Preview
Motion No. 4955988
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
MOTION TO...
September 7,2021 00:12
Confirmation Nbr. 2344630
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483
LIVING ET AL
vs.
Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY
D.J. KEEHANETAL
Pages Filed: 20
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY :
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, et al :
: CASE NO.: CV 21944483
Plaintiffs :
: JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY
Vs :
D.J.KEEHAN, Individually and :
As dba, Westlake :
Shadow Creek, LLC, et al :
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
FOR RULE 30 (B)(5) DEPOSITION
Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court compelling the Defendant Westlake
Shadow Creek, LLC (hereinafter WSC) to appear and submit to a deposition
pursuant to ORCP Rule 30(B)(5).
Rule 30 (A) states as follows: After commencement of the
action, any party may take the testimony of any person,
including a party, by deposition upon oral examination. Rule
30(B) (5) states that a party, in the party's notice, may name as
the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, or
an association and designate with reasonable particularity the
matters on which examination is requested. The organization
so named shall choose one or more of its proper employees,
officers, agents, or other persons duly authorized to testify on
its behalf. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/Ofirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
known or available to the organization. Division (B)(5) does not
preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure
authorized in these Rules.
Plaintiffs have been seeking such a deposition of the Corporation
since serving a Rule 30 B 5 Notice on WSC on July 20, 2021. Defendant has
RECENTLY flatly refused and has now filed a Motion for Protective Order.
Multiple efforts have been made to obtain agreement on a date, but counsel for
Defendant, Stephen Hanudel, has refused. (See attached email Exhibits D (7-18), E
(7-22), F (7-27), G (7-30), H (8-25), AND I(9-1)).
Rule 30 has no qualifications or requirements. Attached as Exhibit A to
this Motion is the Notice originally served on Defendants. It contains specific
areas of inquiry, and Plaintiffs are not required to give advance notice to
defendants of all questions they intend to ask. It actually lists areas of inquiry
and subject matters which are sought.
Defendant WSC's position is that Defendant DJ Keehan has already
submitted to a deposition. Defendant Keehan was deposed individually. At
no time, before or during the deposition of Keehan, did counsel for Defendant
either designate Keehan as the “Corporate Representative”, or indicate that
Keehan was appearing as a formal representative of WSC, who could bind the
Corporation and for purposes of responding to a corporate deposition.
Counsel's effort now to enter into some stipulation on what is binding in this
individual's deposition is unavailing at best and unacceptable to Plaintiffs as a
substitute for what the rules allow.
The fact that Defendants apparently NOW, long after the fact, wish to
designate Keehan as the Corporate Representative of WSC is their choice to
make, per the rule. However, they cannot, on the basis of the fact that this
same person has otherwise been deposed, foreclose Plaintiffs absolute clear
rights under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure to depose the Corporate Defendant
- WSC. That is clear and obvious. This is a bad faith effort to hide information
and prejudice Plaintiffs' rights to establish evidence for their claims.
Furthermore, any and all questions which were asked concerning the
Corporate entity and how it conducted its business were not only objected to, but
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
individual witness was instructed not to answer the questions or provide the
information as ADMITTED in Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. This is a
violation of the Rules also.
Contrary to the false claims of defense counsel, the Complaint clearly sets
out claims in which Plaintiffs want to hold D.J.Keehan personally liable, contrary
to the allegations being now made by Defendants. Thus, information from the
Corporate Defendant, WSC, is extremely important and the Rules clearly give the
Plaintiffs the right to take the Corporate deposition.
Plaintiffs refer the Court, inter alia, to Paragraph 4 of the Amended
Complaint which states as follows:
4. Itis further alleged that Defendant Keehan consciously established
WSC as a corporation with minimal assets in order to avoid potential legal
exposure or financial responsibility in a conscious effort to try to
individually, and collectively, and fraudulently, protect and shield himself
from financial exposure should he fail to fulfill his obligations under Ohio
Law, Westlake law and ordinances, and applicable building codes, both
State and Local; and for any potential breaches of contract, and/or claims
of fraud, misrepresentation, willful and wanton misconduct and intentional
harm. Plaintiffs allege that the funds and obligations of Defendants were
intermingled between Defendants Keehan and WSC, and also other
unknown closely held Corporations, thereby piercing the Corporate veil of
WSC, making Defendant Keehan personally liable for all breaches,
misconduct, failures, negligence, and fraud alleged herein.
