Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
REPEY BRIEF
July 14,2023 15:19
By: PETER D. TRASKA 0079036
Confirmation Nbr. 2909748
JAYDEE WANTED MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. CV 22 972299
vs.
Judge: CASSANDRA COLLIER-WILLIAMS
IBEX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, ET AL.
Pages Filed: 11
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
JAYDEE WANTED MANAGEMENT Case No. CV-22-972299
COMPANY, LLC, et al.,
Judge Cassandra Collier-Wililams
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
IBEX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al., MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants.
Now come the Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned Counsel, and submit the
foregoing Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel complete discovery responses
from Defendants Ibex Transportation, Betty Convenient, and Sisay, and Motion for
Sanctions against these Defendants and their attorneys.
I. DEFENDANTS’ OBSTRUCTION
Despite numerous efforts by the Plaintiffs, to date, Defendants have not
provided any answers in these important areas: #
A. Twenty Five Gaps in Text Messages Produced. Bates Nos.
000664-000845. Plaintiffs identified these after putting the text
messages in order, by date, time and page number in the letter of June 8,
2023. Despite Defendants’ assertion that they “fully responded to the
Plaintiffs’ alleged discovery deficiencies,” Defendants have made no
response to these documented communications between Mr. Sisay and
Ms. Rizzo that are still withheld. Plaintiffs sent the list by their letter of
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
June 8, 2023. Defendants’ Counsel responded on June 26 that Mr. Sisay
was traveling. To date, Defendants have not addressed these
communications. They exist. They are in Mr. Sisay’s custody. He has
not produced them. These texts are the only records of communication
produced between Mr. Sisay and Ms. Rizzo. Request for Production
(RPD) no. 2. They were produced not in chronological order, but shuffled,
apparently to hide the pieces of the thread that were not produced at all.
Defendants have had over a month since the deficiency letter was sent,
and over two weeks since Plaintiffs’ letter of June 29, again calling this to
Defense Counsel’s attention. Defendants have not responded, and
evidently will not respond until ordered to do so.
B. Communications with Government Offices. See interrogatories nos. 7,
and Request for Production (RPD) nos. 5, 7. There are several instances
in the text messages showing communications that Defendants had with
government offices, like the Department of Liquor Control, or the City of
Cleveland. Defendants refuse to produce them. Mr. Jett’s letter of June
26 goes so far as to make false statements about this Court’s ruling on
Plaintiffs’ injunction motion earlier this year. Bates no. 000756 refers to
an email between Mr. Sisay and some office of the City of Cleveland. But
not one of his emails has been produced. The documents that have
been produced make reference to several other correspondences
involving Mr. Sisay and Liquor Control, but nothing has been produced.
By selling the rights to the permit to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Sisay has made
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / ^Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
himself accountable to them to account for its safekeeping. Plaintiffs are
entitled to learn the details of how the Defendants are maintaining the
asset they already sold to the Plaintiffs.
C. Defendants’ Business Records. RPDs 2, 5, 6; Interrogatories 2, 11, 14,
16. Not a single record of account. No records of any transactions
between Defendants and Rizzo/Ibex 2. No business tax payment
records. No sales records. The text thread does suggest that the parties
discussed the criminal records of Ms. Rizzo and her paramour early in
their relationship, but Mr. Sisay has not provided any answer to what
reports he obtained or made. #
D. Mr. Sisay’s Personal Tax Returns. RPD no. 4. Mr. Jett's statement in
his June 26 letter, to the effect that only personal identifiers were
redacted, is puzzling and incorrect. Rather, as Plaintiffs pointed out in
their letter of June 29, 20231, Defendants produced only 80+ pages that
were blacked out entirely. Plaintiffs previously pointed out that Mr.
Sisay's personal returns take on new importance based on the complete
absence of any of the money the Plaintiffs paid to Sisay, Betty
Convenient, or Ibex Transportation in 2020 in their business returns. Mr.
Sisay and Ibex received $79,000 in one lump sum on February 14, 2020.
Where is this in his taxes? Defendants' business practices put the
existence of the permit—that they sold to Plaintiffs—at direct risk.
The discovery deadline runs in this case in one week, on July 21,2023.
