Preview
eFiled in Wayne County Ohio on: 08/07/2014
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO
THE CITY OF WOOSTER, OHIO : CASE NO. 13-CV-0657
EX REL RICHARD R. BENSON JR.
LAW DIRECTOR : JUDGE SPITLER
Plaintiff, : DEFENDANT'S INITIAL REPLY TO THE
: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
: PROTECTIVE ORDER
vs. : AND DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR
: MODIFICATION OF THE CASE
JAMES N. POOLER : MANAGEMENT ORDER
Defendant.
Defendant Pooler, by and through Counsel, hereby initially replies to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Protective Order (hereinafter the “City’s Motion”), though, for reasons noted
below, the Defendant requests that, unless this Court dismisses the City’s Motion outright,
the Defendant be permitted to respond to the substance of the City’s Motion, and any
refiled version of the City’s Motion, within the timeframes set by the local rules.
The City’s Motion seeks to a Protective Order affirming that it does not have to
respond to the Defendant’s First Combined Discovery Including Request for Admissions.
This Motion is supported by a Memorandum in Support.
As an initial matter, Defendant Pooler would request, as the version of the City’s
Memorandum in Support filed with this Court, as well as the copy served upon
Defendant's Counsel, did not include any of the Exhibits referenced therein, that the City’sMotion either be denied outright as in violation of Local Rule 4(C)(2)', or that this Court
order the City to refile their Memorandum with proper supporting documentation. Without
the Exhibits, the Defendant cannot properly respond to the arguments contained within the
City’s Memorandum in Support nor can this Court properly adjudicate its merits.
As a matter of scheduling, the Defendant has fourteen days from receipt of the
City’s Motion to respond to it, and, even using the date of the City’s Motion as currently
filed, as opposed to the date when they may eventually be required to file a version
complete with Exhibits, this would be after the deadline set by this Court for the filing of
Motions for Summary Judgment under the current case management order. As such, the
Defendant would request that this Court revisit the Defendant’s previous request for an
extension of the deadlines in the current case management order. Resolution of the City’s
Motion prior to the submission of Motions for Summary Judgement is necessary, for
obvious reasons. Thus, unless this Court dismisses the City’s Motion outright, and given
the timeframe for the Defendant to respond to the substance of the City’s Motion,
extension of the existing deadlines is necessary.
Therefore, Defendant Pooler requests that this Court either dismiss the City’s
Motion pursuant to Local Rule 4(C)(2) or, alternatively, order the City to refile their
Memorandum in Support, including the Exhibits referenced therein. The Defendant also
requests that this Court modify the existing case management order to allow for the
1 Local Rule 4(C)(2): All Other Motions “All other motions will be decided without oral hearing unless oral
argument is requested and determined necessary by the Court. The moving party shall file with the motion a
brief supporting memorandum containing the authorities relied upon and any affidavits or other supporting
documents required or appropriate to file with the motion. Each party opposing the motion shall file a written
response within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the motion. Reply or additional briefs or memorandums
shall be submitted only with the approval of the Court.adjudication of the merits of the City’s Motion, if refiled, prior to the submission of Motions
for Summary Judgment.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Jason M. Storck
Jason M. Storck (0077071)
Storck Law Office Ltd.
P.O. Box 1023
Wooster, OH 44691
(830) 263-0006 - Phone
(330) 263-0009 - Fax
jasonstorck@storcklawoffice.com
Attorney for Defendant
rtificate of Servi
| hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above, along with all exhibits or
attachments thereto, was served upon the following this 7" day of August, 2014 by
electronic mail, as per Rule 5(B)2(f) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure:
Richard R. Benson Jr.
