Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
File on an Existing Case Filing )110, Payment Mir Verification 1110 Confirmation
Your filing has been submitted. Below is a summary of this transaction you may [Print] or copy for your records.
oul iNFoRIYIA
Subtotal: $85.00
MASTERCARD ****-****-""**-1421
https://cmsnet.hamiltoncountycourts.org/CourtClerkEfiling/VVEFG013.aspx?q=wDzsb1aeLJSmOn_U100roOjfHwZizgDHERWTQ4HEm41 1/1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON COUNTY,OHIO
VS.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Alexander Paul George Sittenfeld,
Wendell Young, Christopher
Seelbach, Greg Landsman,and
The City of Cincinnati
Respondents/Appellants.
Seelbach, Dennard, and Landsman and the City of Cincinnati — appeal the Trial Court's
October 23, 2018 Entry overruling their Motion for Protective Order and requiring them
to produce "all text messages and emails exchanged between the Defendants from
The Entry requires disclosure of, among other things, privileged communications
and, in effect, determines a separate pending mandamus action before the First District
the Entry is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B), warranting immediate interlocutory
review. See also Grace v. Mastruserio, 182 Ohio App.3d 243, 2007-Ohio-3942, 912
N.E.2d 6o8, 1111 31-34 (1st Dist.); Lambda Research v. Jacobs, 17o Ohio App.3d 750,
Aaron M. Herzig(0079371)
Donnell J. Bell(0091265)
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER,LLP
425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone:(513)381-2838
aherzig@taftlaw.com
dbell@taftlaw.com
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was sent by
Brian Shrive
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
brianPfinneylawfirm.com
chrisCa)finneylawfirm.com
Counsel for Relator/Appellee
3
Exhibit A
ENTERED
OCT 2 3 2018
IN THE i.""OF COMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON COUNTY,OHIO duo
CO RT P
OF RUEHLMAN
HAM ONCOMMON PLEAS
STATE EX REL MARK W MILLER : CASE NO. A1801834 COUN TY, OHIO
Plaintiff,
: JUDGE ROBERT P. RUEHLMAN
vs. •
: ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S
: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for protective order. The Court,
having read the submitted briefs and in full consideration of the arguments finds said motion not
Civil Rule 26(B)(1) states that "if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" then it is discoverable under the scope of the case.
Based on the arguments presented by counsel, the Court finds that all text messages and entails
exchanged between the Defendants from January 1, 2018 through present are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the Defendants are to turn
over all the text messages and emails that fall between those dates by November 2, 20181
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 11
012350980.4