1 Copy attached hereto as Exhibit A; also attached to Defendants' Opposition as Exh. 6.
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
Defendants have evaded engaging in discovery meaningfully. They assert objections
that are so verbose that the reader cannot tell whether any additional response may be
forthcoming. They have decided what is relevant to produce and what is not based on
their own preferences, but have not filed a motion for a protective order on any issue
they identify. Rather, their approach has been to obstruct, sit back, and wait for the
Plaintiffs to point out what they are doing wrong.
They have not placed the Plaintiffs in position to depose Mr. Sisay because they
have not produced the business records described above. Rather, it is obvious from
the partial responses that the Defendants have made that there is a great deal more
discoverable information on which they are obstructing. Even the issues that were
resolved through the letters of June 8, June 26, and June 29 would not likely have been
resolved but for taking the Defendants to task in those letters, and by the pending
motion to compel.
To take an early and obvious example: Interrogatory no. 5 asked these parties
to identify anyone they might know who would have knowledge of the facts and
circumstances of this case. This is one of the most elementary areas of inquiry in any
discovery process, and it sets the party up to inquire further of other parties who would
have first hand knowledge of the issues. Defendant’s answer was to object, and to
reserve the right to supplement. Only in their letter of June 26 did these Defendants
answer the question, and state that Mr. Sisay, Ms. Rizzo, and Mr. Rogers are the only
ones they know of who have knowledge. That is a very different answer than, “we’ll tell
you later, maybe,” as Defendants first offered. The issues that have been resolved
were created by the Defendants’ wholesale obstruction. Defendants took no action
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
until being threatened with the Motion to Compel, and have still refused to address the
many issues outlined above.
II. PLAINTIFFS COMPLIED WITH RULE 37(A)'S CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT.
Defendants’ argument here also is brazenly false, and contradicted by the
Defendants’ own exhibits, chiefly, Counsel’s letter of June 8, 2023. The Eighth District
Court of Appeals explained the certification requirement as follows:
Civ.R. 37(A)(1) authorizes a party to move for a court order compelling
discovery. Pursuant to the rule, the motion to compel "shall include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain
it without court action." The rule imposes a duty to attempt extrajudicial
resolution of any discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel
discovery.
Falkenberg v. Kucharczyk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111014, 2022-Ohio-2361, *fl32.
Plaintiffs detailed Defendants’ obstruction in their letter of June 8. Not having heard
anything for nearly a week, Plaintiffs emailed opposing Counsel on June 14. Still not
having heard anything, Plaintiffs filed the Motion on June 23, 2023. Defendants have
not acted in good faith at any time during this litigation. Moreover, Ms. Sisay was
sanctioned twice for similar conduct in the predecessor action in the Cleveland
Municipal Court. Defendants’ claim that “cooperation” might still have happened is
belied by Defendants’ own conduct.
The motion to compel states, “Plaintiffs submit that the attached letter and
foregoing recitation of facts demonstrate Jaydee’s attempts to confer or attempt to
confer with Counsel as required by Civ. R. 37(A)(1).” Defendants do not address this.
There is no authority to suggest that this statement is not a “certification” within the
meaning of the rule. The cases the Defendants cite refer to circumstances in which no
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
effort was made prior to filing a motion. The June 8, 2023, letter conclusively shows
that Plaintiffs met their “duty to attempt extrajudicial resolution of any discovery
dispute before filing a motion to compel discovery.” And it bears repeating —
Defendants have still, to this day, not produced a single payment record, addressed the
gaps in the text thread, nor otherwise addressed the issues outlined above.
Rule 37(A)(1) does not require a certification under oath, as for example, a
verified Complaint would. By contrast, Rule 33(A)(3) requires that interrogatories be
answered “under oath,” but Defendants have not provided any verification that Mr.
Sisay did so. There is no support for the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs did
not comply with Rule 37’s certification requirement.
