Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
, August 8, 2016 12:13::
CASE NUMBER: 2016 CV 01736 Docket ID: 29898186
GREGORY A BRUSH
CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO
C. Jessica Pratt (0087210)
Counsel for Defendants,
St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities
And The Franciscan at St. Leonard
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CLIFFORD REEVES and CASE NO.: 2016 CV 01736
DEBORAH REEVES,
(Judge Mary Wiseman)
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANTS, ST. LEONARD,
Vv, FRANCISCAN LIVING
COMMUNITIES AND THE
ST. LEONARD, et al., FRANCISCAN AT ST. LEONARD’S,
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
Defendants. TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is without merit and should be denied. As noted in
Plaintiffs’ Motion, as well as Defendants’ Motion to Compel depositions, which was filed
shortly before Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants provided responses to Plaintiffs’ initial
discovery demands on May 23, 2016. After nearly 2 months and multiple requests by
Defense counsel to depose Mr. and Mrs. Reeves, counsel for the Plaintiffs forwarded a
letter on July 19, 2016 (dated July 18), which requested that certain interrogatories
and requests for documents be supplemented. This letter also made clear that
Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to produce his clients for deposition unless and until he
1 See Plaintiffs’ July 18, 2016 letter, attached as Exhibit A.
deemed Defendants discovery responses sufficiently “complete.”2. The undersigned
responded to the Plaintiffs’ July 18% letter via email on July 19, 2016 and addressed
each of Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding Defendants’ discovery responses.3 Two of the
interrogatories (numbers 14 and 17) are at issue in the within motion and will be
addressed more fully below. Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the third interrogatory at
issue in this motion (number 16) were only brought to the attention of the Defendants
by the filing of this motion, thus there was clearly no good faith attempt by the Plaintiffs’
counsel to resolve this aspect of his discovery dispute prior to the filing of same.
Nevertheless, Defendants will address each of the three interrogatories at issue in this
motion more fully below.
Interrogatory No. 14
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory number 14 requests that Defendants identify any slip
and/or fall that occurred in The Franciscan Center in the two (2) years prior to April 9,
2015. As Plaintiffs’ Motion correctly notes, Defendants objected to this interrogatory on
the basis that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and calls for information
that is completely irrelevant to this litigation. In Defendants’ July 19, 2016 email to
Plaintiffs’ counsel, the undersigned further pointed out that The Franciscan Center is a
large building and falls that occurred therein on a date prior to April 9, 2015 are in no
way relevant to this litigation.4 Civ. R. 26(B) states that parties are entitled to obtain
discovery “regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action...” This rule further holds that discovery requests must
2 Id.
2 See Defendants’ July 19, 2016 email, attached as Exhibit B.
4 See Exhibit B.
be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” [Emphasis
added]. Moreover, Ohio Evidence Rule 403 holds that evidence is “not admissible if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of
confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.”
The Franciscan Center is a large building with exercise rooms, locker rooms,
offices, meeting rooms and even a restaurant. In the instant matter, Mr. Reeves fell in
the lobby area. Notably, Plaintiffs refused to appropriately respond to Defendants’
Interrogatory No. 10, which asked for a description of how the accident at issue
occurred.5 Plaintiffs cannot possibly craft a reasonable argument for why falls that may
or may not have occurred in The Franciscan Center on a different date, in a different
location and under completely different circumstances to those at issue in this case
could be remotely relevant to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Motion argues that the requested
information is relevant to the issue of whether Defendants were on notice of “the
potential dangerous condition.” However, since Plaintiffs have refused to answer the
aforementioned interrogatory and have further refused to appear for depositions,
Defendants can only guess at the “dangerous condition” Plaintiffs are referring to.‘
Such a broad request is completely inappropriate and Defendants’ objection to same is
reasonable and necessary. As such, it is respectfully submitted that no further response
should be required of the Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory number 14.