Additionally, Plaintiffs' “Sixth Claim for Relief - Fraud”, Paragraphs 27-34 of
the Amended Complaint, also would permit Plaintiffs to conduct discovery to try
to prove those allegations. All of these are claims contained in the Amended
Complaint and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery in their effort
to prove these claims
Counsel for Defendant Obstructed Inquiry
On page 1 of Defendants' current Motion for Protective Order, counsel for
Defendants has admitted his obstruction of evidence gathering when he admits to
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483 Affirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
a violation of Local Rule 13.1, Conduct in Depositions. In his Motion, Hanudel
admits and states as follows:
“Toward the end of the deposition, Traci sought to delve into details
of WSC's business operations that have no relevance to the claims in
the Complaint. That is when counsel objected and advised his
client (Keehan) not to answer.”
It is important to note that this admission is a clear violation of Local Rule
13.1(D). At no time, then or now, did Defense Counsel claim privilege. He
simply relies on his own assessment of what is relevant. That is clearly, by Rule,
insufficient reason to instruct a witness not to answer.
Plaintiffs maintain that this is not only a violation of ORCP Rule 26 and 30,
but also Local Rule 13 all of which the court is bound to enforce. This deposition
misconduct has actually made a corporate deposition even more necessary. If
Keehan had been able to answer most of these issues, then perhaps we would
already know the honest answers. Traci, IN THE DEPOSITION, pointed out the
requirements of Rule 13 and inquired about whether it was based on privilege.
It was not.
Admissions of Defendant in Motion
Keehan was present as an individual defendant, not in his corporate
capacity. Even counsel for defendants admits this. Keehan's answers do not
fully answer these issues of corporate responsibility. They merely indicate the
importance of further inquiry into the Corporation.
Keehan and Hanudel's own admissions indicate that GH Holdings, LLC
(currently not a party) should also be a named Defendant in this case.
Furthermore, his brother David Keehan, has been admitted to be an equal owner
of WSC. Simply, having DJ.Keehan give a self-serving description of his
brother's involvement, and allege he had nothing to do with decisions, is not
determinative. Defendant D.J. Keehan admitted that his brother has the same
ownership and control of WSC as he does. These issues are reliant on Corporate
documents not just his facile and self-serving conclusions. Those issues are jury
questions at minimum.
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448#/
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 20213:12 PM
To: 'Stephen Hanudel' < >
Cc: Assunta Rossi < >
Subject: RE: Discovery Response #3
I received your below Saturday July 17 email entitled "Discovery Response #3". This contained six
scanned attachments and are the only responses to any discovery to this date. Unsure what #3
means. We never received "Discovery Responses #1 or #2. If there were prior Responses, we did
not receive them, so please send them to me. If there were not prior discovery responses submitted,
please refrain from sending emails that are intentionally false in their statements or implication.
There is no indication to which discovery request of ours these attachments relate. As noted in Rule
30 A 3, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory
immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection." The same is true for Requests for
Production.
I will not accept some piecemeal delivery of documents with no idea to what they relate. We are
entit led to get a specific response to each interrogatory and production request so we can track
whether you have been responsive and/or if additional effort needs to be made to force precise
responses.
This email is an effort, per the rules, to try to resolve discovery issues without Court
Motions. Please respond with clarification asap.