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, Jaydee Wanted Management requests the following relief:
• That this Court issue an Order directing the Defendants to issue complete
responses to the discovery requests served upon Betty Convenient, in a manner
sufficient to remedy the deficiencies identified by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the letter of
June 8, 2023;
• That this Court conduct a hearing or accept a motion detailing the costs of this
Motion and other necessary actions to obtain complete discovery responses, and
• For this Court to assess those costs and attorney fees against the Defendants and
Defense Counsel.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Peter D. Traska_______
Peter D. Traska #0079036
Michelle L. Traska #0095237
Traska Law Firm, LLC
4352 Pearl Road, Suite A
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
(216) 675-0088
f (216) 342-7078
ptraska@traskalawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JayDee Wanted Management Co., LLC, and
Denise Baker
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel was served by operation of this Court’s electronic filing system on
this 14th day of July, 2023, to the following:
Dominic A. Frisina #0078599
Stephen H. Jett #0046821
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC
1375 E. 9 Street, Suite 1700
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
DFrisina@bdblaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants Betty Convenient,
Ibex Transportation, LLC, and D. Sisay
Justin Stevenson
Rachel Bussler
BOWER STEVENSON, LLC
2515 Jay Avenue, Suite 101
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
justin@bowerstevenson.com
rbussler@bowerstevenson.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Michelle Rizzo and Ibex Trans. D/b/a, etc.,
“Ibex 2”
s/Peter D. Traska_______
Peter D. Traska #0079036
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
I*
Traska Law Firm/ LLC
June 29, 2023
Dominic Frisina
Stephen Jett
Andrew Stebbins
Matt Smith
Buckingham, Doolittle, & Burroughs, LLC
1375 E. 9th Street, Suite 1700
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
By email to DFrisina@bdblaw.com, SJett@bdblaw.com,
AStebbins@bdblaw.com, and MSmith@bdblaw.com
Dear Counselors:
This is to outline our remaining areas of agreement and disagreement discussed in my
letter of June 8, 2023, and your letter of June 26, 2023. A few of the issues I outlined
have been resolved. However, for the foregoing reasons, my clients will not be
withdrawing the motion to compel. I will note that for most of the amended responses
you have now made, good faith would have required such responses back in March.
INTERROGATORIES
5: I understand your most recent letter to say that the only persons with knowledge of
the facts of the case of whom your clients are aware are Messrs. Sisay and Rogers
(which you incorrectly spelled “Rodgers”), and Ms. Rizzo. That is a satisfactory answer
to the question. Moreover, I understand this to indicate that your clients are unaware of
the identities of anyone else who might have knowledge of the facts of this case.
7: Mr. Jett wrote: “The Court flatly rejected your arguments for injunctive relief on the
basis that your clients defaulted under all three operative agreements.” This is a
blatant misrepresentation of the posture of this case, and of the the statements made
by the court at the hearing. Once again, you are engaging in conduct subject to
sanction under R.C. 2323.51. Moreover, you are using this false statement to further
delay and obstruct production of documents that your text messages prove to exist. I
see no response to the fact that “there are letters, emails and persons referenced in the
communications between Mr. Sisay and Ms. Rizzo that you have not produced.” Your
clients have also communicated with liquor control. To be clear: the court has seen
the evidence and accepted the plain fact that my clients paid the entire asking price for
the rights to the permit and “substantially all of the assets” of Ibex Transportation, LLC.
(Ibex 1). The court understands that the claims raised in this action against your clients
traskalawfirm.com
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF /CV 221^2299 / Con1fPrma?ion Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
4352 Pearl Road. Suite A Cleveland. OH 44109
concern your clients' continued use and profit from an asset Ibex already sold to my
client. There is simply no contractual basis for your continuing insistence that my client
“defaulted under all three operative agreements.” You are using a permit you sold to
my clients. All communications about it have the potential to affect an asset my client
paid for. Your continuing objections leave us no other option than to proceed on the
motion.
8: I think I can understand now that your answer is that the only person your clients
spoke to about operating the bar is Ms. Rizzo.
10 and 19: Again we must agree to disagree about your objection, but thank you for
providing answers. !
11: I struggle to understand why at this point in discovery that I should have to keep
asking why it is that the name “IBEX Transportation” was used on the articles of
incorporation, and why Desalegn Sisay is identified as a member of Ibex 2. The only
response you have given is that Rizzo and Ibex 2 are merely tenants. The reasons why
the names Ibex and Sisay are featured on Ibex 2's incorporation papers would be, by
any non-obstructionist reading of the Plaintiffs' requests, within the ambit of multiple
interrogatories, including also number 14 and 15.
16: It remains unclear from both your initial objections and from your letter of June 26
whether you will produce complete payment records once a protective order is agreed.