Interrogatory No. 16
5 See relevant portions of Plaintiffs’ Answers to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit C.
® Defendants note that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint indicates that Mr. Reeves fell on a “wet floor,” thus it is assumed
that the “dangerous condition” referred to in Plaintiffs’ Motion is this wet floor. However, Defendants do not
know whether Plaintiffs will also claim some other “condition” caused or contributed to his fall. Due to Plaintiffs’
refusal to answer the aforementioned interrogatory, this issue will need to be addressed further at Plaintiffs’
depositions.
Interrogatory number 16 requests that Defendants “identify any report, oral or
written, regarding the incident alleged in the Complaint.” Defendants objected to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and calls for information that is
confidential and not subject to discovery. Notably, the Interrogatory is too broad and
can be interpreted as a request for reports drafted by counsel relative to the event in
question, which is indisputably privileged. Plaintiff is certainly not entitled to the
identity of reports that have been prepared after notification of the Plaintiffs’ claims
against these Defendants. That being said, Defendants will agree to supplement their
answer to this Interrogatory to reflect that, indeed, an incident report was prepared by
Dr. Jack Harless, Director of The Franciscan Center, on the date of the Plaintiff's fall.
This report, however, is protected by the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to Baker v.
Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, et al., 2009 WL 2872934, 2009-Ohio-4681.
Interrogatory No. 17
Interrogatory number 17 requests that the Defendants “identify any person or
entity that may be necessary as a party for a just adjudication, or may have an interest in
this matter.” Defendants objected to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
calls for a legal conclusion and it is premature. Further, Defendants’ July 19th email
points out that we are in no position to determine whether additional parties may be
“necessary” to this litigation, as we have been prevented from pursuing certain avenues
of discovery (i.e., Plaintiffs’ depositions) wherein we may be able to explore this issue,7
Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ Motion, this position in no way contradicts the relevant
affirmative defense set forth in Defendants’ Answer to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
7 See Exhibit B.
Affirmative defenses are pled prospectively so as to avoid waiver. If, after sufficient
discovery is completed, it becomes clear that the affirmative defense is not necessary, it
will be withdrawn. At this time, however, Defendants are not aware of whether any
other parties may have a right of subrogation, for example, nor do we even know the
exact nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations, thus we cannot determine whether any other party
is necessary to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory, therefore, is premature and
inappropriate, as it clearly requires a legal analysis of the issues in this case, which
Prentice Lipsey (the Executive Director who verified the Interrogatory answers) is not
qualified to give.
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel should be denied in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP
ld Jesico Pratt
C. Jessica Pratt (0087210)
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, OH 45202
513-381-9200 (telephone)
513-381-9206 (fax)
jpratt@rendigs.com
Counsel for Defendants,
St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities
and The Franciscan at St. Leonard
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that on August 8, 2016 the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court
by using the ECG system, which will send notice to all parties of record.
Aaron G, Durden
DURDEN LAW, L.P.A., LLC
10 West Monument Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45402
(937) 461-9400
(937) 222-1841 (facsimile)
agdlawyer@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Timothy A. Ita, Esq.
ROBERTS, MATEJCZYK & ITA
5045 Park Avenue West, Suite 2B
Seville, OH 44273
Attorney for Defendant,
Community Insurance Company
d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield
Email: tim@ohiosubro.com
[d Jessica Pratt
C. Jessica Pratt
12272\00011\1529760
DURDEN LAW, L.P.A., LLC.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
10 WEST MONUMENT AVENUE 2200 PENN. AVE. N.W., 4" FLOOR
DAYTON, OHIO 45402 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
(937) 461-9400 (202) 349-3958
(937) 222-1841 FAX
July 18, 2016
Sent via e-mail only - jpratt@rendigs.com
Ms. C. Jessica Pratt, Esq.
Rendigs, Fry, Keily & Dennis, LLP
600 Vine Street, Ste. #2650
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Re: Clifford Reeves, et al., vs. St. Leonard, et al.