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448$ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
rvt@tracilna.com
From: Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
rvt@tracilpa.com
Thursday, Ju ly 22, 2021 9:47 AM 'Stephen Hanudel '
Assunta Rossi Discovery
Follow up Flagged
Mr. Hanudel,
This is all sent ineffort to comply with the Local Rules to try to resolve matters without the Court.
that
You persist in not complying with the rules. First , you sent us a document entitled "Discovery #3" on
July 17
had 6 attachments. No idea which items you were trying to respond to. We did not receive any
emails that were titled
"Discovery 1 or 2" if such alleged responses even exist. If there are such documents, send them
immediately or
correct the #3 designation.
Rule 33(A)(3) states, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall
quote each interrogatory immediately
preceding the corresponding answer or objection. Our discovery was sent in Word, so it can easily be
done by typing
the answers
into the actual interrogatories and/or Requests, so please do it . If I get any more random docs or
responses that do not clearly set
forth the item to which you are specifically responding, I will file a Motion with the Court.
By the way, while I believe you are way out of rule with your responses to discovery, even if you were to
count
from
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448$ CO^fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
July 9, the day your 12(8)(6) was denied, your 28 days runs out on August 6. Iinsist on
answers to all of itnow. Bob Traci
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ CO?fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
Exhibit F
rvt@tracilpa.com
From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:
rvt@tracilpa.com
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 9:45 AM 'Stephen Hanude'l
Assunta Rossi
Ct. Hearing - 7-27
Mr. Hanude,l
This will confirm that you were ordered to, and you agreed to, split up the Discovery responses #1 and #2
which never came through on my end. I notified you of this on July 18. Ct. gave you until this
Monday August 2 to do
so. You said you would split up the responses so they are not too large.
As for the depos of Keehan and WSC under Rule 30 B 5, Iacknowledge that at 1 am this morning you
informed me for the first time that you have a Ct of Appeals argument on August 11. You have
agreed that you will produce Keehan for his depo on August 12, 2021at 9:30 am pursuant to the
Notice that was scheduled for August 11. We will cont inue the WSC Corp depo for a later agreed
date.
The Court will put on an entry extending discovery which will contain all the new dates. Another
conference is set for Sept 16 at 8:30 am.
If there is anything that is inaccurate herein, please advise immediately . We can solve any issues with
whether either of us have gotten emails by simply indicating a receipt. I do that on all of my emails to
you and you refuse to do this so we can verify it. The same would protect you.
Bob Traci
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
Ex HIBIT G
rvt@tracilna.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: Subject:
Attachments:
rvt@tracilpa.com
Friday, July 30, 2021 2:19 PM 'Stephen Hanudel'
Assunta Rossi
Deposition of Keehan
NOTICE FOR DEPO KEEHAN 2.docx
Per our agreement during the last call with the Court, I will move the individual depo of Keehan
from Wednesday
August 11 to the next day August 12 at 9:30 am. It has the same duces t ecum.
This is due to your claim that you have an appellate argument on August 11. For now, we will cancel
the Ru le 30 B 5 depo that was set for August 12. We will agree on a new date for that one.
Ihave attached an Amended Notice for Depo for August 12.
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448^ Ct^fiTmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
exhibit H
rvt@tracilpa.com
From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:
rvt@tracilpa.com
Wednesday August 25, 2021 5:12 PM 'Stephen Hanudel
'Alex Goetsch'; 'Assunta Rossi'
RULE 30 B 5 DEPO OF WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK
Steve,
As we discussed, I still
want to take the deposition (previously noticed) of WSC as soon as possible.
You have
complainedin past that I am dictating dates. You have ignored prior efforts to give me a
date convenient to you. This email is an effort to cooperate and pick a date as you
requested.
Please provide 2 (two) alternative dates to do this at 10 am on a date in the week of either August 30
or the following days: September 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, or 15. If I fail to hear from you I will
merely choose a
date and file a Notice without your input. Please respond to this email no later than Friday August 27,
2021.
Bob Traci
Robert V. Traci
30033
Shadow
Creek
Dr.
Westlak
e, Ohio
44145
Cell: 216-402-1666
Email:
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic communication and any files or documents attached to it
are intended only for the useof the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information
that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient(s) of this communication, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution
or other use of th is communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and destroy all forms of this
communication (electronic or paper).