Provided you propose an order that does not deviate substantially from that offered by
the Northern District of Ohio federal court, or some other widely used template, I will
stipulate to a protective order promptly. However, since it is your client withholding
documents until this is done, you should have proposed something before your
responses were due. As to your continuing objections, let me try again to make this
plain: your clients are profiting from the use of assets they sold to me client. All of
their financial records are relevant and must be produced. !
17: Plaintiffs consider this issue resolved.
20: A list of employers is not a narrative. Plaintiffs will concede only as to salary
information that this information will come out in deposition. However, as to employer
history, your objection is baseless. !
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
2, Text Messages
Your response simply omits any mention of the twenty-five discontinuities or omissions
I noted in the letter of June 8. In other words, once I put the text messages in order—
which you should have done before producing them — I identified up to 25 omissions.
You do not address this. Mr. Sisay being out of town does not explain why these
messages were shuffled out of chronological order to begin with. Your reading of Rule
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
2 of 3
34(B)(2) is incorrect. You are also due to supplement any communications since
1/12/23, or state that there are none. Your letter fails to address this issue as well.
3: Thank you for stating that Defendants are “presently unaware” of any of their own
communications with Mr. Rogers.
4: Your statement that “only personally identifiable information” was related from Ms.
Sisay's personal returns is incorrect. Pages 881-967 are just black boxes in the
document production, for the entirety of each page. And your objections are stated in
both versions of your privilege log. Again, this is information that goes to our damages,
and you must produce it.
5, 7: We do not agree as to your objections. I look forward to your response after
“another” reasonably diligent search.
6: Thank you for clarifying that the only document showing the relationship between
your clients and the co-Defendants is the lease.
9: Thank you for clarifying that there are no responsive advertising materials.
14: Once again, we simply will not agree on your asserted objections. I should have
Mr. Sisay's work history prior to deposition so that I can ask more informed questions.
And any misrepresentations on documents he uses with potential employers or
associates go to his character for truthfulness in business dealings.
“Unable to generate PDF”
Thank you for resolving this issue.
Privileged and Confidential Document Log
These issues also are resolved. I note, however that as to pages 001372-1373, your
objection that they are “Confidential and proprietary notes ... concerning his potential
damages” omitted the statement you now include, that these notes were prepared at
counsel's request.
Although we remain unable to agree on the issues outlined above, I do appreciate your
detailed response eliminating some of the other issues. Plaintiffs will not be
withdrawing the motion for the reasons stated.
Very truly,
Peter D. Traska
Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH
3 of 3
Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas REPEY BRIEF July 14,2023 15:19 By: PETER D. TRASKA 0079036 Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 JAYDEE WANTED MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. CV 22 972299 vs. Judge: CASSANDRA COLLIER-WILLIAMS IBEX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, ET AL. Pages Filed: 11 Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION JAYDEE WANTED MANAGEMENT Case No. CV-22-972299 COMPANY, LLC, et al., Judge Cassandra Collier-Wililams Plaintiffs, vs. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF IBEX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al., MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Defendants. Now come the Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned Counsel, and submit the foregoing Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel complete discovery responses from Defendants Ibex Transportation, Betty Convenient, and Sisay, and Motion for Sanctions against these Defendants and their attorneys. I. DEFENDANTS’ OBSTRUCTION Despite numerous efforts by the Plaintiffs, to date, Defendants have not provided any answers in these important areas: # A. Twenty Five Gaps in Text Messages Produced. Bates Nos. 000664-000845. Plaintiffs identified these after putting the text messages in order, by date, time and page number in the letter of June 8, 2023. Despite Defendants’ assertion that they “fully responded to the Plaintiffs’ alleged discovery deficiencies,” Defendants have made no response to these documented communications between Mr. Sisay and Ms. Rizzo that are still withheld. Plaintiffs sent the list by their letter of Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH June 8, 2023. Defendants’ Counsel responded on June 26 that Mr. Sisay was traveling. To date, Defendants have not addressed these communications. They exist. They are in Mr. Sisay’s custody. He has not produced them. These texts are the only records of communication produced between Mr. Sisay and Ms. Rizzo. Request for Production (RPD) no. 2. They were produced not in chronological order, but shuffled, apparently to hide the pieces of the thread