Case No.: 2016-cv-01736
Dear Ms. Pratt:
I am writing to respond to your request to take the deposition(s) of my
clients in this case.
Yet, in reviewing your responses to the Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents it appears no depositions can be
scheduled until supplemental answers are provided for the interrogatories as
well as the receipt of items sought in the request for productions of documents.
Concerning your answers to the interrogatories, specifically question no.
#14 seeks any information of prior fall(s) before April 9, 2015, and your response
that it is considered irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence is wrong. Such a claim of denial can only be
made by the court, which has the exclusive authority to decide the issue. Your
answer to question no. #17, you claim it premature to identify any person or
entity as a necessary party having an interest in this litigation. Then, the taking
of depositions would likewise be premature unless and until all necessary parties
have been added to the case. We choose not to waste time with depositions to
later learn of additional parties to simply revisit the discovery issues. I hope you
agree.
HIB
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WASHINGTON, D.C.
The response to no. #3 of the Request for Production of Documents is
confusing when it seeks to relate whether there is a contract or agreement
regarding cleaning, repair, or maintenance of The Franciscan Center as attorney
client privilege and/or work doctrine. Additionally, response no. #2 states your
client is conducting a search for any video surveillance footage. Again, another
reason not to proceed with depositions until such time we receive all relevant
documents plaintiffs are entitled to receive in this case.
We expect receipt of said documents and affirmative answers to the issues
raised herein on or before July 31, 2016, otherwise a Motion to Compel shall be
filed in early August 2016.
Lastly, I expect to take the deposition of the housekeeping employee, Ms.
Brandy Gillespie, during the same date as my clients. It seems probable that the
location be the facility itself.
Sincerely,
[sAarowG. Durdew
Aaron G, Durden
CC: Mr. Clifford Reeves
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WASHINGTON, D.C.
Pratt, Jessica
From: Pratt, Jessica
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:40 PM
To: ‘agdlawyer@aol.com'
Ce: ‘Angi’
Subject: RE: Reeves v. St. Leonard, et al.
Mr. Durden,
Having now received your July 18, 2016 letter, | ask that you reconsider your position. | will gladly address each of your
issues with my client’s discovery responses but it is very clear that absolutely none of your issues have any bearing on
your client’s testimony. There is no reason to delay the depositions of your clients any longer. Please consider that
these discovery responses were sent to you on May 23” and | have now requested your clients’ depositions on at least 3
separate occasions. Unless we can move this case forward, | will be forced to seek judicial intervention.
As for your issues...
With regard to Interrogatory No. 14, we stand by our objections. Your request is far too broad, particularly since it
seemingly pertains to the entire Franciscan Center, rather than merely the area where Mr. Reeves fell. Moreover,
whether someone else has fallen in the building or the area in question is in no way relevant to this case.
With regard to Interrogatory No. 17, again, we stand by our response. As you know, there has been very little discovery
completed in this case and | have not even spoken to your clients. Although we are not aware of any other “necessary
parties” to this litigation, my clients are simply not in a position to say whether someone else should be involved. This is
not justification for delaying the depositions of your clients. Notably, the Court’s Pretrial Order sets the filing deadline
for motions to add necessary parties on October 24". Are you suggesting that we should wait until then to begin
discovery depositions? Surely such a position is unreasonable.
With regard to Request No. 3, | suggest you re-read our responses. The response refers you to our Answer to
Interrogatory No. 5, which clearly states that there are no cleaning, maintenance and/or repair agreements or
contracts. There is no reference to the Attorney Client Privilege or the Work Product Doctrine.
With regard to Request No. 2, my client has conducted a search for video surveillance footage from the date in question
and there is none. In fact, there is no video surveillance of the area where Mr. Reeves fell.
Finally, with regard to your request for the deposition of Brandy Gillespie, | have no objection to producing her for
deposition. Obviously, | cannot guarantee her availability for any particular date, as | have not spoken with her about
this and | have not received any dates from you for the depositions of your clients.