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 9444837/ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
rvt@tracilna.com
From: Sent: To: Subject:
Stephen Hanudel Wednesday, September 1,2021 9:14 PM rvt@tracilpa.com
Re: Discovery and 30 B 5 Depo
We object to a deposition of WSC on the basis that it would be unduly and unreasonably burdensome
and only serve to annoy and harrass. Any and all questions that can be asked of WSC that are relevant
to the claims in the complaint were asked or could have been asked at Mr. Keehan's deposition once it
was established that he has operated as the sole decision maker on behalf WSC in this matter.
As for the interrogatories and requests that we have objected to, we maintain our objections.
As for the issue of identifying a connection bet ween each document and your specific discovery
request, I assume you are referring to Civ. R. 34{8){2), which says "A party who produces documents
for inspection shall, at its option, produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or
organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the request." The documents I sent to you
were the same as to how they were sent to me from my client and the City of Westlake. Thus, I sent
them to you in the same manner as to how they were kept in the usual course of business.
Besides that point, the documents and their contents are self-evident as to the particular discovery
reque sts they comply with. To this end, the burden of labeling each and every single document to
correspond with the particular request outweighs the benefit.
Steve
Stephen
P.
Hanudel
Attorney
at Law
124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900
Elyria, Ohio 44035
Phone: (440) 328-8973
Fax: (440) 261-4040
On Tue, Aug 31,2021 at 10:31AM< > wrote:
Steve,
This will confirm my call to you on 8-30-21. You have again attached some documents to this email
without any identification of why they are produced, and if they are responsive to any particular
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Ct^fiTmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
discovery request. The Rules require you to do so and not make a large document dump. As
noted in Rule 30 A 3, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each
interrogatory immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection." The same is true
for Requests for Production. I will seek sanctions for your continuing refusal to comply with the
Rules.
I have asked before on July 18, which you have ignored, and, if you continue to refuse to respond and
demonstrate what the large number of documents are responsive to I will soon ask the Court. Your
large prior responses are just a document dump.
As for the Interrogatories, you objected to allof them claiming, in your own view, they are not
relevant. Istrongly disagree. It is decidedly not your determination to make as to what is
relevant. Re-read the Complaint and advise if you will answer them before I need to file a motion.
You instructed DJ not to answer questions, which you are not permitted to do. I quoted you Local Rule
13 on that subject and you chose to ignore it.
At the phone conference when we discussed my two depo notices, you said you only had one day that
week of August 9 (see email of 7-27), due to a doctor appt. and Ct of Appeals hearing. Thus, I agreed
at that time to take the depo of DJ individually on August 12. We postponed the 30 B 5 depo. I am
entitled to take a deposition of the corporation and demand answers from your chosen representative
THAT WILL BIND THE COMPANY. Your clear effort to limit that is unacceptable. Read Rule 30.
Itmight surprise you, but opposing counsel is not the one to determine if my questions in the
individual deposition covered everything noted in the Complaint. You also violated Local Rule
13 when you several times instructed your client not to respond.
As for what I intend to ask the company representative (Keehan if that is who you designate) who
appears, I am not required to give you a transcript of my questions in advance. Ridiculous. WSC
business operations and how they conduct business is relevant to allegations made in the complaint.
You cannot foreclose those inquiries by arbitrarily deciding that you personally do not think those
inquiries are relevant, simply because you do not understand why I want certain information. Your
thoughts or self-serving conclusions on what claims I have made is not determinative.
This inquiry is your last opportunity to choose one of the dates proposed for the depo or I will
choose a date and issue a notice. At minimum,advise which if any of the proposed dates are
unavailable (and I need to know why). If you fail to appear for a Notice, I will then seek sanctions
should you continue to obstruct my gathering information within the discovery deadline.
I must have your answer on these following questions by Thursday, September 2, or I will file Motions on
each in advance of the 9-9 Court Hearing.