Director of Law
City of Wooster
538 North Market St.
Wooster, Ohio 44691
Stephen L. Byron,
Darrell A. Clay,
Aimee W. Lane, and
Bozana L. Lundgerg
Walter & Haverfield LLP
The Tower at Erieview
1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
/s/Jason M. Storck
Jason M. Storck (0077071)
Preview
eFiled in Wayne County Ohio on: 08/07/2014 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO THE CITY OF WOOSTER, OHIO : CASE NO. 13-CV-0657 EX REL RICHARD R. BENSON JR. LAW DIRECTOR : JUDGE SPITLER Plaintiff, : DEFENDANT'S INITIAL REPLY TO THE : PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR : PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. : AND DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR : MODIFICATION OF THE CASE JAMES N. POOLER : MANAGEMENT ORDER Defendant. Defendant Pooler, by and through Counsel, hereby initially replies to the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (hereinafter the “City’s Motion”), though, for reasons noted below, the Defendant requests that, unless this Court dismisses the City’s Motion outright, the Defendant be permitted to respond to the substance of the City’s Motion, and any refiled version of the City’s Motion, within the timeframes set by the local rules. The City’s Motion seeks to a Protective Order affirming that it does not have to respond to the Defendant’s First Combined Discovery Including Request for Admissions. This Motion is supported by a Memorandum in Support. As an initial matter, Defendant Pooler would request, as the version of the City’s Memorandum in Support filed with this Court, as well as the copy served upon Defendant's Counsel, did not include any of the Exhibits referenced therein, that the City’sMotion either be denied outright as in violation of Local Rule 4(C)(2)', or that this Court order the City to refile their Memorandum with proper supporting documentation. Without the Exhibits, the Defendant cannot properly respond to the arguments contained within the City’s Memorandum in Support nor can this Court properly adjudicate its merits. As a matter of scheduling, the Defendant has fourteen days from receipt of the City’s Motion to respond to it, and, even using the date of the City’s Motion as currently filed, as opposed to the date when they may eventually be required to file a version complete with Exhibits, this would be after the deadline set by this Court for the filing of Motions for Summary Judgment under the current case management order. As such, the Defendant would request that this Court revisit the Defendant’s previous request for an extension of the deadlines in the current case management order. Resolution of the City’s Motion prior to the submission of Motions for Summary Judgement is necessary, for obvious reasons. Thus, unless this Court dismisses the City’s Motion outright, and given the timeframe for the Defendant to respond to the substance of the City’s Motion, extension of the existing deadlines is necessary. Therefore, Defendant Pooler requests that this Court either dismiss the City’s Motion pursuant to Local Rule 4(C)(2) or, alternatively, order the City to refile their Memorandum in Support, including the Exhibits referenced therein. The Defendant also requests that this Court modify the existing case management order to allow for the 1 Local Rule 4(C)(2): All Other Motions “All other motions will be decided without oral hearing unless oral argument is requested and determined necessary by the Court. The moving party shall file with the motion a brief supporting memorandum containing the authorities relied upon and any affidavits or other supporting documents required or appropriate to file with the motion. Each party opposing the motion shall file a written response within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the motion. Reply or additional briefs or memorandums shall be submitted only with the approval of the Court.adjudication of the merits of the City’s Motion, if refiled, prior to the submission of Motions for Summary Judgment. Respectfully Submitted, /s/Jason M. Storck Jason M. Storck (0077071) Storck Law Office Ltd. P.O. Box 1023 Wooster, OH 44691 (830) 263-0006 - Phone (330) 263-0009 - Fax jasonstorck@storcklawoffice.com Attorney for Defendant rtificate of Servi | hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above, along with all exhibits or attachments thereto, was served upon the following this 7" day of August, 2014 by electronic mail, as per Rule 5(B)2(f) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: Richard R. Benson Jr. Director of Law City of Wooster 538 North Market St. Wooster, Ohio 44691 Stephen L. Byron, Darrell A. Clay, Aimee W. Lane, and Bozana L. Lundgerg Walter & Haverfield LLP The Tower at Erieview 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 /s/Jason M. Storck Jason M. Storck (0077071)