! would very much prefer not to burden the Court so early in the Case but if | do not receive dates for your clients
depositions within the next week, | will be forced to file a motion to compel.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation:
Jess
EXHIBIT
©. Jessica Puatt, Esq.
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis
600 Vin Street, Suite 2650
C. Jessica Pratt (0087210)
Counsel for Defendants,
St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities
And The Franciscan at St. Leonard
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CLIFFORD REEVES and CASE NO.: 2016 CV 01736
DEBORAH REEVES,
(Judge Mary Wiseman)
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO
Vv. DEFENDANTS, ST. LEONARD,
FRANCISCAN LIVING
ST. LEONARD, et al., COMMUNITIES AND THE
FRANCISCAN AT ST. LEONARD’S,
Defendants. FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
Now comes Plaintiffs, Clifford Reeves and Deborah Reeves, and submits the
following responses to Defendants, St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities and
The Franciscan Center at St. Leonard’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents:
With respect to each expert witness listed in response to Interrogatory 6 above,
state the following:
(a) his/her place of employment;
(b) his/her qualifications as an expert witness on the subject upon which
he/she will testify;
(c) attach a copy of said expert's curriculum vitae;
(d) summarize the testimony which you anticipate said expert will give on
direct examination;
ANSWER:
Dr. Matthew O’Connell, M.D. Dr. Frank Fasano, M.D.
Congress Park Family Practice First Dayton Orthopedics
Experts will testify regarding Plaintiffs injuries, cause of injuries, and
medical treatment.
Plaintiff will supplement qualifications, including curriculum vitaes.
8 Please explain the pu rpose of your visit(s) to The Franciscan Center on April 3,
2015 and/or April 9, 2015.
ANSWER: Plaintiff was going to the Yoga for Silver Sneakers
Seniors class
9 Describe the shoes and clothing you were wearing at the time of the incident
giving rise to this action.
ANSWER: Plaintiff was wearing a t-shirt, sports pants, and Adidas
athletic shoes.
10. Describe fully and completely how the accident at issue herein occurred, stating
in your answer all events relating thereto in their appropriate sequence.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this request in that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive, and would more appropriately be addressed
by way of deposition since it requires a narrative answer. See Penn Central
Transport Co. Armco Steel Corp., 27 Ohio Misc. 76 (1971). Interrogatories
are designed to elicit fact of the cas e. Ohio Rules of Civil Proc. 26(b)(1).
I, Clifford Reeves, do state under oath that the foregoing answers to the
Interrogatories served up on me were freely and voluntarily answered to the
best of my
knowledge and belief.
Clifford Reeves
VERIFICATION
STATE OF OHIO )
SS:
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY )
Before me, the undersigned, a duly licensed notary public in and for said county
and state, personally appeared Clifford Reeves on the 6" day of May 2016, who is known
to me to be a Plaintiff in the case of Clifford Reeves, et al. vs. St. Leonard, et al., filed
in
the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, under case number 2016 CV 1736,
who
did acknowledge and verify under oath that Clifford Reeves freely and voluntarily made
the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories, and that they are true and correct to the
best
of his knowledge and belief.
NOTARY PUBLIC
wu 1 tty,
L My,
SY
So ANGELA D GUERNSEY
Notary Public
P+ in and for the State ofOhio
ROS My commission expires
4 TH February 24, 2004
I, Deborah Reeves, do state under oath that the foregoing answers to the
Interrogatories served upon me were freely and voluntarily answered to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Mibowad, Kpw0e!