1. Will you produce WSC for 30 B 5 Depo on an agreed date?
2. Will you fully answer the Interrogatories to which you have objected.
3. Will you identify some connection between your Responses to production with the
specific Request we made.
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Ct^fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
If you wish to orally discuss this further immediately give me a call. Otherwise pick a date for the
corporate depo. If you have another solution advise or I will address it to the Court.
Bob
Robert V. Traci
30033
Shadow
Creek Dr.
Westlake,
Ohio
44145
Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 §344839 COnfftmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH
Preview
Motion No. 4955988 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... September 7,2021 00:12 Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483 LIVING ET AL vs. Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY D.J. KEEHANETAL Pages Filed: 20 Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY : REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, et al : : CASE NO.: CV 21944483 Plaintiffs : : JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY Vs : D.J.KEEHAN, Individually and : As dba, Westlake : Shadow Creek, LLC, et al : Defendants PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FOR RULE 30 (B)(5) DEPOSITION Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court compelling the Defendant Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC (hereinafter WSC) to appear and submit to a deposition pursuant to ORCP Rule 30(B)(5). Rule 30 (A) states as follows: After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination. Rule 30(B) (5) states that a party, in the party's notice, may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, or an association and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organization so named shall choose one or more of its proper employees, officers, agents, or other persons duly authorized to testify on its behalf. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/Ofirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH known or available to the organization. Division (B)(5) does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these Rules. Plaintiffs have been seeking such a deposition of the Corporation since serving a Rule 30 B 5 Notice on WSC on July 20, 2021. Defendant has RECENTLY flatly refused and has now filed a Motion for Protective Order. Multiple efforts have been made to obtain agreement on a date, but counsel for Defendant, Stephen Hanudel, has refused. (See attached email Exhibits D (7-18), E (7-22), F (7-27), G (7-30), H (8-25), AND I(9-1)). Rule 30 has no qualifications or requirements. Attached as Exhibit A to this Motion is the Notice originally served on Defendants. It contains specific areas of inquiry, and Plaintiffs are not required to give advance notice to defendants of all questions they intend to ask. It actually lists areas of inquiry and subject matters which are sought. Defendant WSC's position is that Defendant DJ Keehan has already submitted to a deposition. Defendant Keehan was deposed individually. At no time, before or during the deposition of Keehan, did counsel for Defendant either designate Keehan as the “Corporate Representative”, or indicate that Keehan was appearing as a formal representative of WSC, who could bind the Corporation and for purposes of responding to a corporate deposition. Counsel's effort now to enter into some stipulation on what is binding in this individual's deposition is unavailing at best and unacceptable to Plaintiffs as a substitute for what the rules allow. The fact that Defendants apparently NOW, long after the fact, wish to designate Keehan as the Corporate Representative of WSC is their choice to make, per the rule. However, they cannot, on the basis of the fact that this same person has otherwise been deposed, foreclose Plaintiffs absolute clear rights under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure to depose the Corporate Defendant - WSC. That is clear and obvious. This is a bad faith effort to hide information and prejudice Plaintiffs' rights to establish evidence for their claims. Furthermore, any and all questions which were asked concerning the Corporate entity and how it conducted its business were not only objected to, but Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH individual witness was instructed not to answer the questions or provide the information as ADMITTED in Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. This is a violation of the Rules also. Contrary to the false claims of defense counsel, the Complaint clearly sets out claims in which Plaintiffs want to hold D.J.Keehan personally liable, contrary to the allegations being now made by Defendants. Thus, information from the Corporate Defendant, WSC, is extremely important and the Rules clearly give the Plaintiffs the right to take the Corporate deposition. Plaintiffs refer the Court, inter alia, to Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint which states as follows: 4. Itis further alleged that Defendant Keehan consciously established WSC as a