at least one other member of
the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.
Response: Admit.
No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 2 occurred during a meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at which
you were physically present and at least one other person with whom you were
Response: Admit.
{00262017-1}
4. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you communicated via email with at least one other member of the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to
Response: Admit.
6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
7. Admit that the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District has subject
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
8. Admit that, other than the writ of mandamus or alternative writ of mandamus
prayed for in the Complaint, Relator does not have an adequate remedy at law with
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
{00262017-1} 2
9. Admit that Relator has standing to bring the Litigation.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
10. Admit that with respect to the Litigation, the case is justiciable.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
11. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
13. Admit that the Complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and Respondent is unable to admit or deny the request
as discovery is ongoing.
14. Admit that there are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and, further, Respondent is unable to admit or deny
the request as discovery is ongoing.
{00262017-1} 3
15. Admit that the Relator Mark Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of
Cincinnati.
Response: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request as discovery has not
been conducted on this topic.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Emily E. Woerner
Terrance A. Nestor (0065840)
Deputy City Solicitor
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Suite 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 352-3327
(513) 352-1515 (fax)
terry.nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing will be served, via electronic
and regular mail, on the 3rd day of July 2018, upon the following:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00262017-1} 4
Exhibit 5
Respondents. :
1. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you Communicated via text message with at least one other member of
the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.
Response: Admit.
No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 2 occurred during a meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at which
you were physically present and at least one other person with whom you were
Response: Admit.
{00262024-1}
4. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you communicated via email with at least one other member of the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to
Response: Admit.
6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
7. Admit that the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District has subject
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
8. Admit that, other than the writ of mandamus or alternative writ of mandamus
prayed for in the Complaint, Relator does not have an adequate remedy at law with
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
{00262024-1} 2
9. Admit that Relator has standing to bring the Litigation.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
10. Admit that with respect to the Litigation, the case is justiciable.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
11. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
13. Admit that the Complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and Respondent is unable to admit or deny the request
as discovery is ongoing.
14. Admit that there are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and, further, Respondent is unable to admit or deny
the request as discovery is ongoing.
{00262024-1} 3
15. Admit that the Relator Mark Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of
Cincinnati.
Response: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request as discovery has not
been conducted on this topic.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Emily E. Woerner
Terrance A. Nestor (0065840)
Deputy City Solicitor
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Suite 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 352-3327
(513) 352-1515 (fax)
terry.nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing will be served, via electronic
and regular mail, on the 3rd day of July 2018, upon the following:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00262024-1} 4
Exhibit 6
Respondents. :
1. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you Communicated via text message with at least one other member of
the Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.
Response: Admit.
No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 2 occurred during a meeting of the Cincinnati City Council at which
you were physically present and at least one other person with whom you were
{00262019-1}
Response: Respondent is unable to truthfully admit or deny this request without
matching the timestamps of any communications with the exact times that Council
4. Admit that on at least one occasion between March 1, 2018, and March 19, 2018
(inclusive), you communicated via email with at least one other member of the
Response: Admit.
Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to
Response: Admit.
6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
7. Admit that the Ohio Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District has subject
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
{00262019-1} 2
8. Admit that, other than the writ of mandamus or alternative writ of mandamus
prayed for in the Complaint, Relator does not have an adequate remedy at law with
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
10. Admit that with respect to the Litigation, the case is justiciable.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
11. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and the request is denied.
13. Admit that the Complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and Respondent is unable to admit or deny the request
as discovery is ongoing.
{00262019-1} 3
14. Admit that there are no additional parties whose joinder is necessary to a just
Response: Objection – this request calls for a legal conclusion that is not a proper
request under Civil Rule 36, and, further, Respondent is unable to admit or deny
the request as discovery is ongoing.
15. Admit that the Relator Mark Miller is a taxpayer and resident of the City of
Cincinnati.
Response: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request as discovery has not
been conducted on this topic.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Emily E. Woerner
Terrance A. Nestor (0065840)
Deputy City Solicitor
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Suite 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 352-3327
(513) 352-1515 (fax)
terry.nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing will be served, via electronic
and regular mail, on the 3rd day of July 2018, upon the following:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
{00262019-1} 4
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00262019-1} 5
Full Council Meetings Respondents Present Approximate Start Time Approximate End Time
3/7/2018 Dennard, Landsman, Seelbach, Sittenfeld, Young 14:07 16:09
3/14/2018 Dennard, Seelbach, Sittenfeld, Young 14:22 14:54
3/16/2018 None - No quorum
Exhibit 7