You are on page 1of 6

10/31/2018 Aftab Pureval - Clerk of Courts

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.

Confirmation Number: 790142


Case Number: A 1801834
Case Caption: STATE EX REL MARK W MILLER v ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE SITTENFELD
Case Filed: 4/9/2018
Case Type: CIVIL
Judge: ROBERT P RUEHLMAN

Filing Category: COMMON PLEAS CIVIL FILINGS


Filing Type: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Filing Date: 10/31/2018
Filing Time: 03:02 PM

oul iNFoRIYIA

Document Type Title Format Pages

NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE OF APPEAL. PDF 5

Notice of Appeal 1 CO $85.00 $85.00

Subtotal: $85.00

MASTERCARD ****-****-""**-1421

Add Case to Favorites Print Home

https://cmsnet.hamiltoncountycourts.org/CourtClerkEfiling/VVEFG013.aspx?q=wDzsb1aeLJSmOn_U100roOjfHwZizgDHERWTQ4HEm41 1/1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON COUNTY,OHIO

State ex rel. Mark Miller Trial No. A 1801834

Relator/Appellee, JUDGE RUEHLMAN

VS.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Alexander Paul George Sittenfeld,
Wendell Young, Christopher
Seelbach, Greg Landsman,and
The City of Cincinnati

Respondents/Appellants.

Notice is hereby given that Respondents — Councilmembers Sittenfeld, Young,

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

January 1, 2018 through present"(the "Entry").

The Entry requires disclosure of, among other things, privileged communications

and, in effect, determines a separate pending mandamus action before the First District

Court of Appeals. Additionally, Respondents/Appellants would not be afforded a

meaningful or effective remedy if required to produce those documents now. Therefore,

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,

2007-Ohio-309,869 N.E.2d 39, 11116-19 (1st Dist.).

A copy of the Trial Court's Entry is attached as Exhibit A.


Respectfully submitted,

Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor

/s/ Peter J. Stackpole


Peter J. Stackpole(0072103)
City Hall, Room 214
801 Plum Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone:(513)352-3350
peter.stackpolePcincinnati-oh.gov

Mark A. Vander Laan (0013297)


Bryan E. Pacheco(0068189)
DiNsmoRF RT_ SHOHL.I.T,P
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone:(513)977-820o
mark.vanderlaan(i)dinsmore.com
bryan.pachecoPdinsmore.com

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

Counsel for Respondents/Appellants

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was sent by

email this 31st day of October, 2018 to the following:

Brian Shrive
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
brianPfinneylawfirm.com
chrisCa)finneylawfirm.com
Counsel for Relator/Appellee

/s/ Bryan E. Pacheco


Bryan E. Pacheco

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

ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE


SITTENFELD et al,
Defendants.

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

well taken and DENIES the same.

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.

ID -a3- JU p.I FfP RftillEllLIMN


Date
COURt e.,4OOMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON OOVNTY; OHIO

1 11
012350980.4