that were not produced at all. Defendants have had over a month since the deficiency letter was sent, and over two weeks since Plaintiffs’ letter of June 29, again calling this to Defense Counsel’s attention. Defendants have not responded, and evidently will not respond until ordered to do so. B. Communications with Government Offices. See interrogatories nos. 7, and Request for Production (RPD) nos. 5, 7. There are several instances in the text messages showing communications that Defendants had with government offices, like the Department of Liquor Control, or the City of Cleveland. Defendants refuse to produce them. Mr. Jett’s letter of June 26 goes so far as to make false statements about this Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ injunction motion earlier this year. Bates no. 000756 refers to an email between Mr. Sisay and some office of the City of Cleveland. But not one of his emails has been produced. The documents that have been produced make reference to several other correspondences involving Mr. Sisay and Liquor Control, but nothing has been produced. By selling the rights to the permit to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Sisay has made Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / ^Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH himself accountable to them to account for its safekeeping. Plaintiffs are entitled to learn the details of how the Defendants are maintaining the asset they already sold to the Plaintiffs. C. Defendants’ Business Records. RPDs 2, 5, 6; Interrogatories 2, 11, 14, 16. Not a single record of account. No records of any transactions between Defendants and Rizzo/Ibex 2. No business tax payment records. No sales records. The text thread does suggest that the parties discussed the criminal records of Ms. Rizzo and her paramour early in their relationship, but Mr. Sisay has not provided any answer to what reports he obtained or made. # D. Mr. Sisay’s Personal Tax Returns. RPD no. 4. Mr. Jett's statement in his June 26 letter, to the effect that only personal identifiers were redacted, is puzzling and incorrect. Rather, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their letter of June 29, 20231, Defendants produced only 80+ pages that were blacked out entirely. Plaintiffs previously pointed out that Mr. Sisay's personal returns take on new importance based on the complete absence of any of the money the Plaintiffs paid to Sisay, Betty Convenient, or Ibex Transportation in 2020 in their business returns. Mr. Sisay and Ibex received $79,000 in one lump sum on February 14, 2020. Where is this in his taxes? Defendants' business practices put the existence of the permit—that they sold to Plaintiffs—at direct risk. The discovery deadline runs in this case in one week, on July 21,2023. 1 Copy attached hereto as Exhibit A; also attached to Defendants' Opposition as Exh. 6. Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH Defendants have evaded engaging in discovery meaningfully. They assert objections that are so verbose that the reader cannot tell whether any additional response may be forthcoming. They have decided what is relevant to produce and what is not based on their own preferences, but have not filed a motion for a protective order on any issue they identify. Rather, their approach has been to obstruct, sit back, and wait for the Plaintiffs to point out what they are doing wrong. They have not placed the Plaintiffs in position to depose Mr. Sisay because they have not produced the business records described above. Rather, it is obvious from the partial responses that the Defendants have made that there is a great deal more discoverable information on which they are obstructing. Even the issues that were resolved through the letters of June 8, June 26, and June 29 would not likely have been resolved but for taking the Defendants to task in those letters, and by the pending motion to compel. To take an early and obvious example: Interrogatory no. 5 asked these parties to identify anyone they might know who would have knowledge of the facts and circumstances of this case. This is one of the most elementary areas of inquiry in any discovery process, and it sets the party up to inquire further of other parties who would have first hand knowledge of the issues. Defendant’s answer was to object, and to reserve the right to supplement. Only in their letter of June 26 did these Defendants answer the question, and state that Mr. Sisay, Ms. Rizzo, and Mr. Rogers are the only ones they know of who have knowledge. That is a very different answer than, “we’ll tell you later, maybe,” as Defendants first offered. The issues that have been resolved were created by the Defendants’ wholesale obstruction. Defendants took no action Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH until being threatened with the Motion to Compel, and have still refused to address the many issues outlined above. II. PLAINTIFFS COMPLIED WITH RULE 37(A)'S CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT. Defendants’ argument here also is brazenly false, and contradicted by the Defendants’ own exhibits, chiefly, Counsel’s letter of June 8, 2023. The Eighth District Court of Appeals explained the certification requirement as follows: Civ.R. 37(A)(1) authorizes a party to move for a court order compelling discovery. Pursuant to the rule, the motion to compel "shall include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." The rule imposes a duty to attempt extrajudicial resolution of any discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel discovery. Falkenberg v. Kucharczyk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111014, 2022-Ohio-2361, *fl32. Plaintiffs detailed Defendants’ obstruction in their letter of June 8. Not having heard anything for nearly a week, Plaintiffs emailed opposing Counsel on June 14. Still not having heard anything, Plaintiffs filed the Motion on June 23, 2023. Defendants have not acted in good faith at any time during this litigation. Moreover, Ms. Sisay was sanctioned twice for similar conduct in the predecessor action in the Cleveland Municipal Court. Defendants’ claim that “cooperation” might still have happened is belied by Defendants’ own conduct. The motion to compel states, “Plaintiffs submit that the attached letter and foregoing recitation of facts demonstrate Jaydee’s attempts to confer or attempt to confer with Counsel as required by Civ. R. 37(A)(1).” Defendants do not address this. There is no authority to suggest that this statement is not a “certification” within the meaning of the rule. The cases the Defendants cite refer to circumstances in which no Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH effort was made prior to filing a motion. The June 8, 2023, letter conclusively shows that Plaintiffs met their “duty to attempt extrajudicial resolution of any discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel discovery.” And it bears repeating — Defendants have still, to this day, not produced a single payment record, addressed the gaps in the text thread, nor otherwise addressed the issues outlined above. Rule 37(A)(1) does not require a certification under oath, as for example, a verified Complaint would. By contrast, Rule 33(A)(3) requires that interrogatories be answered “under oath,” but Defendants have not provided any verification that Mr. Sisay did so. There is no support for the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 37’s certification requirement. Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH CONCLUSION Wherefore, Jaydee Wanted Management requests the following relief: • That this Court issue an Order directing the Defendants to issue complete responses to the discovery requests served upon Betty Convenient, in a manner sufficient to remedy the deficiencies identified by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the letter of June 8, 2023; • That this Court conduct a hearing or accept a motion detailing the costs of this Motion and other necessary actions to obtain complete discovery responses, and • For this Court to assess those costs and attorney fees against the Defendants and Defense Counsel. Respectfully Submitted, s/Peter D. Traska_______ Peter D. Traska #0079036 Michelle L. Traska #0095237 Traska Law Firm, LLC 4352 Pearl Road, Suite A Cleveland, Ohio 44109 (216) 675-0088 f (216) 342-7078 ptraska@traskalawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs JayDee Wanted Management Co., LLC, and Denise Baker Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was served by operation of this Court’s electronic filing system on this 14th day of July, 2023, to the following: Dominic A. Frisina #0078599 Stephen H. Jett #0046821 Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC 1375 E. 9 Street, Suite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 DFrisina@bdblaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Betty Convenient, Ibex Transportation, LLC, and D. Sisay Justin Stevenson Rachel Bussler BOWER STEVENSON, LLC 2515 Jay Avenue, Suite 101 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 justin@bowerstevenson.com rbussler@bowerstevenson.com Attorneys for Defendants Michelle Rizzo and Ibex Trans. D/b/a, etc., “Ibex 2” s/Peter D. Traska_______ Peter D. Traska #0079036 Counsel for Plaintiffs Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH I* Traska Law Firm/ LLC June 29, 2023 Dominic Frisina Stephen Jett Andrew Stebbins Matt Smith Buckingham, Doolittle, & Burroughs, LLC 1375 E. 9th Street, Suite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 By email to DFrisina@bdblaw.com, SJett@bdblaw.com, AStebbins@bdblaw.com, and MSmith@bdblaw.com Dear Counselors: This is to outline our remaining areas of agreement and disagreement discussed in my letter of June 8, 2023, and your letter of June 26, 2023. A few of the issues I outlined have been resolved. However, for the foregoing reasons, my clients will not be withdrawing the motion to compel. I will note that for most of the amended responses you have now made, good faith would have required such responses back in March. INTERROGATORIES 5: I understand your most recent letter to say that the only persons with knowledge of the facts of the case of whom your clients are aware are Messrs. Sisay and Rogers (which you incorrectly spelled “Rodgers”), and Ms. Rizzo. That is a satisfactory answer to the question. Moreover, I understand this to indicate that your clients are unaware of the identities of anyone else who might have knowledge of the facts of this case. 7: Mr. Jett wrote: “The Court flatly rejected your arguments for injunctive relief on the basis that your clients defaulted under all three operative agreements.” This is a blatant misrepresentation of the posture of this case, and of the the statements made by the court at the hearing. Once again, you are engaging in conduct subject to sanction under R.C. 2323.51. Moreover, you are using this false statement to further delay and obstruct production of documents that your text messages prove to