corporation with minimal assets in order to avoid potential legal exposure or financial responsibility in a conscious effort to try to individually, and collectively, and fraudulently, protect and shield himself from financial exposure should he fail to fulfill his obligations under Ohio Law, Westlake law and ordinances, and applicable building codes, both State and Local; and for any potential breaches of contract, and/or claims of fraud, misrepresentation, willful and wanton misconduct and intentional harm. Plaintiffs allege that the funds and obligations of Defendants were intermingled between Defendants Keehan and WSC, and also other unknown closely held Corporations, thereby piercing the Corporate veil of WSC, making Defendant Keehan personally liable for all breaches, misconduct, failures, negligence, and fraud alleged herein. Additionally, Plaintiffs' “Sixth Claim for Relief - Fraud”, Paragraphs 27-34 of the Amended Complaint, also would permit Plaintiffs to conduct discovery to try to prove those allegations. All of these are claims contained in the Amended Complaint and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery in their effort to prove these claims Counsel for Defendant Obstructed Inquiry On page 1 of Defendants' current Motion for Protective Order, counsel for Defendants has admitted his obstruction of evidence gathering when he admits to Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483 Affirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH a violation of Local Rule 13.1, Conduct in Depositions. In his Motion, Hanudel admits and states as follows: “Toward the end of the deposition, Traci sought to delve into details of WSC's business operations that have no relevance to the claims in the Complaint. That is when counsel objected and advised his client (Keehan) not to answer.” It is important to note that this admission is a clear violation of Local Rule 13.1(D). At no time, then or now, did Defense Counsel claim privilege. He simply relies on his own assessment of what is relevant. That is clearly, by Rule, insufficient reason to instruct a witness not to answer. Plaintiffs maintain that this is not only a violation of ORCP Rule 26 and 30, but also Local Rule 13 all of which the court is bound to enforce. This deposition misconduct has actually made a corporate deposition even more necessary. If Keehan had been able to answer most of these issues, then perhaps we would already know the honest answers. Traci, IN THE DEPOSITION, pointed out the requirements of Rule 13 and inquired about whether it was based on privilege. It was not. Admissions of Defendant in Motion Keehan was present as an individual defendant, not in his corporate capacity. Even counsel for defendants admits this. Keehan's answers do not fully answer these issues of corporate responsibility. They merely indicate the importance of further inquiry into the Corporation. Keehan and Hanudel's own admissions indicate that GH Holdings, LLC (currently not a party) should also be a named Defendant in this case. Furthermore, his brother David Keehan, has been admitted to be an equal owner of WSC. Simply, having DJ.Keehan give a self-serving description of his brother's involvement, and allege he had nothing to do with decisions, is not determinative. Defendant D.J. Keehan admitted that his brother has the same ownership and control of WSC as he does. These issues are reliant on Corporate documents not just his facile and self-serving conclusions. Those issues are jury questions at minimum. Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448#/ Sent: Sunday, July 18, 20213:12 PM To: 'Stephen Hanudel' < > Cc: Assunta Rossi < > Subject: RE: Discovery Response #3 I received your below Saturday July 17 email entitled "Discovery Response #3". This contained six scanned attachments and are the only responses to any discovery to this date. Unsure what #3 means. We never received "Discovery Responses #1 or #2. If there were prior Responses, we did not receive them, so please send them to me. If there were not prior discovery responses submitted, please refrain from sending emails that are intentionally false in their statements or implication. There is no indication to which discovery request of ours these attachments relate. As noted in Rule 30 A 3, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection." The same is true for Requests for Production. I will not accept some piecemeal delivery of documents with no idea to what they relate. We are entit led to get a specific response to each interrogatory and production request so we can track whether you have been responsive and/or if additional effort needs to be made to force precise responses. This email is an effort, per the rules, to try to resolve discovery issues without Court Motions. Please respond with clarification asap. Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448$ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH rvt@tracilna.com From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: rvt@tracilpa.com Thursday, Ju ly 22, 2021 9:47 AM 'Stephen Hanudel ' Assunta Rossi Discovery Follow up Flagged Mr. Hanudel, This is all sent ineffort to comply with the Local Rules to try to resolve matters without the Court. that You persist in not complying with the rules. First , you sent us a document entitled "Discovery #3" on July 17 had 6 attachments. No idea which items you were trying to respond to. We did not receive any emails that were titled "Discovery 1 or 2" if such alleged responses even exist. If there are such documents, send them immediately or correct the #3 designation. Rule 33(A)(3) states, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection. Our discovery was sent in Word, so it can easily be done by typing the answers into the actual interrogatories and/or Requests, so please do it . If I get any more random docs or responses that do not clearly set forth the item to which you are specifically responding, I will file a Motion with the Court. By the way, while I believe you are way out of rule with your responses to discovery, even if you were to count from Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448$ CO^fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH July 9, the day your 12(8)(6) was denied, your 28 days runs out on August 6. Iinsist on answers to all of itnow. Bob Traci Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ CO?fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH Exhibit F rvt@tracilpa.com From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: rvt@tracilpa.com Tuesday, July 27, 2021 9:45 AM 'Stephen Hanude'l Assunta Rossi Ct. Hearing - 7-27 Mr. Hanude,l This will confirm that you were ordered to, and you agreed to, split up the Discovery responses #1 and #2 which never came through on my end. I notified you of this on July 18. Ct. gave you until this Monday August 2 to do so. You said you would split up the responses so they are not too large. As for the depos of Keehan and WSC under Rule 30 B 5, Iacknowledge that at 1 am this morning you informed me for the first time that you have a Ct of Appeals argument on August 11. You have agreed that you will produce Keehan for his depo on August 12, 2021at 9:30 am pursuant to the Notice that was scheduled for August 11. We will cont inue the WSC Corp depo for a later agreed date. The Court will put on an entry extending discovery which will contain all the new dates. Another conference is set for Sept 16 at 8:30 am. If there is anything that is inaccurate herein, please advise immediately . We can solve any issues with whether either of us have gotten emails by simply indicating a receipt. I do that on all of my emails to you and you refuse to do this so we can verify it. The same would protect you. Bob Traci Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH Ex HIBIT G rvt@tracilna.com From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: rvt@tracilpa.com Friday, July 30, 2021 2:19 PM 'Stephen Hanudel' Assunta Rossi Deposition of Keehan NOTICE FOR DEPO KEEHAN 2.docx Per our agreement during the last call with the Court, I will move the individual depo of Keehan from Wednesday August 11 to the next day August 12 at 9:30 am. It has the same duces t ecum. This is due to your claim that you have an appellate argument on August 11. For now, we will cancel the Ru le 30 B 5 depo that was set for August 12. We will agree on a new date for that one. Ihave attached an Amended Notice for Depo for August 12. Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 94448^ Ct^fiTmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH exhibit H rvt@tracilpa.com From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: rvt@tracilpa.com Wednesday August 25, 2021 5:12 PM 'Stephen Hanudel 'Alex Goetsch'; 'Assunta Rossi' RULE 30 B 5 DEPO OF WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK Steve, As we discussed, I still want to take the deposition (previously noticed) of WSC as soon as possible. You have complainedin past that I am dictating dates. You have ignored prior efforts to give me a date convenient to you. This email is an effort to cooperate and pick a date as you requested. Please provide 2 (two) alternative dates to do this at 10 am on a date in the week of either August 30 or the following days: September 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, or 15. If I fail to hear from you I will merely choose a date and file a Notice without your input. Please respond to this email no later than Friday August 27, 2021. Bob Traci Robert V. Traci 30033 Shadow Creek Dr. Westlak e, Ohio 44145 Cell: 216-402-1666 Email: CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic communication and any files or documents attached to it are intended only for the useof the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s) of this communication, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of th is communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and destroy all forms of this communication (electronic or paper). Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 9444837/ Confirmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH rvt@tracilna.com From: Sent: To: Subject: Stephen Hanudel Wednesday, September 1,2021 9:14 PM rvt@tracilpa.com Re: Discovery and 30 B 5 Depo We object to a deposition of WSC on the basis that it would be unduly and unreasonably burdensome and only serve to annoy and harrass. Any and all questions that can be asked of WSC that are relevant to the claims in the complaint were asked or could have been asked at Mr. Keehan's deposition once it was established that he has operated as the sole decision maker on behalf WSC in this matter. As for the interrogatories and requests that we have objected to, we maintain our objections. As for the issue of identifying a connection bet ween each document and your specific discovery request, I assume you are referring to Civ. R. 34{8){2), which says "A party who produces documents for inspection shall, at its option, produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the request." The documents I sent to you were the same as to how they were sent to me from my client and the City of Westlake. Thus, I sent them to you in the same manner as to how they were kept in the usual course of business. Besides that point, the documents and their contents are self-evident as to the particular discovery reque sts they comply with. To this end, the burden of labeling each and every single document to correspond with the particular request outweighs the benefit. Steve Stephen P. Hanudel Attorney at Law 124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900 Elyria, Ohio 44035 Phone: (440) 328-8973 Fax: (440) 261-4040 On Tue, Aug 31,2021 at 10:31AM< > wrote: Steve, This will confirm my call to you on 8-30-21. You have again attached some documents to this email without any identification of why they are produced, and if they are responsive to any particular Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Ct^fiTmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH discovery request. The Rules require you to do so and not make a large document dump. As noted in Rule 30 A 3, "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection." The same is true for Requests for Production. I will seek sanctions for your continuing refusal to comply with the Rules. I have asked before on July 18, which you have ignored, and, if you continue to refuse to respond and demonstrate what the large number of documents are responsive to I will soon ask the Court. Your large prior responses are just a document dump. As for the Interrogatories, you objected to allof them claiming, in your own view, they are not relevant. Istrongly disagree. It is decidedly not your determination to make as to what is relevant. Re-read the Complaint and advise if you will answer them before I need to file a motion. You instructed DJ not to answer questions, which you are not permitted to do. I quoted you Local Rule 13 on that subject and you chose to ignore it. At the phone conference when we discussed my two depo notices, you said you only had one day that week of August 9 (see email of 7-27), due to a doctor appt. and Ct of Appeals hearing. Thus, I agreed at that time to take the depo of DJ individually on August 12. We postponed the 30 B 5 depo. I am entitled to take a deposition of the corporation and demand answers from your chosen representative THAT WILL BIND THE COMPANY. Your clear effort to limit that is unacceptable. Read Rule 30. Itmight surprise you, but opposing counsel is not the one to determine if my questions in the individual deposition covered everything noted in the Complaint. You also violated Local Rule 13 when you several times instructed your client not to respond. As for what I intend to ask the company representative (Keehan if that is who you designate) who appears, I am not required to give you a transcript of my questions in advance. Ridiculous. WSC business operations and how they conduct business is relevant to allegations made in the complaint. You cannot foreclose those inquiries by arbitrarily deciding that you personally do not think those inquiries are relevant, simply because you do not understand why I want certain information. Your thoughts or self-serving conclusions on what claims I have made is not determinative. This inquiry is your last opportunity to choose one of the dates proposed for the depo or I will choose a date and issue a notice. At minimum,advise which if any of the proposed dates are unavailable (and I need to know why). If you fail to appear for a Notice, I will then seek sanctions should you continue to obstruct my gathering information within the discovery deadline. I must have your answer on these following questions by Thursday, September 2, or I will file Motions on each in advance of the 9-9 Court Hearing. 1. Will you produce WSC for 30 B 5 Depo on an agreed date? 2. Will you fully answer the Interrogatories to which you have objected. 3. Will you identify some connection between your Responses to production with the specific Request we made. Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 944483/ Ct^fi/mation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH If you wish to orally discuss this further immediately give me a call. Otherwise pick a date for the corporate depo. If you have another solution advise or I will address it to the Court. Bob Robert V. Traci 30033 Shadow Creek Dr. Westlake, Ohio 44145 Electronically Filed 09/07/202100:12 / MOTION / CV 21 §344839 COnfftmation Nbr. 2344630 / BATCH