Deborah Reeves
VERIFICATION
STATE OF OHIO )
) Ss:
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY )
Before me, the undersigned, a duly licensed notary ublic in and for said county
2
and state, personally appeared Deborah Reeves on the 6 day of May 2016, who is
known to me to be a Plaintiff in the case of Clifford Reeves, et al. vs. St. Leonard, et al.,
filed in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, under case number 2016 CV
1736, who did acknowledge and verify under oath that Deborah Reeves freely and
voluntarily made the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories, and that they are true and
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
OTABY
be
PUBLIC
p>
AU,
. asiA RIAL My, y,
9%, ANGELA D GUERNSEY
=
Notary Public
"in and for the State of Ohio
SN
UAT > My commission expires
tay
Ta February 24, 2024
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS , August 8, 2016 12:13:: CASE NUMBER: 2016 CV 01736 Docket ID: 29898186 GREGORY A BRUSH CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO C. Jessica Pratt (0087210) Counsel for Defendants, St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities And The Franciscan at St. Leonard IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION CLIFFORD REEVES and CASE NO.: 2016 CV 01736 DEBORAH REEVES, (Judge Mary Wiseman) Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS, ST. LEONARD, Vv, FRANCISCAN LIVING COMMUNITIES AND THE ST. LEONARD, et al., FRANCISCAN AT ST. LEONARD’S, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Defendants. TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is without merit and should be denied. As noted in Plaintiffs’ Motion, as well as Defendants’ Motion to Compel depositions, which was filed shortly before Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants provided responses to Plaintiffs’ initial discovery demands on May 23, 2016. After nearly 2 months and multiple requests by Defense counsel to depose Mr. and Mrs. Reeves, counsel for the Plaintiffs forwarded a letter on July 19, 2016 (dated July 18), which requested that certain interrogatories and requests for documents be supplemented. This letter also made clear that Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to produce his clients for deposition unless and until he 1 See Plaintiffs’ July 18, 2016 letter, attached as Exhibit A. deemed Defendants discovery responses sufficiently “complete.”2. The undersigned responded to the Plaintiffs’ July 18% letter via email on July 19, 2016 and addressed each of Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding Defendants’ discovery responses.3 Two of the interrogatories (numbers 14 and 17) are at issue in the within motion and will be addressed more fully below. Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the third interrogatory at issue in this motion (number 16) were only brought to the attention of the Defendants by the filing of this motion, thus there was clearly no good faith attempt by the Plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve this aspect of his discovery dispute prior to the filing of same. Nevertheless, Defendants will address each of the three interrogatories at issue in this motion more fully below. Interrogatory No. 14 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory number 14 requests that Defendants identify any slip and/or fall that occurred in The Franciscan Center in the two (2) years prior to April 9, 2015. As Plaintiffs’ Motion correctly notes, Defendants objected to this interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is completely irrelevant to this litigation. In Defendants’ July 19, 2016 email to Plaintiffs’ counsel, the undersigned further pointed out that The Franciscan Center is a large building and falls that occurred therein on a date prior to April 9, 2015 are in no way relevant to this litigation.4 Civ. R. 26(B) states that parties are entitled to obtain discovery “regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...” This rule further holds that discovery requests must 2 Id. 2 See Defendants’ July 19, 2016 email, attached as Exhibit B. 4 See Exhibit B. be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” [Emphasis added]. Moreover, Ohio Evidence Rule 403 holds that evidence is “not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.” The Franciscan Center is a large building with exercise rooms, locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms and even a restaurant. In the instant matter, Mr. Reeves fell in the lobby area. Notably, Plaintiffs refused to appropriately respond to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 10, which asked for a description of how the accident at issue occurred.5 Plaintiffs cannot possibly craft a reasonable argument for why falls that may or may not have occurred in The Franciscan Center on a different date, in a different location and under completely different circumstances to those at issue in this case could be remotely relevant to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Motion argues that the requested information is relevant to the issue of whether Defendants were on notice of “the potential dangerous condition.” However, since Plaintiffs have refused to answer the aforementioned interrogatory and have further refused to appear for depositions, Defendants can only guess at the “dangerous condition” Plaintiffs are referring to.