exist. I see no response to the fact that “there are letters, emails and persons referenced in the communications between Mr. Sisay and Ms. Rizzo that you have not produced.” Your clients have also communicated with liquor control. To be clear: the court has seen the evidence and accepted the plain fact that my clients paid the entire asking price for the rights to the permit and “substantially all of the assets” of Ibex Transportation, LLC. (Ibex 1). The court understands that the claims raised in this action against your clients traskalawfirm.com Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF /CV 221^2299 / Con1fPrma?ion Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH 4352 Pearl Road. Suite A Cleveland. OH 44109 concern your clients' continued use and profit from an asset Ibex already sold to my client. There is simply no contractual basis for your continuing insistence that my client “defaulted under all three operative agreements.” You are using a permit you sold to my clients. All communications about it have the potential to affect an asset my client paid for. Your continuing objections leave us no other option than to proceed on the motion. 8: I think I can understand now that your answer is that the only person your clients spoke to about operating the bar is Ms. Rizzo. 10 and 19: Again we must agree to disagree about your objection, but thank you for providing answers. ! 11: I struggle to understand why at this point in discovery that I should have to keep asking why it is that the name “IBEX Transportation” was used on the articles of incorporation, and why Desalegn Sisay is identified as a member of Ibex 2. The only response you have given is that Rizzo and Ibex 2 are merely tenants. The reasons why the names Ibex and Sisay are featured on Ibex 2's incorporation papers would be, by any non-obstructionist reading of the Plaintiffs' requests, within the ambit of multiple interrogatories, including also number 14 and 15. 16: It remains unclear from both your initial objections and from your letter of June 26 whether you will produce complete payment records once a protective order is agreed. Provided you propose an order that does not deviate substantially from that offered by the Northern District of Ohio federal court, or some other widely used template, I will stipulate to a protective order promptly. However, since it is your client withholding documents until this is done, you should have proposed something before your responses were due. As to your continuing objections, let me try again to make this plain: your clients are profiting from the use of assets they sold to me client. All of their financial records are relevant and must be produced. ! 17: Plaintiffs consider this issue resolved. 20: A list of employers is not a narrative. Plaintiffs will concede only as to salary information that this information will come out in deposition. However, as to employer history, your objection is baseless. ! REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 2, Text Messages Your response simply omits any mention of the twenty-five discontinuities or omissions I noted in the letter of June 8. In other words, once I put the text messages in order— which you should have done before producing them — I identified up to 25 omissions. You do not address this. Mr. Sisay being out of town does not explain why these messages were shuffled out of chronological order to begin with. Your reading of Rule Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH 2 of 3 34(B)(2) is incorrect. You are also due to supplement any communications since 1/12/23, or state that there are none. Your letter fails to address this issue as well. 3: Thank you for stating that Defendants are “presently unaware” of any of their own communications with Mr. Rogers. 4: Your statement that “only personally identifiable information” was related from Ms. Sisay's personal returns is incorrect. Pages 881-967 are just black boxes in the document production, for the entirety of each page. And your objections are stated in both versions of your privilege log. Again, this is information that goes to our damages, and you must produce it. 5, 7: We do not agree as to your objections. I look forward to your response after “another” reasonably diligent search. 6: Thank you for clarifying that the only document showing the relationship between your clients and the co-Defendants is the lease. 9: Thank you for clarifying that there are no responsive advertising materials. 14: Once again, we simply will not agree on your asserted objections. I should have Mr. Sisay's work history prior to deposition so that I can ask more informed questions. And any misrepresentations on documents he uses with potential employers or associates go to his character for truthfulness in business dealings. “Unable to generate PDF” Thank you for resolving this issue. Privileged and Confidential Document Log These issues also are resolved. I note, however that as to pages 001372-1373, your objection that they are “Confidential and proprietary notes ... concerning his potential damages” omitted the statement you now include, that these notes were prepared at counsel's request. Although we remain unable to agree on the issues outlined above, I do appreciate your detailed response eliminating some of the other issues. Plaintiffs will not be withdrawing the motion for the reasons stated. Very truly, Peter D. Traska Electronically Filed 07/14/2023 15:19 / BRIEF / CV 22 972299 / Confirmation Nbr. 2909748 / BATCH 3 of 3