On February 26, 2021 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Assunta Rossi,
Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living Trust,
Robert V. Traci,
and
Chicago Title Company, Llc,
David Keehan,
D. J. Keehan,
Gh Holdings Llc,
Online Communications Llc,
Signature Building Concepts Llc,
Westlake Shadow Creek, Llc An Ohio Corporation,
for CONTRACT - REAL ESTATE
in the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
Preview
119161909
119 6 909
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE Case No: CV-21-944483
LIVING ET AL
Plaintiff Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY
D.J. KEEHAN ET AL
Defendant
JOURNAL ENTRY
THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FILED 09/07/2021. DEFENDANTS FILED A RESPONSE ON
09/14/2021. A HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION WAS HELD ON 10/20/2021. AT THAT TIME, THE COURT GRANTED
PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION TO RE-PROPOUND PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES UPON
DEFENDANTS. ACCORDINGLY, AS TO PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES, THIS MOTION IS MOOT.
THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF TRACI'S INTERROGATORIES AS FOLLOWS
(INTERROGATORIES 22-27 WERE RENUMBERED AT THE HEARING DUE TO DUPLICATE NUMBERS):
INT. 5 - MOOT PER THE HEARING
INT. 6 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 7 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 14(B) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL
CONCLUSION
INT. 14(C) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL
CONCLUSION
INT. 19 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 20 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND REGARDING WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE DENIED A CONSTRUCTION
LOAN FOR UNIT 35, AND IF SO BY WHICH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BUT DO NOT NEED TO DISCLOSE WHY THE
LOAN APPLICATION WAS DENIED, IF APPLICABLE
INT. 21 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 22 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 23 - MOOT PER THE HEARING
INT. 24 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 25 - MOOT PER THE HEARING
INT. 26 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
INT. 27 - MOOT PER THE HEARING
INT. 28 - MOOT PER THE HEARING
THE COURT ALSO FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS'
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL RULES, I.E. STATING WHICH
DOCUMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO WHICH RFP, AND IF THERE ARE NO RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, STATING THAT -
AS FOLLOWS:
RFP 1 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 2 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 3 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
10/21/2021
RECEIVED FOR FILING
10/27/2021 14:43:11
NAILAH K. BYRD, CLERK
Page 1 of2
119161909
119 6 909
RFP 9 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 10 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 12 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 13 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED AS THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY PROVIDED TO
PLAINTIFFS
RFP 14 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND
RFP 16 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS ARE TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS
REQUEST
RFP 17 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND FOR YEARS 2019-2020
RFP 18 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE
HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER
RFP 19 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE
HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER
RFP 20 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE
HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER
RFP 21- DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE
HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER
DEFENDANTS ARE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AS DETAILED IN THIS ORDER BY 11/29/2021, OR THE COURT WILL
GRANT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND MAY AWARD SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFFS SHALL REVISE RFP 16
WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THIS ENTRY. THE COURT WILL ADDRESS RFP 16 AT THE 11/17/2021 TELEPHONE
CONFERENCE.
10/21/2021
RECEIVED FOR FILING
10/27/2021 14:43:11
NAILAH K. BYRD, CLERK
Page 2 of 2
Document Filed Date
October 27, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 26, 2021
Category
CONTRACT - REAL ESTATE
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
119161909 119 6 909 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE Case No: CV-21-944483 LIVING ET AL Plaintiff Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY D.J. KEEHAN ET AL Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FILED 09/07/2021. DEFENDANTS FILED A RESPONSE ON 09/14/2021. A HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION WAS HELD ON 10/20/2021. AT THAT TIME, THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION TO RE-PROPOUND PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES UPON DEFENDANTS. ACCORDINGLY, AS TO PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES, THIS MOTION IS MOOT. THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF TRACI'S INTERROGATORIES AS FOLLOWS (INTERROGATORIES 22-27 WERE RENUMBERED AT THE HEARING DUE TO DUPLICATE NUMBERS): INT. 5 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 6 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 7 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 14(B) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL CONCLUSION INT. 14(C) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL CONCLUSION INT. 19 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 20 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND REGARDING WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE DENIED A CONSTRUCTION LOAN FOR UNIT 35, AND IF SO BY WHICH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BUT DO NOT NEED TO DISCLOSE WHY THE LOAN APPLICATION WAS DENIED, IF APPLICABLE INT. 21 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 22 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 23 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 24 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 25 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 26 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 27 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 28 - MOOT PER THE HEARING THE COURT ALSO FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL RULES, I.E. STATING WHICH DOCUMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO WHICH RFP, AND IF THERE ARE NO RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, STATING THAT - AS FOLLOWS: RFP 1 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 2 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 3 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND 10/21/2021 RECEIVED FOR FILING 10/27/2021 14:43:11 NAILAH K. BYRD, CLERK Page 1 of2 119161909 119 6 909 RFP 9 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 10 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 12 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 13 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED AS THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFFS RFP 14 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 16 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS ARE TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS REQUEST RFP 17 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND FOR YEARS 2019-2020 RFP 18 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 19 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 20 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 21- DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER DEFENDANTS ARE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AS DETAILED IN THIS ORDER BY 11/29/2021, OR THE COURT WILL GRANT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND MAY AWARD SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFFS SHALL REVISE RFP 16 WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THIS ENTRY. THE COURT WILL ADDRESS RFP 16 AT THE 11/17/2021 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. 10/21/2021 RECEIVED FOR FILING 10/27/2021 14:43:11 NAILAH K. BYRD, CLERK Page 2 of 2