Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
: AGREED STIPULATIONS OF
Relator, FACT AND LAW
:
v. DISCOVERY RESPONSES
: ATTACHED HERETO
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

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

and hereby tender the below stipulations of fact and law:

1. The Respondents are public officials serving in a public office as those terms are defined

in R.C. 149.011(A) and (D).

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,

privately paid-for cell phones of Respondents.

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

clarification is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

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

been produced to the Relator.

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.

13. The Relator has standing to bring this litigation.

14. The case is justiciable.

15. The complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

16. The complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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’

responses to the Relator’s Requests for Admission.

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

approximate start and end time of each meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Paula Boggs Muething (0080018)


City Solicitor

/s/ Brian C. Shrive /s/ Emily Woerner *


Brian C. Shrive (0088980) Peter Stackpole (0065840)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998) Deputy City Solicitor
FINNEY LAW FIRM LLC Emily Woerner (0089349)
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Assistant City Solicitor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245 Room 314, City Hall
(513) 943-6656 801 Plum Street
(5130 943-6669 (fax) Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Brian@FinneyLawFirm.com (513) 352-3307
Chris@FinneyLawFirm.com (513) 352-1515
Peter.Stackpole@cincinnati-oh.gov
Counsel for Relator Mark W. Miller Emily.Woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov

Counsel for Respondents

* By Brian C. Shrive, per email authorization.

{00272860-1} 3
Exhibit 1
Brian C. Shrive

From: Brian C. Shrive


Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:42 AM
To: 'Zimmer, Christine'
Cc: Christopher P. Finney; Nestor, Terry
Subject: RE: [External Email] Public records requests to Councilmembers Seelbach, Sittenfeld,
Dennard, Young, and Landsman

Christine,

I’m embarrassed by that that oversight.

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,

Brian C. Shrive, Esq.


FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
513.943.6656 (o)
513.482.9321 (c)
Brian@FinneyLawFirm.com

*******************PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL********************


This electronic message transmission and any files transmitted with it, are communications from the Finney Law Firm, LLC. This message conta
protected by the attorney/client privilege and is confidential or otherwise the exclusive property of the intended recipient or Finney Law Firm
is solely for the use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. If you are not the designated recipient, or the person responsible
communication to its intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly pro
received this electronic transmission in error, please notify by telephone (513-943-6656), collect or by electronic mail Brian@FinneyLawFirm.c
destroy the original transmission.

Thank you for your assistance.

From: Zimmer, Christine [mailto:Christine.Zimmer@cincinnati-oh.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Brian C. Shrive <Brian@finneylawfirm.com>
Cc: Christopher P. Finney <Chris@finneylawfirm.com>; Nestor, Terry <Terry.Nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov>
Subject: RE: [External Email] Public records requests to Councilmembers Seelbach, Sittenfeld, Dennard, Young, and
Landsman

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.

From: Brian C. Shrive [mailto:Brian@finneylawfirm.com]


Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 4:38 PM
To: Zimmer, Christine <Christine.Zimmer@cincinnati-oh.gov>
Cc: Christopher P. Finney <Chris@finneylawfirm.com>; Nestor, Terry <Terry.Nestor@cincinnati-oh.gov>
Subject: [External Email] Public records requests to Councilmembers Seelbach, Sittenfeld, Dennard, Young, and
Landsman

External Email Communication

Christine and Terry,

As we discussed, attached are the revised requests to councilmembers Sittenfeld, Seelbach, Young, Dennard,
and Landsman.

They will go out in certified mail tomorrow.

Thank you,

Brian C. Shrive, Esq.


FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Office: 513.943.6656
Mobile: 513.482.9321
Fax: 513.943.6669
2
Brian@finneylawfirm.com
www.finneylawfirm.com

Please connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Also, please visit our title company web site at
www.ivypointetitle.com.

*******************PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL********************


This electronic message transmission and any files transmitted with it, are communications from the Finney
Law Firm. This message contains information protected by the attorney/client privilege and is confidential or
otherwise the exclusive property of the intended recipient or Finney Law Firm. This information is solely for
the use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. If you are not the designated recipient, or the
person responsible for delivering the communication to its intended recipient, please be aware that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic transmission in error, please notify by telephone 513.943.6656, collect or by electronic mail
Brian@finneylawfirm.com and promptly destroy the original transmission.