‘ Such a broad request is completely inappropriate and Defendants’ objection to same is reasonable and necessary. As such, it is respectfully submitted that no further response should be required of the Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory number 14. Interrogatory No. 16 5 See relevant portions of Plaintiffs’ Answers to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit C. ® Defendants note that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint indicates that Mr. Reeves fell on a “wet floor,” thus it is assumed that the “dangerous condition” referred to in Plaintiffs’ Motion is this wet floor. However, Defendants do not know whether Plaintiffs will also claim some other “condition” caused or contributed to his fall. Due to Plaintiffs’ refusal to answer the aforementioned interrogatory, this issue will need to be addressed further at Plaintiffs’ depositions. Interrogatory number 16 requests that Defendants “identify any report, oral or written, regarding the incident alleged in the Complaint.” Defendants objected to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and calls for information that is confidential and not subject to discovery. Notably, the Interrogatory is too broad and can be interpreted as a request for reports drafted by counsel relative to the event in question, which is indisputably privileged. Plaintiff is certainly not entitled to the identity of reports that have been prepared after notification of the Plaintiffs’ claims against these Defendants. That being said, Defendants will agree to supplement their answer to this Interrogatory to reflect that, indeed, an incident report was prepared by Dr. Jack Harless, Director of The Franciscan Center, on the date of the Plaintiff's fall. This report, however, is protected by the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to Baker v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, et al., 2009 WL 2872934, 2009-Ohio-4681. Interrogatory No. 17 Interrogatory number 17 requests that the Defendants “identify any person or entity that may be necessary as a party for a just adjudication, or may have an interest in this matter.” Defendants objected to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, calls for a legal conclusion and it is premature. Further, Defendants’ July 19th email points out that we are in no position to determine whether additional parties may be “necessary” to this litigation, as we have been prevented from pursuing certain avenues of discovery (i.e., Plaintiffs’ depositions) wherein we may be able to explore this issue,7 Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ Motion, this position in no way contradicts the relevant affirmative defense set forth in Defendants’ Answer to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 7 See Exhibit B. Affirmative defenses are pled prospectively so as to avoid waiver. If, after sufficient discovery is completed, it becomes clear that the affirmative defense is not necessary, it will be withdrawn. At this time, however, Defendants are not aware of whether any other parties may have a right of subrogation, for example, nor do we even know the exact nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations, thus we cannot determine whether any other party is necessary to this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory, therefore, is premature and inappropriate, as it clearly requires a legal analysis of the issues in this case, which Prentice Lipsey (the Executive Director who verified the Interrogatory answers) is not qualified to give. In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should be denied in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP ld Jesico Pratt C. Jessica Pratt (0087210) 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-381-9200 (telephone) 513-381-9206 (fax) jpratt@rendigs.com Counsel for Defendants, St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities and The Franciscan at St. Leonard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on August 8, 2016 the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECG system, which will send notice to all parties of record. Aaron G, Durden DURDEN LAW, L.P.A., LLC 10 West Monument Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45402 (937) 461-9400 (937) 222-1841 (facsimile) agdlawyer@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff Timothy A. Ita, Esq. ROBERTS, MATEJCZYK & ITA 5045 Park Avenue West, Suite 2B Seville, OH 44273 Attorney for Defendant, Community Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Email: tim@ohiosubro.com [d Jessica Pratt C. Jessica Pratt 12272\00011\1529760 DURDEN LAW, L.P.A., LLC. ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 WEST MONUMENT AVENUE 2200 PENN. AVE. N.W., 4" FLOOR DAYTON, OHIO 45402 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (937) 461-9400 (202) 349-3958 (937) 222-1841 FAX July 18, 2016 Sent via e-mail only - jpratt@rendigs.com Ms. C. Jessica Pratt, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Keily & Dennis, LLP 600 Vine Street, Ste. #2650 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Re: Clifford Reeves, et al., vs. St. Leonard, et al. Case No.: 2016-cv-01736 Dear Ms. Pratt: I am writing to respond to your request to take the deposition(s) of my clients in this case. Yet, in reviewing your responses to the Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents it appears no depositions can be scheduled until supplemental answers are provided for the interrogatories as well as the receipt of items sought in the request for productions of documents. Concerning your answers to the interrogatories, specifically question no. #14 seeks any information of prior fall(s) before April 9, 2015, and your response that it is considered irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is wrong. Such a claim of denial can only be made by the court, which has the exclusive authority to decide the issue. Your answer to question no. #17, you claim it premature to identify any person or entity as a necessary party having an interest in this litigation. Then, the taking of depositions would likewise be premature unless and until all necessary parties have been added to the case. We choose not to waste time with depositions to later learn of additional parties to simply revisit the discovery issues. I hope you agree. HIB ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WASHINGTON, D.C. The response to no. #3 of the Request for Production of Documents is confusing when it seeks to relate whether there is a contract or agreement regarding cleaning, repair, or maintenance of The Franciscan Center as attorney client privilege and/or work doctrine. Additionally, response no. #2 states your client is conducting a search for any video surveillance footage. Again, another reason not to proceed with depositions until such time we receive all relevant documents plaintiffs are entitled to receive in this case. We expect receipt of said documents and affirmative answers to the issues raised herein on or before July 31, 2016, otherwise a Motion to Compel shall be filed in early August 2016. Lastly, I expect to take the deposition of the housekeeping employee, Ms. Brandy Gillespie, during the same date as my clients. It seems probable that the location be the facility itself. Sincerely, [sAarowG. Durdew Aaron G, Durden CC: Mr. Clifford Reeves ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WASHINGTON, D.C. Pratt, Jessica From: Pratt, Jessica Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:40 PM To: ‘agdlawyer@aol.com' Ce: ‘Angi’ Subject: RE: Reeves v. St. Leonard, et al. Mr. Durden, Having now received your July 18, 2016 letter, | ask that you reconsider your position. | will gladly address each of your issues with my client’s discovery responses but it is very clear that absolutely none of your issues have any bearing on your client’s testimony. There is no reason to delay the depositions of your clients any longer. Please consider that these discovery responses were sent to you on May 23” and | have now requested your clients’ depositions on at least 3 separate occasions. Unless we can move this case forward, | will be forced to seek judicial intervention. As for your issues... With regard to Interrogatory No. 14, we stand by our objections. Your request is far too broad, particularly since it seemingly pertains to the entire Franciscan Center, rather than merely the area where Mr. Reeves fell. Moreover, whether someone else has fallen in the building or the area in question is in no way relevant to this case. With regard to Interrogatory No. 17, again, we stand by our response. As you know, there has been very little discovery completed in this case and | have not even spoken to your clients. Although we are not aware of any other “necessary parties” to this litigation, my clients are simply not in a position to say whether someone else should be involved. This is not justification for delaying the depositions of your clients. Notably, the Court’s Pretrial Order sets the filing deadline for motions to add necessary parties on October 24". Are you suggesting that we should wait until then to begin discovery depositions? Surely such a position is unreasonable. With regard to Request No. 3, | suggest you re-read our responses. The response refers you to our Answer to Interrogatory No. 5, which clearly states that there are no cleaning, maintenance and/or repair agreements or contracts. There is no reference to the Attorney Client Privilege or the Work Product Doctrine. With regard to Request No. 2, my client has conducted a search for video surveillance footage from the date in question and there is none. In fact, there is no video surveillance of the area where Mr. Reeves fell. Finally, with regard to your request for the deposition of Brandy Gillespie, | have no objection to producing her for deposition. Obviously, | cannot guarantee her availability for any particular date, as | have not spoken with her about this and | have not received any dates from you for the depositions of your clients. ! would very much prefer not to burden the Court so early in the Case but if | do not receive dates for your clients depositions within the next week, | will be forced to file a motion to compel. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation: Jess EXHIBIT ©. Jessica Puatt, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis 600 Vin Street, Suite 2650 C. Jessica Pratt (0087210) Counsel for Defendants, St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities And The Franciscan at St. Leonard IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION CLIFFORD REEVES and CASE NO.: 2016 CV 01736 DEBORAH REEVES, (Judge Mary Wiseman) Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO Vv. DEFENDANTS, ST. LEONARD, FRANCISCAN LIVING ST. LEONARD, et al., COMMUNITIES AND THE FRANCISCAN AT ST. LEONARD’S, Defendants. FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Now comes Plaintiffs, Clifford Reeves and Deborah Reeves, and submits the following responses to Defendants, St. Leonard, Franciscan Living Communities and The Franciscan Center at St. Leonard’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents: With respect to each expert witness listed in response to Interrogatory 6 above, state the following: (a) his/her place of employment; (b) his/her qualifications as an expert witness on the subject upon which he/she will testify; (c) attach a copy of said expert's curriculum vitae; (d) summarize the testimony which you anticipate said expert will give on direct examination; ANSWER: Dr. Matthew O’Connell, M.D. Dr. Frank Fasano, M.D. Congress Park Family Practice First Dayton Orthopedics Experts will testify regarding Plaintiffs injuries, cause of injuries, and medical treatment. Plaintiff will supplement qualifications, including curriculum vitaes. 8 Please explain the pu rpose of your visit(s) to The Franciscan Center on April 3, 2015 and/or April 9, 2015. ANSWER: Plaintiff was going to the Yoga for Silver Sneakers Seniors class 9 Describe the shoes and clothing you were wearing at the time of the incident giving rise to this action. ANSWER: Plaintiff was wearing a t-shirt, sports pants, and Adidas athletic shoes. 10. Describe fully and completely how the accident at issue herein occurred, stating in your answer all events relating thereto in their appropriate sequence. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this request in that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive, and would more appropriately be addressed by way of deposition since it requires a narrative answer. See Penn Central Transport Co. Armco Steel Corp., 27 Ohio Misc. 76 (1971). Interrogatories are designed to elicit fact of the cas e. Ohio Rules of Civil Proc. 26(b)(1). I, Clifford Reeves, do state under oath that the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories served up on me were freely and voluntarily answered to the best of my knowledge and belief. Clifford Reeves VERIFICATION STATE OF OHIO ) SS: COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) Before me, the undersigned, a duly licensed notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared Clifford Reeves on the 6" day of May 2016, who is known to me to be a Plaintiff in the case of Clifford Reeves, et al. vs. St. Leonard, et al., filed in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, under case number 2016 CV 1736, who did acknowledge and verify under oath that Clifford Reeves freely and voluntarily made the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories, and that they are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. NOTARY PUBLIC wu 1 tty, L My, SY So ANGELA D GUERNSEY Notary Public P+ in and for the State ofOhio ROS My commission expires 4 TH February 24, 2004 I, Deborah Reeves, do state under oath that the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories served upon me were freely and voluntarily answered to the best of my knowledge and belief. Mibowad, Kpw0e! Deborah Reeves VERIFICATION STATE OF OHIO ) ) Ss: COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) Before me, the undersigned, a duly licensed notary ublic in and for said county 2 and state, personally appeared Deborah Reeves on the 6 day of May 2016, who is known to me to be a Plaintiff in the case of Clifford Reeves, et al. vs. St. Leonard, et al., filed in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, under case number 2016 CV 1736, who did acknowledge and verify under oath that Deborah Reeves freely and voluntarily made the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories, and that they are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. OTABY be PUBLIC p> AU, . asiA RIAL My, y, 9%, ANGELA D GUERNSEY = Notary Public "in and for the State of Ohio SN UAT > My commission expires tay Ta February 24, 2024