3
Exhibit 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
:
Relator, RESPONDENT P.G.
: SITTENFELD’S RESPONSE TO
v. RELATOR’S REQUESTS FOR
: ADMISSION
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

Respondents. :

Requests for Admissions Responses

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.

2. Admit that at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to Request

No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the

Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 4. A copy of Exhibit 4 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

3. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

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

communicating was also physically present.

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

Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.

Response: Admit.

5. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to

the Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 6. A copy of Exhibit 6 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

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

matter jurisdiction over 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.

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

respect to 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.
{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.

12. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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

adjudication of the Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Relator

s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)

{00262018-1} 4
Exhibit 3

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
:
Relator, RESPONDENT WENDELL
: YOUNG’S RESPONSE TO
v. RELATOR’S REQUESTS FOR
: ADMISSION
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

Respondents. :

Requests for Admissions Responses

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.

2. Admit that at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to Request

No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the

Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 4. A copy of Exhibit 4 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

3. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

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

communicating was also physically present.

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

Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.

Response: Admit.

5. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to

the Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 6. A copy of Exhibit 6 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

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

matter jurisdiction over 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.

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

respect to 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.
{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.

12. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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

adjudication of the Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Relator

s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)

{00262030-1} 4
Exhibit 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
:
Relator, RESPONDENT TAMAYA
: DENNARD’S RESPONSE TO
v. RELATOR’S REQUESTS FOR
: ADMISSION
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

Respondents. :

Requests for Admissions Responses

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.

2. Admit that at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to Request

No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the

Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 4. A copy of Exhibit 4 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

3. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

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

communicating was also physically present.

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

Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.

Response: Admit.

5. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to

the Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 6. A copy of Exhibit 6 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

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

matter jurisdiction over 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.

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

respect to 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.
{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.

12. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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

adjudication of the Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Relator

s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)

{00262017-1} 4
Exhibit 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
:
Relator, RESPONDENT WENDELL
: YOUNG’S RESPONSE TO
v. RELATOR’S REQUESTS FOR
: ADMISSION
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

Respondents. :

Requests for Admissions Responses

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.

2. Admit that at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to Request

No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the

Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 4. A copy of Exhibit 4 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

3. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

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

communicating was also physically present.

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

Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.

Response: Admit.

5. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to

the Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 6. A copy of Exhibit 6 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

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

matter jurisdiction over 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.

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

respect to 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.
{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.

12. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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

adjudication of the Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Relator

s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)

{00262024-1} 4
Exhibit 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Mark W. : CASE No. C1800224


Miller
:
Relator, RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER
: SEELBACH’S RESPONSE TO
v. RELATOR’S REQUESTS FOR
: ADMISSION
ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE
SITTENFELD, et al. :

Respondents. :

Requests for Admissions Responses

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.

2. Admit that at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to Request

No. 1 was in a text message other than the text message chain attached to the

Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 4. A copy of Exhibit 4 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

3. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

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

communicating was also physically present.

{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

was in session, including any recesses; however, Respondent’s best recollection is

to deny the request.

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

Cincinnati City Council about either John Cranley or Harry Black.

Response: Admit.

5. Admit that on at least one of the Communications admitted to in response to

Request No. 4 was in an email or group of emails other than the emails attached to

the Complaint in this matter as Exhibit 6. A copy of Exhibit 6 is provided herewith.

Response: Admit.

6. Admit that the Complaint filed in this litigation does not fail to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

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

matter jurisdiction over 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.

{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

respect to 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.

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.

12. Admit that the Complaint is not barred by collateral estoppel.

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

adjudication of the Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Relator

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

Budget & Finance


3/5/2018 Dennard, Landsman, Seelbach, Sittenfeld, Young 13:00 13:17
3/19/2018 Young, Dennard 13:00 14:06

Major Projects & Smart Government


3/6/2018 Landsman, Dennard, Wendell Young, Seelbach 13:00 15:06

Equity Inclusion, Youth & the Arts


3/13/2018 Dennard, Sittenfeld 11:00 11:50

Education, Innovation & Growth


3/13/2018 Sittenfeld, Seelbach, Young 14:00 15:50

Exhibit 7